Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2018

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, 21 February 2018 (UTC) [1].

---

List of international rugby union tries by Bryan Habana

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Mr.Apples2010 (talk), 14:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

This is very much along the lines of List of international rugby union tries by Jonah Lomu, Habana is his nation's record try-scorer and has some breath-taking action in his locker. There are a couple more lists of this nature waiting in the wings, so happy to get this one "good and proper" before unleashing those beasts. As ever, thanks for any time and energy expended on making Wikipedia's content just that little bit shinier. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

;Comments from BeatlesLedTV "On 21 November 2009 Havana" comma after 2009 Image needs alt text "Italy, which means that he has" → Italy, meaning that he has "try-drought was eventually ended" remove was Ref 28 has no website Link The Daily Telegraph in ref 7 That's all I got. As always, great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC) BeatlesLedTV thanks, I think I've addressed all of the above. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Yep looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• Why not use a photo of him playing such as File:2015 Rugby World Cup, South Africa vs. USA (21845972899).jpg?
• "as he failed to score for almost fifteen months after." This seems awkward. Maybe "as he then failed to score for almost fifteen months"
• Looks good. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Cool, thanks Dudley Miles, I replaced the image (who knew?!) and revised the text, not exactly per your suggestion, but perhaps you'd be kind enough to check what I did write and see if it's cool with you. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

*Do we have a ref for Joost van der Westhuizen's number of tries? Maybe we don't need to say Springboks? The term isn't introduced anywhere before it is just used. What is a Test Match in Rugby terms? I know what it means in Cricket, but this seems different... Score column seems to be doing some really weird thing sorting wise. Courcelles (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Courcelles I think I've addressed your concerns, please do let me know if there's anything more. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Courcelles (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
• About the only thing I can see is.........I think the photo needs a better caption than just his name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  ChrisTheDude quite so, have embellished. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - can't see any issues now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from JennyOz (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by JennyOz Prose "On 21 November 2009, Habana scored a try against Italy, meaning that he has scored a try against each of the "Tier 1" nations." - "meaning" sounds 'strange' (to me) and "scored a try" is repeated too closely? Maybe 'accomplishing the feat of scoring..." or... 'On 21 November 2009, when Habana scored a try against Italy, he had succeeded in scoring a try against each of the "Tier 1" nations.' or... to divide up more... 'When Habana scored a try against Italy on 21 November 2009, it meant that he had scored a try against each of the "Tier 1" nations.' "The following summer..." - year? All refs in prose are working and support the relevant text Table Tries 31 (Westpac) and 66 (AMI) - are using sponsor's names whereas others don't? Try 33 - tweak brackets in broken competition wlink Try 33 - ref 29 is for 1st Test in which Habana didn't try. He did in 2nd Test 27 June at Loftus... so ref url should be this, (Bryn Palmer and date pub 27 June 2009 are correct). Try 33 - In table, score should be SA 28-25 Lions Try 37 Johann van Riebeeck Stadium - was only known by that name up til 2000? Ref uses Puma Stadium Try 47 2012 v NZ - IRPA double dagger missing Try 47 ref says played at Soccer City Stadium ie FNB (and FNB Stadium and History of rugby union matches between New Zealand and South Africa confirm Table refs - some are missing pubn date and/or journo name - okay for me to add directly or do you prefer I add here? Feel free to add away, quicker than typing it all out here just for me to then find them and fix them, thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Thanks for this list, JennyOz (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC) Other than any tweaks you may like to make, I think I've addressed your concerns JennyOz, thanks so much for the review. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Happy to support this champion list, JennyOz (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

PresN this looks good to go...? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 22:37, 21 February 2018 (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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC) [2].

---

List of id Software games

Nominator(s): PresN 22:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

id Software burst onto the scene in 1991 as one of the most influential video game developers of the era: their first game, Commander Keen in Invasion of the Vorticons, showed side-scrolling games as viable on the PC, and they followed it up with essentially inventing the first-person shooter genre with Wolfenstein 3D in 1992, only to eclipse themselves the next year with Doom, which was so popular that for years shooter games were called "Doom clones". After another hit with Quake in 1996, they slowed down, focusing mostly on further games (though high-selling ones) in the Doom and Quake series ever since. id's a ways away from being the face of the industry and run by rock stars like they were in 1994, but they're still a big name in the industry, and developed quite a few games over the last 25+ years. I started this list from scratch a couple months ago after I did the list of games by their first publisher, and I think it's ready to go. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:49, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

*Not sure the first "id Software" should be in bold. De-bolded Citation for founders names and founding date. the first citation is for both sentences " GT Interactive.[3][4][5] GTI" Define the acronym formally if you're going to use it. De-acronymed "series by Raven Software in 1994—97" En, not em, dash. Fixed "variations on "It runs Doom" or "Can it run Doom?" are long-running phrases about the widespread porting of the game" Shouldn't Doom be in italics there? Italicized References look good. Nice list! Courcelles (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2018 (UTC) @Courcelles: Thanks! Addressed all your comments. --PresN 21:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments Seems selective on references in the lead. Added references to what was missing (it was stuff that was referenced in the table(s), but I see your point) "1994–97" 1997. Done "The company's latest major release" probably needs an "as of". Done It seems wrong, unless of course you're defining your own "major", since "Doom VFR" appears to have been released after that. Rather than debate over 'major', I've just changed it to 'latest release' and Doom VFR I would also cover Quake Champions in the lead. Done MOS:DASH fails all over the ref titles, e.g. "Doom - PC" should be "Doom – PC".... BeatlesLedTV fixed this. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Responded to all of your concerns. --PresN 21:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

;Comments from BeatlesLedTV Took care of the dashes for you Thank you very much! Based on your 3D Realms list, I think the lead for this could be longer. That's just my opinion. Definitely doesn't have to be as long as that list but I do think it seems a little short. I've lengthened it a touch, but the 3D Realms list was so long because they had both more titles and also a much more complicated story- one guy self-publishing, then inventing a shareware style, then expanding into a company that developed and published, then transitioning to retail, then switching to just a publisher but with 2 long-running dev projects, then dropping publishing for licensing, then cancelling a famous game, then getting sold. Id, on the other hand, is just- founded, invented FPSs, made a few famous ones, continued to make FPS games. I do agree with TRM I think more sentences in the lead should have references Actually, I meant that either the lead needs full citation or the facts need to be expanded and cited later on, so no need for any citations in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Well, I've added citations to things that are more complicated than just counting rows in the table anyways. Add "business manager" in front of Jay Wilbur Done IGN should not be in italics In references? Actually, the consensus at WPVG (still unevenly applied) is that websites that have original content/writing should be italicized- the line between websites like IGN and "digital magazines" is a blurry one at best. The latest of several conversations about that is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 135#Odd question from only a couple weeks ago. Pretty sure "Quake II Netpack I: Extremities" should be in italics Actually no, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Name formatting: "For DLC that mostly adds new content (characters, maps, weapons, vehicles, gameplay modes) but little new narrative, the DLC name should follow standard English capitalization rules but otherwise left unformatted." Netpack 1 was a collection of mods/maps, but did not have a story (large or small), so it's left unitalicized Also pretty sure downloadable content packs should be in italics as well As per above, it can get hazy, but I've followed the guidelines I linked- expansions/DLC with a "significant add-on story, often handled separately from the main game's story and not integrated into it" are italicized (like a novel or stand-alone novella), DLC that "may add additional narrative along with additional content to the main game, integrating that story alongside the existing narrative" are in quotes (like a short story inside a larger work), and DLC that just adds weapons or maps (like the Anarchy Edition pack) just get capitals. It's not an exact science, but I'm fairly confident in the formatting I've used. Doom II: 9 → nine per MOS:NUMS Done That's all I got. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC) @BeatlesLedTV: responded to all of your comments. --PresN 21:12, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Alright everything looks good to me. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by The1337gamer

I've glossed over the list and it looks solid. I will take a more thorough look this weekend if I have some free time. Might write some more comments.

• Should Master Levels for Doom II by italicised in the Doom II notes as it is the name of an expansion?

• I guess; as per the above it's a little awkward since it's not really a new plotline, but Doom II itself doesn't really have a plot either... I guess it's more than a set up unconnected levels, and not intended to be extra levels before/during/after Doom II itself, so... italicized.

• Should Final Doom be mentioned in the Doom II notes?

• Yes, that was an ommission. Added

• Rage had a third DLC pack called The Scorchers.

• Added

• Doom 3: BFG Edition was released for Android (Nvidia Shield exclusive) in 2015. [3]

--The1337gamer (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Added

@The1337gamer: Responded to all comments, thanks! --PresN 20:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

They also released Quake: The Offering and Quake II: Quad Damage, which were the mission packs bundled with the main game. Might be worth adding these in if you can find reliable sources on them. Regardless though, this list is good and I'm happy to support its nomination for FL. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:40, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Found sources, added. --PresN 18:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The1337gamer have your concerns beend addressed? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Ye. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Ritchie333

Crikey, this takes me back to long-forgotten days of playing network deathmatch Doom and Quake with friends. Looks like a fine list to me, given the comments so far, so just a few questions:

• Should Doom not give a brief mention to the WAD culture, which (IIRC) was groundbreaking at the time, to have a game that was so customisation

• The game's article should definitely do that as it was a big part of the game's legacy, but this list is focused on the official/semi-official releases by the company in question (id); the modding scene is outside the scope of the list or else all of these lists would have to go into detail about the legacy of every game in them.

• Doom was ported to Linux by 1994, I remember playing it on kernel 1.1.59

• It was, however, that was an unofficial port by a fan that id unofficially supported until/after id released the source code because Carmack/Romero were cool with that. id never actually published a commercial Linux version like they did a Mac version, so it's not listed in the same way that there's like 20 other unofficial ports (that Carmack/id devs personally helped out with at least somewhat) but id itself never publishing anything for that aren't listed

• I'm pretty sure I was playing Quake on Linux no later than 1997; I seem to remember getting a Python script to patch a file in pak0.pak so it would run. I think 1999 was when the source code generally was released. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:56, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

• Same as above, with a twist- there was an unofficial version made for Linux that id was unofficially fine with, but unlike Doom id released an official Linux version in 1999 to correspond with the Linux ports of Quake II and Quake III at the same time

Ritchie333 replied inline. --PresN 20:08, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I think the unofficial ports would be useful as a footnote - otherwise other people like me might look at them and think "that's wrong!" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Ritchie333 are you content with the responses? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes I think so, but I'd still like to see the footnote about the Linux ports I mentioned, because as I recall (which is not a reliable source, of course!) the Linux ports of Doom and Quake were major news in the community at the time. There was a Linux book (sorry, can't remember the title and my google-fu on WorldCat is not up to snuff today) by Que Publishing c. 1994 which included the Doom port as a stock package on its CD and made a big song-and-dance about it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: footnotes added! Both ports were done by Dave Taylor, who was a programmer at id during Doom/Doom II/Quake. --PresN 16:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

In which case, it's Support from me Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: That's a support from everyone, then. --PresN 16:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

PresN I'll trade it for my Habana list...! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Haha, roger that, I'll do an FLC pass this afternoon and make sure to hit that one. --PresN 17:48, 21 February 2018 (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, 21 February 2018 (UTC) [4].

---

List of Hot Country Songs number ones of 2006

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

With the lists from 2000-2005 inclusive having either been promoted or gained multiple supports, might as well keep the train a-rollin'....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

*There are pictures of Carrie Underwood that don't suck (and aren't grainy), please pick one? Done - for some reason I never think to check Commons for images that aren't already in use on WP....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Ref 5 has a publication date available. Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC) So does ref 9 Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Other than that, good entry in the series. Courcelles (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support – Unsort the ref col. Great job as always! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Column now unsortable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments Link chart to Record chart. " dated December 31, 2005[2] and " comma after 2005, and if it were, I'd move the ref to the end of the sentence. You could specifically link the season of Idol, so instead of "The first was 2005 American Idol winner Carrie Underwood", you could have "The first was Carrie Underwood, winner of the xth season of American Idol " band of which " reads very peculiarly to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC) All done, hopefully to your satisfaction.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support all done almost to my satisfaction! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoted. --PresN 22:47, 21 February 2018 (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, 21 February 2018 (UTC) [5].

---

List of fruit bats

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it seems to me to fit the FL criteria, and as the name states it lists all 200ish species of fruit bats (and some extra stuff). I've done something similar on list of parrots   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Support: It's a well-written article with appropriate citations. The layout is easily navigable and I like that you included pictures and range maps where possible. It seems pretty exhaustive of the fruit bats when compared with the species I included when I revised the section on the list of bats earlier this month. Minor detail—I think you should list the subfamily as Pteropodinae instead of Pteropodidae (it's listed once that way in the classification section and another time in the header of a section). Nicely done. Enwebb (talk) 01:26, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• I didn't review the tables of the article, though they looked pretty reasonable on the whole when I skimmed them (and I'd presume after the lengthy list of parrots FLC that you know what you're doing there), but the text needs a major overhaul. I rewrote the first paragraph for you, as I found it really hard to parse when I looked at it, but the rest of the lead continues on with little context as to what it's talking about (and is focused on bats as a whole, instead of how megabats fit into all bats), and the body text also zooms through a lot of details without any explanatory text pulling it together. It really needs a top-to-bottom overhaul.

