Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/June 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) 00:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC) [1].

---

List of international goals scored by Robin van Persie

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), TheSoccerBoy (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Next in the list of national top scorers. Looking forward to receiving and dealing with any and all review comments. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

:Hi TRM, another fine job. Please find my comments below: Lead As of April 2018, van Persie is his country's top scorer update to June 2018 Van Persie made his most recent appearance for the Netherlands in October 2015, and although he was selected for the Dutch squad in August 2017, he made no further appearances He actually made his 102nd and most recent appearance in the World Cup Qualifier match against France, coming on as the second sub in 64 minute.[2] [3] As of April 2018, van Persie has scored two update to June 2018 He has also scored twice in a single match on seven occasions. add ref Van Persie has scored more goals against Hungary (six) than any other nation. add ref Twenty of his goals were scored in his home stadium, the Johan Cruyff Arena (formally called the Amsterdam Arena). add ref He has scored seven times from the penalty spot. add ref Table As of 8 April 2018 update to June 2018 Unlink the country in the venue column Images Both need ALT text First requires a ref Refs Ref 2 – update with the latest archive, currently dates back to 2011 Ref 4 – unlink Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation Refs 6, 14, 19, 25, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40 and 41 – unlink BBC Sport Refs 8, 9, 17, 21, 22, 30 – unlink UEFA Ref 12 – unlink ESPN Refs 15, 18, 20, 23, 26-29, 31, 33, 35, 39 – unlink Sky Sports Ref 16 – unlink The Guardian Ref 24 – add BBC Sport Ref 32 – unlink Associated Press Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Hi Ianblair23, all done bar the unlinking (I link every time now, because it's uncertain which ref may be clicked on first by a reader), and the penalty count (which is implied by the table, but I can't find an explicit ref for it). Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support Great work TRM! Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"He made his debut, coming on as a substitute for Ruud van Nistelrooy in a 2–0 victory over Romania in June 2005" - that comma looks a bit odd. I'd