I did a little copyediting, what else looks a bit off?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, just looked at the table, and those "list of subspecies" boxes are pretty slick. Just verified that turning off javascript just leaves them expanded, so that meets WP:ACCESS requirements too. This is exactly the kind of list that I wish we had more of at WP:FL, so I'll try to help get this one through- and faster than the interminable 4-month parrot list if I can! --PresN 01:46, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Lists like these are actually pretty easy to make (this took like a weekish, parrots a week). I might do seals next so be on the lookout   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment The classification section and one of the table headers link to Macroglossini, which doesn't seem right.

I do not like the tables-within-a-table for the species that belong to a subegenus; I'm not sure if I've ever seen another article with that sort of formatting, and it's inconsistent with the rest of the list

Genus Rousettus has "List of subspecies" right under it, which I believe should be synonyms. Reywas92^Talk 23:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the wikilink and the Rousettus thing, but the classifications follow MSW3 which subdivides those into subgenus, then genus, then species   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't mean to get rid of the subgenus, but it would be better to have mini-headers like you have with tribe and genus already. It seems quite odd to have the table format for all others species squeezed into a cell of a table for subgenus. Reywas92^Talk 06:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  22:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Strong support from Adityavagarwal

• "morphological" in lead is a dab link. That needs to be fixed.
• "Andersen" is dab link. That needs to be fixed.
• "Nyctimee" too.

The rest is awesome. It is an immaculate article, and very well written. Adityavagarwal (talk) 04:08, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:44, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Strong support - A fantastic article for a featured list, and very well-written for a shiny star! Adityavagarwal (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Drive-by comments Several pages of "Order Chiroptera" are repeated in the References section – pages 314, 335 and 341 each appear five times, while page 324 appears six times. I'm guessing that this is because you've created a new citation each time you want to reference a page, rather than just reusing the citation that you've already created. This article would probably benefit from use of the Sfn template – I can talk you through how to use it, if you'd like. Also, Template:Main says that it should not be used in lead sections, as this article currently does. I'd propose removing that hatnote and replacing "Fruits bats" with "Fruit bats" in the opening sentence. You'd also have to remove Megabats from the See also section. Notes c and d need to end with periods. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Well in a list article there're generally gonna be refs in the lead. As for all the msw3 refs, that's gonna take a while to fix but I'll get there   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I mean where it says "Main articles: Megabat and List of bats" in the lead – per the documentation for that template, it "should not be used in lead sections". Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I changed it to {{Further|}} and unbolded and wikilinked "fruit bats"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Dunkleosteus77: Any thoughts about my comment regarding the references being repeated? It really isn't something that I'd expect to see in a FL, and it shouldn't take long to fix. I'm happy to talk you through it, if you'd like. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:13, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, things got busy pretty quickly. Is this supposed to be like the refs in Whale?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, something like that would be fine. You may wish to put your own spin on it, but the most important thing is that citations aren't repeated in the References section, as they currently are. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm... Having the MSW3 reference in the External links section seems a little unintuitive to me – if I were a reader, that's not where I would expect to see it. I'd suggest following the suggestions in MOS:FNNR and, for example, renaming the References section either Notes or Footnotes, and then having a new section called References underneath it with the MSW3 ref. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments –

• Reference 21 is not much more than a titled link. It needs further formatting.
• Book cites that are multiple pages should have the page numbers be formatted with pp. and not p. (which is used for single-page cites). If you're using the cite templates, changing the page= parameter to pages= will fix this for you. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

• Did both for them; also, Support after another read-through. I'm good to promote this, though I guess another member of @FLC director and delegates: should. --PresN 20:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment I'll take a look at this list later, assuming PresN gets round to promoting my FLC (only joking). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC) Comments What is the original table order? I can't seem to restore it after sorting by column headings. it can be sorted under the genus level   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC) "which 186 are extant." presumably you mean 186 species? excluding the extinct ones yeah   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Can you confirm all symbols (green arrow, red arrow etc) are all WP:ACCESS-friendly? not entirely sure   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Do they have alt text, are they correctly recognised and announced by screen readers? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC) According to this, I believe so. The other templates use the same syntax as this one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC) "Near threatened" yet "Least Concern" - consistent capitalisation. fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC) "Listed here are 45 genera and 197 species" we don't normally talk about lists in this way. not entirely sure how else to word it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC) "in Queensland, Australia until" comma after Australia. fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Place en-dashes for blank cells in tables. I don't know what that is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC) done.Eddie891 Talk Work 23:32, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Why do image sizes change from row to row? they're all set to 180px but each picture has different starting dimensions   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Column widths should be the same from section to section. not sure how to force column width   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC) Auto-collapsed stuff, I can't find it right now, but I'm certain our MOS says we should not be hiding by default. the synonyms lists and all those should really all be closed because it gets really messy if all of them are open at the same time   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC) See WP:COLLAPSE. The Rambling Man (talk) It says the concern is that hidden items will not be openable on the mobile version, but when I switch to the mobile version, all the tables are set to open   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC) Quick run-through I'm afraid, more after you've addressed the above I'm sure. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Dunkleosteus77 didn't ping you in their response. --PresN 16:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: ping again. --PresN 19:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC) Couple of responses inline. One other thing quickly, multiple page references should be "pp." not "p.". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC) fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Alright, well, with Giants out for a while, and both delegates supporting (or "supporting"), I'm just going to go ahead and promote this myself. --PresN 22:37, 21 February 2018 (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, 21 February 2018 (UTC) [6].

---

List of accolades received by Deadpool (film)

Nominator(s): TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Deadpool is the highest-grossing R-rated film of all time and the ninth highest-grossing film of 2016. Due to the film's popularity and numerous awards, the film's article and its sub-articles, including this list, are highly visible. The list itself is comprehensive, well organized, and well referenced and I believe its rating should reflect that. However, any comments that might further improve the list are welcomed. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• Alt text missing from the image.
• This green link should be archived.
• Provide sources for the plot synopsis and the 'financial and critical success' bit.
• MTV Movie Awards --> MTV Movie & TV Awards
• Critics' Choice Awards --> Critics' Choice Movie Awards

Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your comments.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• 10 → ten in lead per MOS:NUM
• Use "plainrowheaders". See MOS:DTT for more info.
• Table still needs scope rows. Even though there's a !, they still need scope="row"

That's all I got. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your comments.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Support – Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Brojam

Some quick observations first, none of the recipients use {{sortname}}. Also the second and third paragraphs of the lead could use some improvements. The second paragraph talks way too much about the production of the film, which is not necessary for this type of article. Instead, maybe talk about when and where it premiered, its RT/MC scores, total box office gross. Also, you could specify some of the categories of these awards instead of simply listing the nominations in one entire sentence, in particular the major awards like for the Golden Globes and the Critics' Choice Movie Awards.

Accolades

• The table should be sorted by award name.
• 'Ceremony' should be changed to 'Date of ceremony'
• 'Recipient(s)' should be changed to 'Recipient(s) and nominee(s)'.
• Link Make-Up Artists and Hair Stylists Guild for Makeup Artists and Hair Stylists Guild Awards and International Cinematographers Guild for Publicists Guild Awards.
• All awards that do not have a Wikipedia article should be removed from the list per WP:MOSFILM
• Should use {{draw}} for Runner-up.

Top ten lists

• Consensus is not to include top ten lists per WP:MOSFILM & Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_41#Removal_of_Top_10_lists_from_articles. It should be replaced with a 'See also' section with a link to 2016 in film like other FL accolades articles.

References

• Missing link to Gold Derby and Metacritic.
• Not sure AwardsDaily.com is a reliable source.

That's what I have after a first read-through. - Brojam (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Mostly done. Some of the most frequent types of categories are included in the lead sentence of the third paragraph, the table is already sorted by award and I don't think {{draw}} should be used for Runner-up since "draw" indicates a tie. Also WP:MOSFILM states "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." In this case consensus was established to include the top-ten lists here during the main article's GA review.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This is what I mean with {{draw}}. For the sorting, I meant by the award's name instead of by the ceremony date (though I won't oppose this nomination because of it, just something that I've seen in most film accolades FLs). Alright, for the top-ten lists inclusion even though I don't see a consensus on the GAN review page, just an editor deciding to move it to this article instead of simply removing it altogether. Had the film not received numerous awards and nominations, then I could see the point in having this list, but since that's not the case it doesn't really serve much purpose especially considering only a handful are really noteworthy anyway. Having it just say that the film was included on multiple top-ten lists (which is already done in the lead) does the trick. Also, all the non reliable sources should be removed from the list: Reelviews, We Got This Covered, Cinema Blend, The Awards Show Show, and CinemaDope. - Brojam (talk) 03:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I have replaced {{draw}} with {{partial}}, as it is not appropriate to use the draw template for something that is not a draw, and I feel that partial is the closest to what we need of the numerous templates listed. I believe the sorting is based on previous FLs anyway, so it might as well stay how it is. For the top-ten lists, it appears from the links you have provided that the issue is with fan cruft, and that consensus is required so that we avoid indiscriminate lists of non-notable content. I believe being on the top-ten list of a notable critic is indeed notable, and it is important to have these somewhere if we going to give complete coverage of the subject. The problem that I can see with fan cruft is the ones that you pointed out, so I will go ahead and remove those ones and just leave the significant lists. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I will now support this nomination. Good job with this list. - Brojam (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

*It seems odd to me to have the infobox in alphabetical order and the awards table in chronological order. I've never seen this before and feels strange. "in development hell" I know we have an article but it immediately describes the term as jargon, so perhaps put this in quotes? greenlight->green light. How does a smaller budget allow "the leeway they needed to create a comic-accurate film"? "Reynolds' less-faithful portrayal" this sounds pure POV, needs attribution, or clarification (e.g. according to fans, critics etc etc). "February 12, 2016. [2] " remove space after the full stop. "The film became a financial and critical success:[8][9] earning " odd punctuation construction here, I would push those refs to the end of the sentence and replace the colon with a comma. Got to be said, only 1/3 of the lead talks about the specific subject matter of the article... MTV awards, some are piped to redirects, we can cut out the middle man. Does "St. Louis Film Critics Association" really still have Gateway in the title? "February 7, 2017" again, piped to a redirect, as is "Golden Reel Awards". "Metro UK" -> "Metro" piped to "Metro (website)". Billboard.com is really Billboard. Check Empire too. Yahoo!.com doesn't need the .com. " Director's Guild of America" no hyphen please. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Done. The awards is sortable by name or chronology, and is used in other FLs including List of accolades received by The Avengers (2012 film). I left refs in place at "The film became a financial and critical success:[8][9]" per WP:CITEFOOT since it is after the adjacent punctuation although I did change the colon to a comma per your suggestion.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Maclean25

Just checking some random items on the list...According to the website the Artios award was awarded to these people - Ronna Kress, Jennifer Page, Corinne Clark - (for their work on Deadpool, but not to Deadpool itself) but this list only names the movie. The reference "Best of 2016: Film Critic Top Ten Lists". Metacritic. Retrieved June 10, 2017." should include the author and date of article. The reference calls the "Key Art Awards" and the "Grand Clio Key Art Awards". According to MOS:FILM#Accolades "Awards bestowed by web-only entities are not included." - aren't the Golden Schmoes Awards just that? maclean (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for your comments.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Maclean25. --PresN 04:09, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, TriiipleThreat's edit is fine. I didn't oppose, but if asked, from a quick look, I would probably object due to not complying with WP:LEAD, specifically MOS:FIRST because the first sentence doesn't tell the reader that the article is about Deadpool-related accolades, and MOS:BEGIN because the first paragraph doesn't tell the reader that the article is about Deadpool-related accolades. Actually, the third paragraph is a great intro; it summarizes exactly what the article is about. Are list-class articles operating from a different standard from WP:LEAD that I'm not aware of? maclean (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

The first paragraph is very similar to other FL-class film articles including List of accolades received by The Avengers (2012 film), List of accolades received by Mad Max: Fury Road, and List of accolades received by Silver Linings Playbook, just to name a few.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

While we would usually introduce an article in its opening paragraph per WP:LEAD, as you say Maclean, in this case we have a sub-article whose primary topic is tied to a whole lot of information that is not here. To be more specific, this list covers all the accolades received by Deadpool, so it doesn't make much sense without a bit of context regarding that film. It makes sense to introduce that film, based on the lead of Deadpool (film), and then have what would usually be the opening paragraph as a lead-in to the actual list. If we did it the other way around, having an introduction to and summary of this list with context about the film coming second, we would still be confusing readers who had not read the film article. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed other FLs and FLCs that do not conform to WP:LEAD so that is why I'm asking. If this is the case, as TriiipleThreat points out and as adamstom97 explains, that list-class articles don't have to follow these aspects of WP:LEAD to be promoted, then the director should ignore my comment as not being consistent with the FL criteria. If, however, FLs should then the director should not promote as I have pointed out the inconsistency. maclean (talk) 05:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Film accolades lists seems to be following a precedent of having several paragraphs of explanation before talking about the accolades; since this list is just following that pattern I'm hesitant to block it on those grounds. That said, it is a lot of background before hitting the 'accolades' part, so I'm interested if any other @FLC director and delegates: have any opinions. In the meantime, Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 22:36, 21 February 2018 (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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC) [7].

---

Golden Globe Cecil B. DeMille Award

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

My George Harrison list just became featured and my Joy Division list has two supports so I'll go ahead and nominate my next list. My first non-song list, I found this list like this and was really bored so here we are. As always, I'm open to any comments or concerns anyone might have. Thanks and happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jmnbqb (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

;Comments from Jmnbqb Disclaimer: I don't have much experience with FLs but here's what I got: In the opening paragraph, there's a redundancy in that it's mentioned twice that the first recipient was DeMille Why was there not an award for 1976? That could be explained in the lead with the 2008 reason I have literally searched everyone for a reason. It doesn't say on the Golden Globes website for some reason and I can't find any outside articles that explain it either. I'll keep searching. Hopefully I can find out why. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC) I don't think you need the comma in the Goldwyn sentence When you sort the honorees, the 2 years for not being awarded are sorting randomly in the middle This is picky (and it probably doesn't matter) but I notice that some of the descriptions end in periods when they're only fragments (like Stewart and Wallis) I just followed what the HFPA said about each individual. Also I think it looks better for consistency. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC) In the description for Goldwyn, Eastwood, Bacall, and Hackman, there's double quotes within the double quotes, not sure on the MOS but the inside quotes may need to be single Warner Bros. isn't wiki linked under Wallis (it's wiki linked in another) Harvard isn't wiki linked under Mirisch (it's wiki linked in another) I think it should be a comma instead of a semicolon under Beatty That's all I got. If you get a chance, I would appreciate a review on my FLC, Jmnbqb (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Jmnbqb All done except for a few. Comments above. Thanks very much! And sure thing I'll check out your FLC! Also FYI we're not supposed to use header code on these pages (it says in the WP:FLC instructions) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Support – Thanks, looks good, Jmnbqb (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• You can mention the total number of awardees in the infobox and prose.
• Remove oxford comma in the second sentence.
• Full stop missing from alt texts.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yashthepunisher All done. For some reason I can't get the statuette pic to stop being red but it's there. Thanks for the comments! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support Great work on the list. Also, if interested, please leave your comments at my ongoing FLC. Cheers! Yashthepunisher (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • No problem I'll get right to it! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
;Comment from MWright96 Looks good overall but please remove the Daily Mail citation per WP:DAILYMAIL and replace it with a alternative source. MWright96 (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC) MWright96 Done. Thanks very much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Support The only concern I had has been addressed. Good work. MWright96 (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

*"with the exception being 1976 and 2008" You can't have two "the exception"s, this could use a rephrase. Changed it to just "exceptions" BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC) What is sourcing the age column? That was there when I originally started expanding the list. There's only a couple sources that actually say the age of some recipients but the rest are just calculated from their birth year to when they received it. You want me to just remove the col? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Yeah, I'd trash it if you can't easily source it. Courcelles (talk) 20:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Courcelles Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC) Courcelles (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC) Courcelles Responded to your comments. Thanks very much for them! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles (talk) 00:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments Why not awarded in 1976? I've tried to find a reason for this but haven't. The Golden Globe website doesn't officially say for some reason. Honestly given up looking for a reason because I've searched everywhere. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Ok, no problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC) " ceremony, the award was presented to him at the following year's ceremony" ceremony repeated too quickly. "youngest honoree to receive the award" I don't think you need both "honoree" and "to receive the award", either just honoree, or "person to receive.." " honoree of the award" ditto. "in 2018.[6] As of 2018" quick repeat of 2018 looks and reads clunky... Would be interested in seeing the nationalities of the recipients, of course most of them are from the United States, but just how biased is the award? Honestly don't think that's necessary. Almost every recipient has been American, except for a few. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC) That's worth noting in the lead then, especially as this is an international award. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man I've officially counted and there's been about ten honorees who were not Americans. Do you think that's notable enough to have a nationality column? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:52, 8 February 2018 (UTC) Given the award is for people in "the world of entertainment", and yet very few are from the "world" and just the United States, I'd say yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC) Sortable list so link each nationality each time. Also many lists use the {{flag}} template for additional accessibility. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man Linked everything. But how would the flag template work for people that are multiple nationalities, such as Danish-American, Canadian-American, etc.? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man Changed the nationalities to flags. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC) Also worth noting how many female recipients there have been. There's a huge dependency on the primary source here, when I do these lists I tend to resort to primary references if I can't find anything anwyhere else in any reliable sources. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 6 February 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man All done. Changed some recent recipients' refs; comments above. Definitely let me know what you think. Thanks very much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• prestigiousness - I think this word is better avoided as it is often used to suggest pretentiousness. Why not just prestige?
• I think you should state the number of awards by country.
• Looks good. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Dudley Miles Done. Thanks very much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support, although there is no logic to having UK and Scotland as different nationalities. A Scot was UK Prime MInister up to 2010. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:31, 14 February 2018 (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, 15 February 2018 (UTC) [8].

---

List of Padma Bhushan award recipients (1990–99)

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC) & Vivvt

Vivvt has been working on this list for a while, I did further expansion and cleanup. Looking forward to constructive feedback. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

;Comments from BeatlesLedTV I used the Padma Vibhushan award recipients featured list as a basis. Use "Class II" instead of "class-two". It looks better not written out. "A centrally located lotus flower" → Link Lotus flower "Government of India were "titles" as per the Article 18 (1)" → capitalize "Titles" Link Article 18 (1) to s:Constitution of India/Part III over at Wikisource Put a period at the end of "Truth alone triumphs". (That's what the slogan says on the official page) Everything in the table looks good based in the other list's table I think that's mainly it for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC) BeatlesLedTV Thanks for your comments, I have resolved them. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks BeatlesLedTV for the comments and support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Force Radical

• Fix alt text in images

Done

• Consistent ISBN's

Done

• Satyameva Jayate should be in italics

Done

• Explain in brackets what Sansad means

Actually Sanad means 'certificate' or 'diploma', which is already mentioned in that sentence.

• Preferably use UK US NZ and J as hooks for the footnotes instead of A, B, C, D

It doesn't look necessary to me.

That's all I have .Support — Force Radical ( Talk • Contribs ) 09:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and support, Force Radical. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

*"Recipients whose awards have been revoked or restored, both of which require the authority of the President, are archived" The recipients themselves are archived? Sentence needs work. Tweaked. The second paragraph is in need of more in-line citations for things like dates, measurements, etc. Done "In the 1990s, a total of one hundred and thirteen personalities were conferred with the award." Personalities is not the word you want here, I think. Done "Later in 1998 when the awards were restored back" Restored back? Sentence needs massaging into something more like "Later in 1998 presentations of the award resumed" or something. Done '"from academic institutions or those associated with my professional work"' Direct quote needs an immediately following inline citation Done "Five foreign recipients from Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States were presented this award in the 1990s. " I might try "Five foreigners were presented this award in the 1990s, two from the United Kingdom, and one each from Japan, New Zealand, and the United States." Courcelles (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Courcelles Thanks for your comments, I have hopefully resolved all of them. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2018 (UTC) I tried my own hand at improving one of those sentences. Better? Courcelles (talk) 05:47, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Yes, thanks. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review

• Ministry of Home Affairs (India) could be wiki-linked.
• Same with Indian Navy and Supreme Court of India.
• You mentioned Indo-Asian News Service in ref. 15, but do not mention other agencies like Press Trust of India for ref 1. You might want to be consistent with the same.
• Also, why mention Mumbai here exclusively?
• You might want to wiki-link all the publishers on all their occurrences. I have been told that it's standard practice.
• Other that the minor comments, all the refs are functional. VedantTalk 18:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Numerounovedant All fixed. Thanks for your comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• I've checked the sources again as it has been 3 weeks. They are all proper and functional. The source review is complete now. VedantTalk 14:35, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments I would have thought that the title should be 1999 not 99, per recent(ish) changes to MOS relating to year ranges. Same in the prose etc. Done What is a Sanad? Sanad is a 'certificate'. It mentioned in the same sentence. "Members of Parliament" is piped to a redirect. Fixed "one hundred and thirteen " 113 per MOSNUM Done If this award is so prestigious, I would expect every recipient to either have an article or be red-linked. Done " – [A]" remove space (there are other such as this). I can't figure out why there is a space between them. @The Rambling Man: That's because we are using dash over mdash, latter would not provide any spaces around. Do you recommend mdash over dash? - Vivvt (Talk) 09:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC) No, not really, but if it removes the space, then fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Done. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC) "acting in nearly twenty five films. " so, 24 then? or 23? Why can't we use the actual number? Done Sarangi captialised or not? Done That's all I have for a quick run. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man thanks for your comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

PresN and Giants2008 It's been more than a month and this nomination has three supports, source review done, no unresolved issue. I think it should be promoted now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

On the contrary, Numerounovedant has not confirmed that their source review is completed, and The Rambling Man has not confirmed that their review is concluded, which is why I didn't close it when I did a sweep this past week. --PresN 02:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 04:32, 15 February 2018 (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, 15 February 2018 (UTC) [9].

---

List of 1998 Winter Olympics medal winners

Nominator(s): Courcelles (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

I recently found this old project of mine, where I started adding tables almost six years ago and gave it some polish and some prose. My current FLC has three supports and is about something totally different, so any issues there won't be issues here. Courcelles (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jmnbqb (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

; Comments from Jmnbqb Courcelles This is my first time reviewing a FLC, so I'll give it my best shot. The period in "she won three golds, a silver. and a bronze medal" needs to be replaced with a comma Your first picture description doesn't have a period at the end (compared with the others that do) In the section "Cross-country skiing", some entries have the flag and contestant combined (compared with the others that have separate lines) One note has a comma between the minutes and seconds while the other one doesn't That's all I got, Jmnbqb (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC) @Jmnbqb: thanks! I've addressed all the concerns above. Courcelles (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Good work, Jmnbqb (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments "The sport of snowboarding" referring back to the previous sentence, I guess this should be "discipline", right? You link snowboarding but not ice hockey, why? And you don't link the peculiar curling either...! " in 1932, 1988, and 1992;" during my 160+ GA reviews for The Boat Race, I was continually warned off linking years alone like this, per EASTER, so I'd suggest you rephrase something like "at the 1932, 1988, and 1992 games" "that the 1924 Olympic tournament in Chamonix, France had " comma after France. Any medals revoked through doping? For things like 4 x 7.5 km, use the multiplication symbol (×) not x. "Marcel Rohner" piped to a redirect. "Dean Ward" piped to a redirect back to itself! Could add some more images on the way down, e.g. Kari Traa has a free to use one, there are probably many others which would brighten the parade of tables. "Vladimír Růžička" redirects back to itself. Stefan Krausse could use his original spelling. Check all the names in the "Short track speed skating" section for capitalisation per our own articles for these athletes, most seem to redirect, and when its their names, it's probably best to get it right... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Everything fixed. Added a few more images, changed the names of the Koreans (who all seem to have moved in 2014 as part of an MOS change). Actually, no medals were revoked due to doping this time around, an admitted rarity for a modern Olympics! Courcelles (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

;Comments from BeatlesLedTV Don't think XVIII Olympic Winter Games should be in italics. I would bold it instead like it's main page MOS:BOLD would disallow that in this article, bolding is only for alternate titles of the article itself, which isn't the case here. We've used italics like this on every FL of this type. Courcelles (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "[The Olympics] were a winter" – pretty sure it should be 'was' not 'were' (main page also uses 'was') Done. Courcelles (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC) "Hermann Maier...won two gold medals in the 1998 Games." should it be "at the games"? Done. Courcelles (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Why do some countries in some tables have abbreviations (ITA, GER, NOR, etc.) while most don't? I'd get rid of them. That's just how the templates are. Individuals are called by {{flagIOCmedalist}}, and groups by {{flagIOCteam}} to make the links appear. Honestly not sure why only one shows the country code, but it isn't something done just for this list, it's template functionality. Courcelles (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC) That's it for me. Great job! Sorry I didn't get to this one earlier. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2018 (UTC) Thanks, @BeatlesLedTV:, responses inline. Courcelles (talk) 06:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support – All good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting --PresN 04:32, 15 February 2018 (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, 15 February 2018 (UTC) [10].

---

Leicestershire and Rutland Wildlife Trust

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of wildlife trusts. It follows the format of FLs such as Essex Wildlife Trust and the Suffolk Wildlife Trust, and I believe that it also meets the criteria. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

;Comments from BeatlesLedTV In lead, write out numbers below nine per MOS:NUM (& nineteen as well for consistency) This is complicated. My understanding is that consistency overrides letters for numbers below ten, and if there are both numbers above and below I can use numbers or letters throughout. However, a sentence should not start with a figure, and as I have a sentence starting with 19, I have changed them all to letters as you suggest. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Remove the period after ref 53 Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Merry's Meadows has "There are several ponds." I would change it to "The meadow also has several ponds" so it doesn't sound as blunt. Changed to "There are four ponds with common and great crested newts." OK? That's all I got. Great job as always! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – All good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments "it has over 16,000 members," I thought I mentioned this a few reviews back, but if not, apologies. Need to describe what "members" means here. I.e. people that can visit for free? People who make voluntary contributions for nothing back? Added note. (I am not convinced it is needed but it is additional information.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "nd to inspire people to assist in this work." sounds like a quote, certainly not encyclopedic in tone. Deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC) You linked Leicestershire in the first para, no need to do it again in the second. Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Link "county town". Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Don't overlink the 2011 census. Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Ref 23 (for example), keep all ref date formats the same. Done. (I see I missed several on my previous check.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the review The Rambling Man. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support had a quick last look, happy with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

*"across the UK." Spell out United Kingdom on first usage Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC) "500 volunteeers." Typo Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC) "and is managed by an elected Council of Trustees." Elected by whom? Specified by members. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC) For public access, do we really need "YES" to be in all-caps? No, but it has been done that way in other wildlife trust lists, and I prefer to keep to a consistent format. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC) Otherwise, looks good. Courcelles (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting --PresN 04:32, 15 February 2018 (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) 23:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC) [11].

---

List of Wales national football team hat-tricks

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have expanded and completed the list to meet FL criteria, using the already promoted English and Scottish lists as a guide. Kosack (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

;Comments from BeatlesLedTV 14 → fourteen per MOS:NUM Done "have scored three goals (a hat-trick) or more in a game" → "have scored a hat-trick (three goals) or more in a game" Done The website 11vs11.com is actually 11v11.com. Make sure to change this in every ref as it would also be consistent with the list's use of 'v' instead of 'vs'. Done Link BBC Sport in ref 3 - Done Change "Ref" → "Ref(s)" in table two Done Move the key above the "Hat-tricks for Wales" heading "in a UEFA Euro..." – should it be 'a' or 'an'? Everything else looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC) @BeatlesLedTV: Thanks very much for the review, I've fixed all of the above issues apart from the last two. Moving the key above the heading also inadvertently moves it above the contents list when the page is generated and looks rather odd. The Scottish list has the key in the same place, perhaps for the same reason. I could give it a level two heading but that would seem like overkill for one small box. Also, I think it should be a rather than an prior to the UEFA Euro qualifier. Kosack (talk) 07:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Ah I gotcha. The list looks good to me. Happy to sign support. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

*"Jack Doughty against Ireland in 1888 Mel Charles against Northern Ireland in 1962 and Ian Edwards against Malta in 1978." Whether or not you use the serial comma, you need at least one more comma in this sentence. Some ref authors aer given as first last, some as last, first. Consistency please. Courcelles (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC) @Courcelles: Thanks for the review, I've amended the two issues raised above. Kosack (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments I would make the intro a touch broader, e.g. "Wales played their first international match... the first hat-trick for Wales was scored by ... in ..., As of, x hat-tricks have been scored by Welsh internationals..." "scored four goals during a match " why "during a match" when it's on the same date. "The most recent player" caveat with "As of". Result column seems to sort okay for home games, but away games, you get odd stuff like "0-6" followed by "4-6" followed by "0-6" etc, and "0-3" followed by "2-3" followed by "1-3"...

• Quick question I've been meaning to ask lots of people doing these kinds of list (myself included), what makes 11v11.com a reliable source?

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for reviewing, I've sorted the issues you raised above. In regards to 11v11.com, the website is the official site of the Association of Football Statisticians. There's a very brief info section on the site HERE in which they also state that most football club statisticians are members of the organisation. Kosack (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Kosack, best Wikipedia-football-sourcing-news I've had all day. Much appreciated. I support this candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:28, 8 February 2018 (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) 23:36, 8 February 2018 (UTC) [12].

---

List of songs recorded by Mariah Carey

Nominator(s):  — Calvin999 19:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I've been working on it for six years and I've put a lot of time and effort into adopting previous lists I've done to make it work for the sheer amount of songs and songwriters that are present. I hope it reflects what I've put into it.  — Calvin999 19:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Sweet another song list! On to the comments Why is this list incomplete? (If it's not remove the tag) By a few songs which I am having difficultly sourcing the writers for. I thought it was best to include the tag but if not then I'l remove it. It was more of an encouraging to reader who see's one is missing and filling in the gap.  — Calvin999 Songs and albums should not be sorted by definite articles "A, An, The, etc." per WP:Sorting (if they aren't sorted like that put them alphabetically in line without using definite articles) When you sort the column, that song or album will sort by the following word in the name/title. Is that what you mean?  — Calvin999 Like this BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Okay thanks.  — Calvin999 09:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Add scope rows to key I've added that but now it's bolded and centralised and doesn't look right.  — Calvin999 My bad I meant this. Should've been more specific. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Made this edit for you per MOS:DASH Thanks.  — Calvin999 Heading doesn't need a period I don't know where this is.  — Calvin999 There ya go BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Oh, there. Thanks.  — Calvin999 09:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Is having every remix of every song necessary? I personally don't think it is as it's all really the same song. I've only included remixes for which Mariah Carey has recorded a different vocal. If you listen to the original and it's remixes, you'll that the differ greatly. Some even incorporate samples and interpolations not present in the original, or altogether different samples or interpolations, in addition to genre and tempo.  — Calvin999 Oh I see. I don't listen to Carey much so I wasn't sure. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:38, 26 January 2018 (UTC) That's all I got for now. Maybe more to come (not sure yet). Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2018 (UTC) @BeatlesLedTV: Thank you, please see what I've done.  — Calvin999 22:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – All good for me. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you.  — Calvin999 09:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, having every remix of every song is necessary. It's not just a few lines that are different. The vast majority of Mariah Carey's remixes are widely known for being completely different than their original songs, with different lyrics, writers, production, features, music videos, live performances, etc. She even has a remix album. Take a listen to the original version of "Fantasy". It also has a remix version "Fantasy (Bad Boy Fantasy Remix)" featuring Ol' Dirty Bastard, which is often credited as the first song to unite pop and hip-hop by featuring a rapper on a pop song. Then there is also the "Fantasy (Def Club Mix)". Take a listen to all three and you'll realize they're entirely different. This is similar to virtually all her other remixes. Her remixes are not the same song as the original. Heartfox (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Heartfox: Can we talk about Mariah Carey and her remixes sometime please :)  — Calvin999 22:39, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak

Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak (talk)

*This list looks good from the first look, but I'll have a closer look later this week. Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2018 (UTC) and a live EP → I would say "and a live extended play (EP)" for clarification Changed.  — Calvin999 with Columbia Records (a record label owned by Sony Music) in 1988 → I would replace the two paranthesis with either two commas or two —s I'm going to leave it as it is because Madonna's is the same that is an FL.  — Calvin999 her self-titled debut album → "eponymous" is more encyclopedic Changed.  — Calvin999 She co-wrote all of the songs, the majority being with her writing partner Ben Margulies → She co-wrote a majority of the songs featured on the record with her writing partner Ben Margulies I didn't write it like that because that implies that she didn't co-write all of the songs, which she did. It's slightly ambiguous, so I'm not changing that.  — Calvin999 which are both certified diamond by the RIAA → which were both certified diamond by the Reocrding Industry Association of America (RIAA) Changed.  — Calvin999 whereby Carey suffered a physical and mental breakdown in between the releases → , as well as a physical and mental breakdown in between the releases The use of 'as well as' doesn't make sense, because I haven't previously stated something that does in conjunction.  — Calvin999 and producing all of the original material → What do you mean by "original material"? Songs which are not covers, i.e. material she writes and produces herself.  — Calvin999 eighteen Hot 100 → I think you should mention the Billboard part Changed.  — Calvin999 "Hero", "All I Want for Christmas Is You", "Fantasy", "Always Be My Baby", "Heartbreaker", "We Belong Together" and "Touch My Body" → release year in brackets after each song here Again we didn't do this for Madonna's, and it will interrupt the flow with a load of bracketed years. I know I have for the albums but that is less frequent and more spaced out.  — Calvin999 "It's a Wrap", "Lead the Way", "There for Me", "The Roof" and "Thank God I Found You (Make It Last Remix)" → same as above Same reason.  — Calvin999 16:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC) under appreciated → I think this is one word Changed.  — Calvin999 her own material, she has also recorded → I think it would be better to say "the singer" here instead of "she" as you're introducing to a new para Changed.  — Calvin999 was a cover of the Jackson 5 → was a cover of the [YEAR] Jackson 5 If I did that, I'd have to include her year of release, and I'm not doing that for the songs.  — Calvin999 Other covers include "Open Arms" by Journey, "Without You" by Badfinger, "Against All Odds (Take a Look at Me Now)" by Phil Collins, "Bringin' On the Heartbreak" by Def Leppard, "I Want to Know What Love Is" by Foreigner, and "One More Try" by George Michael → year of release in backets after each covered song here Again this will make it too long and disrupt the flow.  — Calvin999 "I Still Believe" → same Same as.  — Calvin999 as a thank you for helping her get into the industry → This is no way encyclopedic But that's what it is. I can't get around that it was fact and that was what happened.  — Calvin999 "Silent Night" and "O Holy Night" on the former and "The First Noel" and "Here Comes Santa Claus" on the latter. → years in brackets Same as. And the years would only be the same as their parent album which is already dated anyway, so it's repetitive.  — Calvin999 I don't see any other issues in the rest of the article. Both sources and the table seem to be well-done. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC) Thank you for your comments @Cartoon network freak:.  — Calvin999 16:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Although I'm not an experienced FLC reviewer, I can give this wonderful work my support. Best of regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thank you.  — Calvin999 09:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Pseud 14 (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

As promised here are my comments: "multiple charitable releases" - perhaps replace charitable with 'promotional' releases (I have not followed her career closely, but I believe she has done promotional songs not just for charity. Using charitable kind of isolates it to charity singles) That's why I wrote charitable. A promotional single and charity single are not the same thing.  — Calvin999 "background vocalist" - maybe backing vocalist is more appropriate It's an accepted terminology more commonly used in America and this is an American subject, but I'll change it anyway.  — Calvin999 "She co-wrote all of the songs, the majority being with her writing partner Ben Margulies" -- I think its better phrased as "She received songwriting credits for all the tracks on the record, with majority of the songs co-written by Ben Marguilles." I think that's making it sound more convoluted that it needs to be. I have made changes though.  — Calvin999 11:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC) "From then on she released a series of critically acclaimed and commercially successful albums" - Take out "From then on" and just begin with "She released.." I think this is needed to complete the sentence.  — Calvin999 "Carey has been noted for co-writing and producing all of the original material." - of what? please specifiy Her songs. It's a standard musical term.  — Calvin999 "Carey suffered a physical and mental breakdown in between the releases,[2][3] Carey returned to" - perhaps change the second Carey to the pronoun 'she' It already says this.  — Calvin999 "the most among soloists" - Elvis Presley is also a solo artist and they are tied at 18 number-ones. Best you specify as the most for a female solo artist. Also no spaces between the dashes. But he isn't universally included because of his pre-Hot 100 number-ones.  — Calvin999 "According to the liner notes of Emotions, Carey wrote all of the lyrics herself and co-composed the music, and is similarly credited for doing the same for the majority of the songs on Music Box, Daydream and Butterfly (1997)." - perhaps take this out and fuse it to the first sentence of the second paragraph where you discuss her songwriting credits for every album she has done. Also, no need to begin your sentence with "According to the liner notes" since you already cited it as a source. I've removed the opening part of sentence, but this paragraph is over viewing her overall songwriting. The previous paragraph is about her releases.  — Calvin999 "as a thank you for helping her get into the industry" - Maybe rephrase this to something better, something like "as an appreciation for helping jump-start her career" or somewhere along those lines. I don't think 'helping jump-start' is a suitable alternative.  — Calvin999 "Carey has also covered well known classics and traditional songs for her two Christmas albums" - Rephrase to: Carey has released two Christmas albums [...] that included covers of ..." Changed.  — Calvin999 Thank you for your comments @Pseud 14:  — Calvin999 11:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Looks good to me. Cheers! Pseud 14 (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks.  — Calvin999 14:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• External link links to non-existent page on the website; not sure what it should be fixed to. Heartfox (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Not sure who added that.  — Calvin999 10:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments "and a extended play" "an" EP. "which are both certified diamond " -> "both of which are certified diamond" You link "studio album" but not "Charity record"? "Open Arms", "Without You" and "I Want to Know What Love Is" are all piped to redirects. "Anytime You Need A Friend" "a Friend". "Mikkel Storleer Eriksen & Tor Erik Hermansem" piped to a redirect. As do Diggs and Grice. Ditto David Cole and "Everybody Hurts". "Snoop Dogg" is just Snoop Dogg, don't pipe it to a redirect back to Snoop Dogg... Kamaal Fareed, Mick Jones, "I Want to Know What Love Is", Crystal Johnson, Nathaniel Hills, "Open Arms", Steve Perry, Kejuan Muchita, "Without You", Katherine Davis, Coke Boys ---> all piped to redirects. All of these are because of people changing 'musician' to 'producer' etc. It's so annoying. And 'Foreigner' to 'Foreigner guitarist'.  — Calvin999 09:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC) "Vol. 3... Life and Times of S. Carter " no space after ellipsis. "Wu Tang Clan" -> "Wu-Tang Clan" The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Thanks @The Rambling Man:  — Calvin999 09:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks.  — Calvin999 09:27, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:28, 8 February 2018 (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) 23:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC) [13].

---

List of songs recorded by Joy Division

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Now that my Daft Punk list has been promoted and my George Harrison FLC currently has two supports I think I'm safe to nominate this one. Another song list, this time it's the great English rock band Joy Division. Only together for four years (for a very sad reason), I've been working on this one for a while now and I believe it's now qualified for featured status. I'm excited to hear any comments or concerns anyone might have. Happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• This green link should be archived.
  • Removed it. Felt it was unneeded.
• Remove periods before 'and' in every instance.
  • Most of them are actually commas. Should I still removed them?

Yes and actually I meant commas. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yashthepunisher Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• The first two sentences of second para can be merged or rephrased.
  • Done.
• In 1994, Joy Division's planned debut album, Warsaw, was released under the name "Warsaw". --> In 1994, Joy Division released their debut album under the name Warsaw.
  • Done. I kept 'planned' in it because it wasn't their official debut.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yashthepunisher Thanks very much for the feedback! Comments above. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:10, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

*Sorry to be "that guy", but what is sourcing "After their break-up, twelve compilation albums, two extended plays, four live albums and one video album have been released." and the sentence immediately prior to it? I'm a little confused on what you mean here. Do you want me to source those sentences you mentioned or are you asking why I sourced the ending sentences in the first paragraph? On my phone, but I want to see you source those numbers. 2600:1004:B054:BC1F:C031:1095:B749:1D2C (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Courcelles Actually, I don't think you need to source things like that. I've never had to in any of my other "song" lists or in any other featured song list I've seen. Also, I get them from the discography page and most of them are included on this page so you can just look at the list for verification. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC) I think what drew my eye to this one is the high number of post-breakup compilation albums compared to their contemporaneous output. It would be fine to find a RS list and then count, or even to cite the Discogs page on their output, but you don't mention all 12 (presumably not all 12 have original material) and so it can't be internally sourced from this article. I guess you could say I'm pulling out the number 12 as specifically one "likely to be challenged" here. Courcelles (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC) In the lists I create or improve, I only mention the ones that contained previously unreleased new songs or notable compilations mainly because a few of their compilations are just live songs that are honestly not that notable. But yes I'll find a RS for this one in particular. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Courcelles Added AllMusic's album discography. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC) Good enough for me. Courcelles (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC) "Originally known as Warsaw,[3] Joy Division released their debut EP" Define the acronym the first time you use the term. Done. "disband Joy Division due to an agreement made long before Curtis' death" Your source does not appear to quantify the agreement as "long before", merely "before"? Courcelles (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Changed to just before. Courcelles Responded to your comments. Thank very much for them! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Courcelles (talk) 20:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:31, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments Could link rock to rock music. "L-R: " en-dash. "After their break-up, " probably needs "as of" somewhere here. "debut single" you've already linked single. "Curtis hung himself in " I think that should be "hanged himself". "the remaining members decided to disband Joy Division due to an agreement made before Curtis' death that should any member leave the group, the group would disband" really clunky, repetitive. Needs work to avoid the repeats of group, disband etc. Changed. Let me know what you think. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC) When did they officially break up? Technically 1980 after the death of Curtis. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man All done. Left a couple comments above. Thanks very much TRM! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "a long-lasting influence on the post-punk movement of the late 1970s" "long-lasting" sounds odd for a movement which only lasted a short period.
  • Changed to 'impact'
• Looks fine. "break-up" does not sound right to me for a group which carried on under a different name after one member's death, but I cannot think of a better word. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Change to 'dissolution'
• Dudley Miles All done. Thanks for the comments! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:28, 8 February 2018 (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) 23:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC) [14].

---

List of international goals scored by Zlatan Ibrahimović

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), SWASTIK 25 (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hot on the heels of the soon-to-be-promoted Lionel Messi list, this is principally the same. Sweden's heroic top scorer, all-round football beast. AS ever, I'll be any comments as soon as I practicably can. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

;Comments from BeatlesLedTV Both images need alt text Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Spell out numbers that are one word, like nineteen, eleven, and eighteen in the lead Strictly not necessary when they're above ten (per MOSNUM), but done anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Does Ibrahimović still play football professionally? Meaning did he just retire from the Sweden team or is he retired for good? He doesn't play internationally, that's all covered here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC) That's all I got. Great job on this one! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Thanks BeatlesLedTV, re-worked and responded above. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC) I know it's not necessary (the numbers thing), but to me if numbers larger than ten are one word I think they look better spelt out. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – All good for me. Great job with this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Anarchyte

Just a few things I noticed (besides what's mentioned above):

• They are also the team against which he has scored the most goals with six. Would it be possible to reword this sentence? Perhaps it's me, but it comes across a little odd.

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• As someone who knows very little about soccer, is "came" the correct word? The remainder of Ibrahimović's goals, 18, came in friendlies and More than half of Ibrahimović's goals have come at home

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

That's all the problems I can see. Anarchyte (work | talk) 12:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Anarchyte thanks, I hope I've addressed your concerns, but please don't hesitate to add further comments. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Well done. Anarchyte (work | talk) 01:18, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support I had nothing to offer that wasn't covered above. Might want to look at goal 31, to see if you can figure out why the 2–1 isn't centering properly, but I can't see it looking at the code, so it might just be an anomaly in Firefox. Great work. Courcelles (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  It was a pair of closing braces missing after the center template. I'm surprised it didn't manifest in a more hideous fashion. Fixed now, and thanks for you support and comments Courcelles. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

  Ha! I'm rather surprised it didn't either, given how unclosed templates/wikilinks tend to break entire articles! Courcelles (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:29, 8 February 2018 (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) 23:34, 8 February 2018 (UTC) [15].

---

List of Hot Country Songs number ones of 2005

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

With the lists for 2000, 2001 and 2002 all promoted and 2003 and 2004 now having multiple supports, you could probably guess what was coming next.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

*"Billboard's year-end chart" Italicize Billboard here. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Sorting by reference number makes no sense. Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "having risen to the top in the issue dated December 25, 2004" You know what comes next -- that needs citing. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC) In addition in the line above, remind us we're talking issues of Billboard here. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Checking the history, it does appear Gracin got to #1 before Carrie Underwood, but I'm, struggling to find the exact line that says he was the first in the reference provided. (I"m discussing current ref 5, the Top 100 American Idol" one I think I based that on the line "Before Carrie Underwood, Kellie Pickler, Bucky Covington, Danny Gokey, Casey James, Scotty McCreery and Lauren Alaina, "American Idol" produced its first country star." Note that the article doesn't actually state that Gracin was the first AI contestant to hit number one, only the first to achieve country chart success, which I think the above supports..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC) That's all from me. Courcelles (talk) 08:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC) You basically have a near-endless supply of these ready to go, don't you? Courcelles (talk) 08:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC) I've worked up every one from 1992-2011 inclusive. I didn't want go any further back than 1991 because I can't find a source for the change in chart methodology in 1990, and from 2012 on they look weird because two charts have been combined into one article....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:09, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

;Comments from BeatlesLedTV This green link should be fixed Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC) 20 → twenty Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Question: Why isn't the article title "List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 2005"? Because the chart changed its name during 2005, as the lead states. It is more appropriate to use the name which was in place for 2/3 of the year and under which it ended the year -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Oh I see. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC) That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – All good for me. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:15, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Comment I finally thought I'd found an FLC with no comments, but I did, ref 5, CMT shouldn't be in italics. Imagine that. All I could find. Wow. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC) More comments (a quick second look) " but to date it remains his only number one hit." I'm not sure why that's a "but", I would semi-colon then "it remains his only number one hit as of February 2018." (because I think "to date" is normally avoided in favour of {{as of}}). Could link "chart" to Record chart. Picky, but "two years after he was a finalist on American Idol." isn't explicitly referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC) All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support my trivial concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:28, 8 February 2018 (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, 8 February 2018 (UTC) [16].

---

List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 1991

Nominator(s): Courcelles (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I've not produced anything at FLC in a few years now, but I've enjoyed reviewing the series by User:ChrisTheDude, so I thought I'd try my hand at one. Took a while to find one he didn't have already written up in apparent queue! The table already existed, but none of the prose, and all the refs were broken. I think it fits the criteria, so let's see what I'm not seeing. Courcelles (talk) 03:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Firstly I am flattered to have served as a source of inspiration :-). A few minor points for me:
  • The dates don't sort correctly, you will need to add the appropriate sorting template
    • Templates installed.
  • "George Strait begun the year at number one." - is this correct in American English? I would say "George Strait began...." but then I am British and it might be a legitimate transatlantic language difference.....
    • I don't know... anyway, yours sounds just as correct as mine, so changed.
  • "most of any songs during the year" is used twice in quick succession
    • Rephrased.
  • You say that Brooks & Dunn had each previously reached #1 as soloists, but this isn't the case, far from it in fact - the source against that sentence says "Tim DuBois, then-president of Arista Records, had urged the then-soloists to team up; prior to 1991, each had charted two Hot Country Songs entries, with none reaching the top 40."
    • Shit, I read that correctly and then wrote something else. Fixed, and checked my other cited facts in more wakefulness.
• Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude:, responses in-line. Thanks!. Courcelles (talk) 17:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments "Trisha Yearwood did the same " just my snob reader hat on, "did the same" feels mighty clunky, perhaps "repeated the feat" or "achieved the same" or something, pretty much anything other than "did" the same would rock my boat. " in the September 21 issue." perhaps reiterate what "issue" you're talking about, i.e. "of Billboard." Pipe Alabama to the band, not a redirect to the band. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: thanks! Took care of these things. Courcelles (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support – Honestly I got nothing. Great job following in ChrisTheDude's footsteps! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:29, 8 February 2018 (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, 8 February 2018 (UTC) [17].

---

List of accolades received by Kal Ho Naa Ho

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2003 Indian Hindi romantic drama film, Kal Ho Naa Ho starring Jaya Bachchan, Shah Rukh Khan, Saif Ali Khan and Preity Zinta. This film is notable for garnering its cast and crew members several awards and nominations. It is my twelfth attempt at an accolades FLC, and my first for a Bollywood awards list. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• Fullstop missing from alt text.
• Ref 1 of the opening sentence seems redundant.
• Put ref 2 at the end of the sentence.
• Ditto for plot synopsis.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

The reason why ref no 1 is there is to signify that the film is a romantic drama in case any editor unaware of the subject might post a query about the genre. All the other comments have been resolved, Yashthepunisher  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Yash. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 15:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from BeatlesLedTV

Support – Change "Ref." to "Ref(s)". Other than that I got nothing. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, BeatlesLedTV. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash29792

• Kal Ho Naa Ho is a 2003 Indian Hindi romantic drama film directed by Nikkhil Advani - write "Hindi-language" to avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE. Also, wikilink "romantic" and "drama" to separate genres (romance film and Drama (film and television)) or write a single link (romantic drama) that takes you to Romance film#Subgenres which still isn't bad per WP:NOTBROKEN.
• The film's dialogues were penned by Niranjan Iyengar - write "written" instead of "penned" because, according to Vensatry (as seen here), the latter term looks idiomatic.
• Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy, Javed Akhtar and Anil Mehta are linked twice in the lead section. Remove the second instance links.
• Any reason why the lead actor has no picture in the infobox? Also, an odd number of picture arranged horizontally makes the infobox looked stretched.
• IIFA Award for Best Movie must be rewritten as IIFA Award for Best Film since that's the article link and award name. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I have resolved your comments, Kailash29792. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

What about the image of the lead actor not being there? ----Kailash29792 (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Kailash29792, three of them are there. SRK didn't win any award for the film despite being nominated. The rest have won at least one award.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 13:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Support: All the best for the FLC pass. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Kailash29792. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:42, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Support from Jim

• Support from Jim

I saw a couple of very minor issues when i first looked at this some days ago, but they seem to have been addressed since then Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Jimfbleak. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

• "Johar also co-produced the film with his father, Yash Johar, under their home banner, Dharma Productions." - You can start with "The latter"; the phrase "home banner" might not be the best choice either.
• "Anil Mehta, Sanjay Sankla and Sharmishta Roy handled the cinematography, editing and production design respectively." - This isn't very clear either, as to who handled what.
• The plot too could be written with a little more clarity.

The rest look good Ssven2. VedantTalk 10:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I have hopefully resolved your comments, Numerounovedant. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:33, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I support the nomination, good luck Ssven2. VedantTalk 18:32, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Vedant. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 01:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Courcelles

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

*What written work is ref 24 trying to cite? Same with ref 20. You can't just cite the award ceremony itself, which is what it looks like you're doing. Ref 22 seems useless to cite anything. "Since this is a specific recognition and is different from losing an award, runner-up mentions are considered wins in this award tally." Couldn't disagree more with doing it this way. Courcelles (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC) The reason I have cited reference nos 20 and 24 is because there are no available online sources citing these award ceremonies. This is mostly because the URL links might be dead (I've tried searching for them but to no avail). Other FLCs like List of accolades received by Lagaan (ref no 29), List of accolades received by Dookudu, (ref no 16), List of accolades received by Fashion (2008 film) (ref nos 16 and 24), and List of accolades received by Kahaani (ref no 32) also use such citations to cite such award ceremonies. There are a few videos (like 1 and 2 for the screen awards, but these are only in bits and parts and are from unverified youtube channels, ie they seem to be from user accounts. As for Zee Cine Awards, this google search shows only some of the awards covered by the official youtube channel, not the entire bunch as even the youtube channel seems more focused on showing the dance performances than who the awards and nominees are). Hope you understand that this is not a Hollywood film accolades list, but one for Indian films, references for which are rather difficult to track, even for the latest award ceremonies. That is kind of a sad plight though. As for reference no 22, it shows the date on which the ceremony was held. I'll remove it if you wish it to be so. BTW, belated Happy New Year to you, and hope your future endeavours prove fruitful.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 12:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Moved from my talk page as being better suited for follow-up and discussion in "public" view here. I'll respond later on. Courcelles (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Okay, I see the point of ref 22, though having to rely on a caption to an image as proof of a date is kind of unusual. I've been trying to find an explicit quote that shows that citing the award shows themselves is wrong, because it is such an abnormal thing, it is the difference between citing CNN's website and citing their on-air reports, that one can easily be verified by another person and the other cannot. I need to do further research on this tomorrow. Courcelles (talk) 03:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Pinging FrB.TG, Cowlibob, Krimuk2.0, Kailash29792, Yashthepunisher and Numerounovedant for further help on this.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 05:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Is there any guideline or policy that debars us from using an award show itself as a source? Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC) No need to worry now, Courcelles. I've managed to replace the sources now. Do let me know now if there's anything pending.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:48, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments "₹₹280 million" the INR needs a link, not just in the notes. "including Best Movie " Best Movie is piped to a redirect. "Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy" this appears now to use en-dashes in the title, not hyphens. "Best Male Playback" another pipe to a redirect. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Resolved your comments, TRM. Do let me know if there's anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:43, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:28, 8 February 2018 (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, 8 February 2018 (UTC) [18].

---

Jimmy V Award

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Having enjoyed reviewing the Laureus World Sports Awards lists, I have to have a crack at re-working one myself. This list is short and neat. It is about those brave individuals in the world of sports who have been presented with the Jimmy V Award, named after college basketball coach Jim Valvano, for overcoming "great obstacles through perseverance and determination." Unless reviewers think otherwise, I believe this list meets the necessary guidelines. All comments and suggestions on improving the list are very much welcome, and will be tended to as soon as possible. MWright96 (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 08:40, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

:Hi MWright96, great work! Please find my comments below: Infobox link Microsoft Theater and Los Angeles Done. MWright96 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Table Change header to Ref, as there is only one ref per row Done. MWright96 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC) 2011 – 125 kg (276 lb) category correct to 125 lb category Done. MWright96 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC) 2012 – Basketball player who change to football player and add that he playing for Rutgers when he got injured Corrected. MWright96 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC) References Ref 3 – add first = Christian last = Avard Added. MWright96 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Ref 6 – date should be July 14, 2016 Corrected. MWright96 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Ref 10 – link InfoTrac, change page = D3 Fixed. MWright96 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Navbox Add Jarrius Robertson to the Jimmy V Perseverance Award winners as the 2017 winner Done. MWright96 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Ianblair23 Thanks for the review. I believe all your concerns have been addressed. MWright96 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Great work MWright96, would love to see the rest of the series taken though FLC and made a featured topic. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

*Infobox and prose contradict each other. One says presented by ESPN, one by the Jimmy V Foundation. Corrected. MWright96 (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "and breathe without needing a ventilator." Something doesn't read right about this. Have made the necessary adjustments of the prose. 19:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC) This is what I think was needed, revert if you disagree. Courcelles (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC) All fine with me. MWright96 (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Sourcing looks solid, good work. Courcelles (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC) @Courcelles: Thanks for taking a look. I think that is the necessary changes done. MWright96 (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support I think there are a few of us looking at ESPY articles, so this might turn into something. Courcelles (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

  Indeed.... Perhaps I'll sandbox a "project" page for us... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments Alt name for award isn't explicitly referenced. Done MWright96 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC) Any chance of a fair use image of the award being uploaded and added to the article? Fair use picture has been added. MWright96 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC) "successfully coached the" maybe "led" to avoid the repeat of "coach". Done. MWright96 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC) " the Sweet 16" I don't have a clue what this means. Added what it means. MWright96 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC) That's all I have. Go Team ESPY Awards Featured Topic (Perhaps) Crew! (usual disclaimer applies....) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Thank you. I think that is all your concerns addressed. MWright96 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:28, 8 February 2018 (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, 8 February 2018 (UTC) [19].

---

Billboard Latin Music Hall of Fame

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

My second attempt after withdrawing the first one. I took the advice from the last attempt and made a column explaining the rationale for the artist being inducted. I worked with AJona1992 and now wish to try this again. Only info I found since last time was that the honor is rarely given according to one source. Erick (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

;Comments from BeatlesLedTV Some of the images are way too big, especially the first three images. Have everything be 100px for consistency Left align the rationale col In infobox, "roooted" → "rooted" Joan Sebastian's rationale doesn't have a period at the end Some rationales have the period outside the quotation mark while others have it inside. Make sure it's consistent That's it for me. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC) @BeatlesLedTV: Thanks for your comments. I think I've got all the issues you brought up! :) Erick (talk) 03:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – All good for me. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Courcelles

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

*"For his pop rock ballads that has helped him achieve international fame for over three decades." Since this one isn't a quote, the subject and verb should agree -- "has" is not the right verb. Ref 11 is "The Augusta Chronicle" (with definitive article) and if you're going to link Billboard the first time it appears in the refs, link The Augusta Chronicle too. Same with Ref 22 and "The Washington Post". Courcelles (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC) @Courcelles: Thanks for the comments. Have I addressed everything including the subject and verb? I'm not too familiar with how that works. Erick (talk) 12:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Yep, good work. Courcelles (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles (talk) 21:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak

Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak (talk)

*honor presented by Billboard magazine → Do we really need the "magazine" bit? Also, can you say that it's an American one? who have made an impact on the Latin music industry, both commercially and critically → who have commercially and critically impacted the Latin music industry with regard to his or her → with regards to their The accolade is rarely handed out → This stops the flow; I think you can include this information by writing "is a rarely handed honor presented by Billboard" in the beginning Cuban musicians Celia Cruz and Cachao were the first artists... → year? in 1995 and 2009 respectively → comma before "respectively" I would incorporate the third paragraph into the second one, as it isn't really any (much) different information Otherwise, I think this is ready. Ping me when you fixed the things above. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC) @Cartoon network freak: Thanks for the comments. Is it good to go? Erick (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• I support this for promotion! It's really good work, Erick! Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments " is a rarely handed honor" this is very odd to my BritEng ears. Maybe "a rarely presented honor"? Latin in the infobox is piped to a redirect. Tejano is also piped to a redirect. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Thanks for your comments as always TRM. Is it good to go? Erick (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Any updates? Erick (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:28, 8 February 2018 (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, 8 February 2018 (UTC) [20].

---

Arthur Ashe Courage Award

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Following in the footsteps of the Jimmy V Award below, another ESPY award, this one for courageous individuals. As usual, I'll give any and all comments my utmost attention. Thanks in advance. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Some thoughts: "Most of the critics..." That whole sentence seems to be sourced to Fox News which is reporting on a bunch of tweets? Not seeing this as an RS in the context or worth describing as "Most of the critics" (Fox is clearly pushing their house anti-trans POV here.) Replaced with a couple of RS and a bit of a re-word. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "Athlete, first Australian Indigenous person to become a Commonwealth Games gold medallist" Is this in AmEng or BritEng? Because in AmEng you'd need to add "Track and Field" before Athlete. It is definitely BritEng, so I'll add t&f. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC) In the MacLaren blurb, link Triathlon. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "with Black Power salute on the podium" Maybe "who gave the Black Power salute on the podium"? Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC) "College basketball coach with the most wins in NCAA basketball history" This could use a rephrase for future-proofing. If Mike Krzyzewski doesn't have that record yet, he will soon. (And Geno Aureama will beat her on the women's game next year) "as of 2018" added. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Ref 14 needs some form of subscription or login. Even the archived version is asking for a log-in. Removed altogether, already two cites there, sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Courcelles (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Courcelles, thanks for your comments, I believe I've addressed them all. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Check ref 11? I'd fix myself, but am on a very small screen. Courcelles (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Honestly got nothing. Great job TRM! Care to check out my new FLC? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support The prose is excellent and informative. The table is well-organized as well. I also checked for dead links and disambiguations and found none. Good work! If you have the minute, would you take the time to review my FLC for Billboard Latin Music Hall of Fame? Erick (talk) 15:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from JennyOz (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments by JennyOz Hi TRM, some important changes, some simply suggestions... infobox awarded for - more like official page? eg "reflect the spirit of Arthur Ashe, possessing strength in the face of adversity, courage in the face of peril and the willingness to stand up for their beliefs" per here? Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC) link Microsoft Theater? Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Trophy Looking at this after about 2005 it sure looks like the 'trophy' is same as used for Jimmy V Award?? I'm not sure where to go with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Hmm, I just wondered if maybe trophies for all categories were same and therefore photo could be added here, but can't find any info so pls ignore. JennyOz (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Prose humanitarian - there is a separate award APT AA humanitarian award. ATP World Tour Awards#Arthur Ashe Humanitarian of the Year Maybe that's why the 'Humanitarian' dropped out of the award name? Maybe after Ashe died in 1993? I can't find any confirmation. I'm not sure where to go with this. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Thought there might be a chance (at "sometimes called the ... Arthur Ashe Courage and Humanitarian Award") to say "until 19xx" or "formerly" etc. Pls ignore JennyOz (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC) "In 1993, ESPN partnered with Valvano to create the V Foundation which presents the annual Jimmy V Award to "a deserving member of the sporting world who has overcome great obstacles through perseverance and determination."[5][6] Suffering from cancer, Valvano gave an acceptance speech..." - This reads like he was accepting the Jimmy V award? Made explicit. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Shamila Kohestani - wlink Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Noah Galloway - refine wlink to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 20) where Noah is mentioned 20+ times? I don't get this. Galloway has his own article, and I've linked the very season you mention later in the same sentence? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC) I must have missed something there sorry - all good JennyOz (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Eunice's son Tim - he is chairman of the Special Olympics, wlink to Timothy Shriver? Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Venue - Microsoft Theater has hosted every year since 2008, according to Microsoft Theater and this says "Microsoft Theater is home to the American Music Awards, ESPYs, ..." Added, although not keen, would appreciate a copyedit. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Looks good to me JennyOz (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Table mouseover images shows style coding Cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Ian has fixed this - no code appearing on hover anymore. JennyOz (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Seeing no nationalities column, some winners could have their nationalities added to their notes prose I deliberately left it out. I felt that since this award is not really about nationalities (e.g. these people, in general, aren't representing their country when they did what did, and we don't want "which country has won the most Arthur Ashe Courage Awards?!!"), I'd leave it out. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 1998 Dean Smith - the ref supports he won it but (for me) previous page which presumably discusses his 'courage' isn't available. add this? It says "for his support of integration and other social issues". Heh, ironically I can't see that link. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 1999 King - game - games? Maybe an ENGVAR thing, tried to re-phrase a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 2001 Cathy Freeman - why Commonwealth Games? She won gold at Sydney Olympics 2000. this says "raised awareness of the Aboriginal people during the Sydney Olympics", and this also refers to Sydney, "first of her nation's indigenous people to win an individual Olympic Gold Medal." etc. (Not sure re Comm Games, plenty Indigenous athletes before her but can't find if 'medalled'. The existing Athletics Aust ref doesn't mention her as first Comm Games Indigenous gold medallist?) Ok, replaced with your second link. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 2003 Tillmans - Kevin isn't mentioned in the ref. add this? Actually Pat didn't die til 2004 so award was not posthumous. 2003 shows them. Their 'courage' seems to be giving up lucrative sports careers to serve. Revised quite a bit. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 2006 Ahmad and Kohestani - championing girls' and women's sport 2008 Smith and Carlos - link 1968 Olympics Black Power salute? If using BritEng double L in medalists per Freeman Black Power link done. Should be using USEng (per strong ties for ESPY etc). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 2009 Mandela - maybe a bit from here re the 95 world cup "iconic moment"? Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 2014 Sam - first professional not just NFL I don't get it. Justin Fashanu was a British professional footballer who came out in the 1990s.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Ah, the ref (LA Times) had told me - "In 2014, it saluted NFL all-star Michael Sam, who became the first openly gay professional sports player earlier that year, for elevating LGBTQ visibility in pro sports." - which I took to mean in US. And fact that no others (baseballers, basketballers, etc) had done so, made Sam's coming out groundbreakingly courageous? JennyOz (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC) Hi TRM, I have read a number of other newspaper etc pieces about Sam. I can't find one that says same as LATimes (ie first of any pro-sport - in US) so I'm happy for this to stand as is. JennyOz (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC) 2016 Dobson - add 15 year old? women should be girls as they were younger than Dobson Thus added. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC) 2017 Kennedy - wlink Special Olympics Authorlinks Ref 3 Gary Smith (sportswriter) Ref 8 Diana Falzone Ref 10 Justin Moyer Ref 15 Richard Sandomir Ref 27 William C. Rhoden Ref 32 There is a Tom Lutz but I don't think it is same writer Done bar the last. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Template 2000 - Sanders links differently than list 2002 - Flight 93 passengers necessary? 2005 - MacLearen - MacLaren 2006 - Kohestani - wlink 2010 - Thomas - 'family of' necessary? Adjusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC) These articles seem to be missing templates Shamila Kohestani Trevor Ringland David Cullen (basketball) Tommie Smith John Carlos All done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Let me know if you need any clarification, thanks, JennyOz (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC) JennyOz as ever, my thanks for your detailed review. I've responded to all your comments, implemented most of them, with a couple of outstanding queries above. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC) Hi JennyOz, I don't want to badger anyone, but wondered if you'd be able to check to see if I addressed your comments satisfactorily? Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 05:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC) G'day, happy for you to send me reminder! I've added a couple of comments above (2014 Sam entry only one that could be adjusted) but am fine with everything else now. Do you need any further clarifications from me? JennyOz (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support Very happy to support this. Thanks for changes and patience! JennyOz (talk) 05:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 10:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

:Hi TRM, please find my comments below: Lead accolade has been presented posthumously on four occasions with Shriver winning the award, this now increases to five was also a finalist in the spring 2015 season of Dancing with the Stars per MOS:SEASON this is not recommended. Perhaps "a finalist in the 20th season of Dancing with the Stars in 2015." I have performed my usual check on links and refs and have just edited the article directly. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2018 (UTC) Ianblair23 thanks Ian, I've made those changes. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support Great work as ever TRM. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:23, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

PresN this looks good to go if you're happy with the sources? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:28, 8 February 2018 (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, 1 February 2018 (UTC) [21].

---

Tom Mix filmography

Nominator(s): Jimknut (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I am re-nominating this for featured list because Tom Mix was a major and influential star of the early days of American cinema. He warrants having an outstanding filmography. I strongly believe that what is offered here is of FL status. Please take a look and tell me what you think. Jimknut (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by BeatlesLedTV Each table is missing scope rows and scope cols that are required per WP:ACCESS (specifically MOS:DTAB). Added. Center the references in every Ref column. Fixed. Some tables have more than one reference for a specific film. Retitle these Ref(s) to indicate more than one reference. Changed. Other than that it's very well written and well referenced. Good job. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the suggestions. Jimknut (talk) 15:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Support – My comments have been resolved. I fully support the promotion to featured status. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Jimknut (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Source Review

• Jimknut I know I've already given my support on the list but I've decided to take care of the source review as well. Just know my support still stands.
• Link Hollywood Walk of Fame in ref 11

• What do you mean by this? The link goes to the Hollywood Walk of Fame's web page on Mix.

• I mean link to the Hollywood Walk of Fame's page here on Wikipedia. It's honestly no big deal if it isn't.

• Using the toolbox:

• I found ref 155 has a download error and is marked dead.

• I checked the link. It works fine for me.

• There are MANY green links; every one except for one or two is from the Library of Congress. Also, almost all of them are marked "changes sub-domain" so I would consider archiving them. Here is the full list.

• I fixed these.

• Everything else looks good. Hope this helps it become featured! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for the insight. Jimknut (talk) 16:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep everything's fixed. Source review passed. Great job and happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments Maybe it's an ENGVAR thing but instead of " 1910 until 1935" I'd use " 1910 to 1935". Changed. " His horse Tony " I would format that as "His horse, Tony, " and link just Tony (and avoid piping a redirect). Changed. " in Wild West Shows " no capital S for Show. Changed. " and stunting prowess" is "to stunt" a thing? I see nothing wrong with this. My reference is from The Hollywood Western by William K. Everson. What he says is: "Mix gradually dropped the stress on comedy in favor of stories which allowed him to exploit his riding and stunting prowess." " notable directors that " you've already linked film director, so unlink here. Unlinked. " With the coming of " I'd replace "coming" with "advent" Replaced. "In 1998 Mix's " comma after 1998. Comma added. I would limit the TOC to top-level headings only, the huge whitespace at the top of the article is quite off-putting. Now limited to only top headings. I would consider merging those yearly tables, there's no benefit to chopping the career in that way. Well, I think there's some benefit but I changed it anyway. "Archives with Mix films" I don't really understand how this section is formatted, it looks like a key, (why the abbreviations?) it should probably have references, and should definitely not have those inline external links. The inline external links have been taking out. Yes, this section is a key. Please enlighten me of any way to format it better. Abbreviations are used so that the survival status section of the Fox films isn't clogged up with the complete spelling of the Archives. Most of these abbreviations are linked to the Wiki articles on them (i.e. the ones that have Wiki articles). As for references, all of Mix's silent features are linked to a page on them at the website of the American Silent Feature Film Database, which is published by the Library of Congress. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Thanks for input. I hope the changes made are acceptable. Jimknut (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments – "in places such as the Arizona's Grand Canyon and the Colorado's Royal Gorge." Either remove both "the"s or make it "the Grand Canyon in Arizona and the Royal Gorge in Colorado." Otherwise the grammar doesn't work well. Fixed. Selig Polyscope Company: Remove "were" from "and were attracted more attention than Selig's average releases." Fixed. FBO Pictures: The Role column is sorting by first name, not last name as the others correctly do. Fixed. Archives with Mix films: Don't think the second word of "Fox Films" should be capitalized, as this is referring to the movies from that studio and not the studio itself. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC) Fixed. Jimknut (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – My issues have been addressed and I think this meets the criteria. Nice work on the list. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

*Not sure what you mean by "and often photographed to show him doing his own stunt work." Shot at such an angle to be clearly doing his own stunts, or literally photographed? Reworded. "Among the notable directors that he worked with during this time were John Ford, Sidney Franklin, Jack Conway, George Marshall, and Roy William Neill. His leading ladies included Colleen Moore, Esther Ralston, Laura La Plante, Billie Dove and Clara Bow. In 1928, after eleven years and 86 films with Fox, Mix moved to FBO Pictures for a series of five films. With the event of sound, Mix abandoned his film career and returned to working in Wild West shows. He came back to films in 1932 for a series of nine sound features for Universal. In 1935, he appeared in his final film, a 15-chapter serial for Mascot Pictures. Mix died in an automobile accident in Arizona five years later." Source, well, all of that. Sources added. "one of his former 101 ranch associates" At least capitalize ranch here, phrase it is a way that doesn't sound like you're saying he had 101 associates! Capitalized. "Following his departure from Fox Mix" Comma needed here? Comma added. "Following his departure from FBO Mix returned to the vaudeville circuit for several years." Source? Source added. "Other possible film appearances" section... why are we giving a user-generated resource like IMDb this much space? It strikes me as similar to having an "Errors in Other Encyclopaedias" section in an article, we already know IMDb isn't a reliable source, so who cares what they report? It isn't a standard issue conflict between reliable sources that needs explaining. Courcelles (talk) 07:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC) My goal is to make the most complete Mix filmography as possible. The IMDb does indeed list these films in their Mix filmography. It is possible that Mix is in them and since these films are listed in the section as "Other possible film appearances" I see no harm in having this section but if it really "bugs" you I will delete it. Jimknut (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2018 (UTC). And I could go add three more to IMDb as a joke and likely never get caught. Absent some other source reporting these as possible, it's just not encyclopaedic to report on what IMDb has to say. I'd say treat IMDb like you would Wikia or Citizendium, completely irrelevant to our article content. Now, if you've got something that is an RS reporting these appearances as possible, they by all means belong, but not until that can be proven. Courcelles (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Section revised. Jimknut (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC) Great. Courcelles (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 18:03, 1 February 2018 (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, 1 February 2018 (UTC) [22].

---

List of living cardinals

Nominator(s): RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 01:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

The above is a comprehensive list of living cardinals of the Catholic Church, including current statistical information. I feel that it merits the FL distinction, containing useful content and meeting the required criteria. Any and all input welcome. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 01:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose The merge proposal with College of Cardinals needs to be closed first; you should not nominate an article with any sort of tags. If this list is to be kept separate, the corresponding material must be removed from the article. While the list seems to fit in the main article fine and I prefer such consolidation, I vehemently oppose the current duplication of content if a separate page is preferred by the contributors. Otherwise why have it??? Furthermore, I would not want to promote a list that is primarily a transcluded template. Pick one page or the other to keep the source table and remove it and whatever other duplicated content from the other, which was suggested on the talk page. I will be glad to positively review this interesting topic when this issue is resolved. Reywas92^Talk 07:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

While otherwise positive, I agree with the conclusion immediately above. Chicbyaccident (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Reywas92: The merge proposal has now been closed; the pertinent content is now present only in the nominated article (List of living cardinals). Further comments welcome. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 09:47, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• Comments Did the pope really "create five cardinals", or did he appoint or elevate them?

• That's actually standard Vatican terminology – see for example here.

• Etchegaray has not been the longest serving since 1979, he's served since 1979.

• Thus clarified.

• A bit more background info in the lead or list intro would be nice, like what the difference between the three orders is.

• There are already wikilinks on the three orders to the relevant sections in the article on cardinals, which users may read if they choose; should we be reiterating content here?

• Yes, it can be a very short summary but FLs should be able to stand alone. Reywas92^Talk 19:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Reywas92: I've added some additional background information. That said, I don't think the article should be overly verbose; links and the list itself should be sufficient for clarification. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 09:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

• There need not be a separate Template:Living cardinals, just put the whole table in the list so an editor doesn't have to attempt to get to another page.

• Fair point; done.

• "Sorting the list by order will sort by precedence, including within each order." -> Is it not sorted by precedence by default? This should be made clear. Anyway, why shouldn't it be sorted by name? That seems a bit more logical to me for the topic but it doesn't have to be if the section explains why precedence is important.

• Clarified, through the word ‘official’ (cardinals are ordered in this manner in the Church, e.g. in papal conclaves)

• The name column should be to the left of the pope; as the primary topic of the list it should go first, as the consistory is a subsequent fact of the person. (I think it should be the first column if name is to be the default sort, otherwise second is best if order is the default)

• I'm inclined to disagree. Even though the ‘Order’ column carries all the necessary data to sort by precedence, it only displays the actual order itself (CB/CP/CD). Sorting by precedence is actually represented visually in the table by both the ‘Order’ and ‘Consistory/Pope’ columns together – in effect, sorting firstly by ‘Order’ and secondly by ‘Consistory/Pope’.

• A number of cardinals have an abbreviation by their name (SDB, CMF, OMM, etc). The purpose/meaning of these should be in the lead or table section intro.

• Done (those denote religious orders/institutes).

• Most importantly, the table needs citations! I know it comes from the external links at the bottom, but that needs to be explicit with ref tags and all.

• Done as suggested. I've only included one of the sources, though – it's the ‘main’ and most useful one.

• A few of those are also marked as self-published - they can still be used but without the tag and cited correctly. Catholic-hierarchy looks pretty amateurish, maybe leave it out. Reywas92^Talk 20:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

• I left the tags, as not all of them are cited. I'm keeping Catholic-Hierarchy anyway; it seems to be rather useful in any case.

@Reywas92: Many thanks for your constructive remarks. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 04:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Oppose at the moment; too many issues for me:

• The lead is quite short for a list of this length, and includes bullet points. I would rather see it all in prose form with a greater summary of the information provided in the tables. Harrias ^talk 20:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
• All the tables need row scopes to meet MOS:DTT
• A few terms, like "sui iuris" are presented with little to no explanation.
• The See also section is bloated, and includes articles already linked to in the article, which is a bit of a no no.
• The referencing needs accessdates.
• What makes GCatholic.org, upon which most of this list relies a reliable source? Harrias ^talk 20:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Harrias: Responded to. Regarding GCatholic.org, even though it's self-published, it is a neutral and comprehensive source that documents the current state of the Church (see here). In addition, I've added a reference to an official Vatican webpage to the list. Further sources may be identified and added soon. Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 10:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

This has been stalled out for 1.5 months; @Harrias: does your oppose still stand? --PresN 16:11, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I've struck my oppose, as I can see significant work has been done on the article. Unfortunately, home-life places me in a situation where I am unable to commit further time to this right now to be able to re-review the nomination. Harrias ^talk 18:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Although they are themselves created in consistories by the pope," I would leave out the word "although" as it has a POV implication that there is something odd about the system.
• "Therefore, any cardinals born on or after 10 January 1938 would be eligible to vote if the Apostolic See were to fall vacant today and are thus known as cardinal electors, whereas any cardinals born before that date would be ineligible to vote." I would delete. It duplicates the previous sentence.
• "The most recent consistory for the creation of cardinals was held on 28 June 2017, when Pope Francis created five cardinals.[4] Lluís Martínez Sistach was the most recent cardinal to turn 80, on 29 April 2017, whereas Antonio Maria Vegliò will be the next to do so, on 3 February 2018. Bernard Francis Law was the most recent cardinal to die, on 20 December 2017, at the age of 86.[5]" This should have an "As of" date. I would add the youngest and oldest cardinals.
• A link or explanation is needed for "consistory". (I see you link "consistories", but this does not help if you do a Ctrl-F on "consistory".)
• The list section should have an "As of" date.
• You say that there are 3 orders, cardinal bishops, cardinal priests and cardinal deacons, and then that Eastern Catholic patriarchs, cardinal priests and cardinal deacons are claseses of cardinal bishop. This does not make sense. I would suggest explaining the different classes and move the paragraph to the lead.
• Order. I assume that this column is order of precedence, but this should be explained. Does precendence confer any rights or is it just their order of walking in procession?
• This is a useful list but it still needs some work. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

1. Done; reworded.

2. This gives an explanation of the term cardinal elector and also a threshold date on which the current determination of voting status is based. So, I would prefer to keep this sentence.

3. This paragraph was a continuation of the previous one, which was already prefaced by an {{As of}} template; the template would also reflect updates in this paragraph. I have merged both in this regard. There has also been consensus on the talk page that this sort of material be limited to a minimum, as the sortable table already can determine the oldest and the youngest cardinals.

4. Done.

5. I'm confused – do you mean as of when they were cardinals, as of assuming their roles (in the Office column) or something else? I would feel that such information may not be entirely relevant in this case and could be quite unnecessary.

• I mean the whole list. Readers need to know how up to date it is. If it is "As of" 10 January, then a cardinal who dies on 11 January will still be listed. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Well, that's already achieved by the ‘As of’ at the beginning of the third paragraph. It is updated after any change in the numbers of cardinals and of cardinal electors, also noted in that paragraph (see also no. 3 here). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 01:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• It does not specifically say in the third paragraph that the list itself is as of the same date. Some readers will go straight to the list, and they should not have to go back to search for the as of date in the lead, and then have to assume that the list is as of the same date. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Dudley Miles: I think it's reasonably safe to assume that the table is meant to be up to date – it is a list of living cardinals, after all; any changes (e.g. deaths, new appointments, turning 80) will be and have always been promptly incorporated into the list. Furthermore, I'm not sure that the date in the third paragraph could be construed into meaning anything else but the most current situation: the list is the main section; anything in the lead should obviously reflect it, no? The only solution to your problem may be to move the paragraph into the list section, though I'm not entirely keen on that. What do you think? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• I do not agree that it it is safe to assume that the table will always be kept up to date. You may retire or cease editing due to illness, and there may be periods when the table is not kept up to date, or someone updates the lead and fails to update the table. There needs to be a specific statement that the table is as of a date, and for the convenience of readers who go straight to the table, a single sentence "This table is as of 11 January 2018" immediately after "post-nominal" will tell them that they only need to check for changes after that date. The lead would not be changed. You will probably want to make the date in the lead the same, but that is not crucial. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Dudley Miles: Very well; done. Thanks once again for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

6. The passage was meant to be read as i. ‘cardinal bishops who are Eastern Catholic patriarchs’, ii. ‘cardinal priests’ and iii. ‘cardinal deacons’. I have reworded the passage to clear ambiguity but am keeping it in the List section, as it gives the reader some idea on how precedence works, which is part of how the table is sorted.

• I would like an explanation of the different classes. I see that some of the archbishops are cardinal priests, not cardinal bishops, but no archbishop is a cardinal deacon. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Done as suggested. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 01:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

7. Clarified and responded.

@Dudley Miles: Thank you for your feedback; I look forward to your reply. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Further improvements done or commented on, as suggested; thanks. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 01:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments – I've always found List headings to be plain and redundant, as it's obvious something like this is a list. How about titling it "Living cardinals", which is descriptive and to the point? In the table headings, the second word of "Birth Age" shouldn't be capitalized, as that is not a proper noun that would normally be capitalized. Important one here: All rows with colored cells should have a matching symbol per accessibility guidelines. The symbol should also appear in the table key, where the color is explained. All of your external links but the first one are tagged as self-published sources. Unless they're really vital for understanding of the topic, I'd suggest removing them. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Done as suggested. That's actually formatted on a separate line (as ‘Birth<br>Age’), as that column contains both the date of birth and, below it, the current age of the cardinal. Done as suggested. Removed; I have kept one that is particularly useful (especially for data regarding offices). @Giants2008: Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 09:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC) Sorry, but it seems that my first comment wasn't understood as I intended. I didn't mean for you to change the article title; my comment was referring to the List heading before the table itself. No issue with the response to the second comment. Good job adding the symbols, but would it be possible to put them after the names instead of before? That would make them stand out more than they do now. I was almost ready to post a complaint about how the symbols weren't added before spotting where they were. As it's not being used as a source for anything, you could probably get away with removing that tag now, as it is meant for references. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC) @Giants2008: Got you now. All comments resolved. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 07:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – My concerns have all been adequately addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• @Giants2008: Thank you for your support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 03:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

I'll give some input as well.

• Is there any chance you could add pictures to the article? Maybe of the Popes the list mentions, like John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis?
• The office col doesn't need to be sortable
• "Ref." → "Ref(s)" (multiple cardinals have more than one ref)
• Is there any chance the list could be updated? It's been almost a month since it specifies ("As of 20 December 2017)

That's all I got. Great job with this! Hope it gets promoted soon. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

1. I've included a generic depiction of a cardinal's vestments; hopefully this is fine.
2. Done.
3. Done.
4. The ‘As of’ date gives the date of the last time there was a change to the numbers of the College of Cardinals. Since nothing has changed in the meantime, there isn't really anything to update now.

@BeatlesLedTV: Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 09:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Ah I gotcha. Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• @BeatlesLedTV: Thank you for your support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 07:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments Lead needs referencing. Opening para makes many claims which are never revisited in the rest of the article, so they need sources. "since 1378 always" linking 1378 that way is Easter egg-like, so don't do it. " on 19 April 2005 " (etc) another easter egg. Instead of the cardinal uniform, why not an image of the oldest living cardinal, or something more ... human? The Living cardinals section introduction has no referencing at all, suggest more inline citations are added here. Do we need such a dark pink colour? I can barely read the text behind it, suggest a far more pastel shade is used. Birth age, we have a template for that don't we? If the lead into the table is supposed to be a key, make it so, and tell us that CB means cardinal bishop etc. Could include nationalities of most living cardinals in the lead. "Demographics of the College of Cardinals" first section has no references. When sorting in descending order "Total cardinals", I'm not clear why then "Cardinal electors" sorts the reverse order... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Addressed; included a source. Done. Also done. I would prefer to have a neutral image that would apply to all cardinals; I think that using an image of the vestments is a suitable choice for the article. References added. Changed to a lighter shade. If you mean {{Birth date and age}}, yes. However, I don't think the format and the layout of the template is best for this table, as it currently stands. Why not? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC) {{Birth date and age}} presents the data as, for example, "23 November 1927 (age 90)", instead of the current format used in the table, where the date and the age are presented on separate lines, which I would argue is a better choice for the article, whereas the template, as I see it, is mainly for use in infoboxes. Furthermore, the template embeds microformat metadata, which is probably neither suitable nor required here. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Ok, I'm sold on it. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Done. Done, in the Cardinals by country section. That first section is simply the collation of data found in the list table, so I don't believe it requires further references. I'm not entirely sure what you mean – the table (Cardinals by country) seems to sort perfectly fine for me. It sorts, I'm talking about the secondary sorting, of the electors column, which looks completely random. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC) By default, it's arranged by alphabetical order of country, so this is retained in part when sorting by the other two columns. I presume that certain configurations may give the "Cardinal electors" column the semblance of being randomly sorted. As far as I can see, though, the current sorting of the table is how it's meant to be. Perhaps you could clarify how exactly you sorted the table to end up with your configuration? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Well normally you'd sort by one and then sort by the secondary column using the same criteria, so you get the most cardinals, followed by the most electors when the cardinals are tied. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: According to WP:SORT, "sorting based on a primary, secondary, tertiary, etc. key can be done by sorting the least-significant key first". Thus, your scenario can be achieved by sorting "Cardinal electors" (the secondary key) in descending order, then followed by "Total cardinals" (the primary key) in descending order. Under this rule, the table sorts as it should. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 16:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Yeah, that works. How our readers are supposed to know that, I know not. I tend to make all tables sort logically on their behalf, like Olympic medal tables do. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: I think that it isn't necessarily a difficult rule for readers to grasp: it feels rather logical to me. In addition, there are merits to allow each column to sort independently of the other and not to incorporate the secondary column sorting into the primary one; so, I would probably still choose to keep it as is. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 16:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Concerns addressed or commented on. Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 04:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Replies responded to. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 14:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: Thank you for your support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 04:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 18:03, 1 February 2018 (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, 1 February 2018 (UTC) [23].

---

List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 2003

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The list for 2000 was successfully promoted and the lists for 2001 and 2002 now have multiple supports, so here is the next in the series.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments Link chart to record chart. "d by "It's Five O'Clock Somewhere", a collaboration" the song is piped to a redirect back to itself. Table too... " one week, and then returned for one final week at number one" one one one... "r to top the chart.[3][4] The top of the chart " repetitive. " impacting on its" any real need for "on"? Make refs unsortable. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC) All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

;Comments from BeatlesLedTV "The Baby" should be sorted under "Baby" Done Should "duet with Willie Nelson" be in parentheses? Billboard do not show it that way In lead I would spell out numbers like "19" and "11" Done That's all I got. Great job! Care to check out my 2 FLCs? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your comments -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support – All good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The number one position was dominated by male artists; no solo female singers topped the chart in 2003.[5]" This might be the time to bring in a mention of the Dixie Chicks.
• Ref 10 is a Reuters story that you've linked to the posting by CNN, so Reuters should be mentioned in the citation somewhere (It'll help immensely if someone ever has to repair the citation!) Courcelles (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Both done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Support. Courcelles (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments –

• The sentence about the song at the top of the chart on December 28, 2002 could use a cite, since that wouldn't be covered by anything in the table.
• "the other being Toby Keith. Keith...". Try not to have the name repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another like this.
• Willie Nelson photo caption: First word of "the became the oldest artist to top the chart" has one letter too many. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:09, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  • All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Support – My few issues with the list have all been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 18:03, 1 February 2018 (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.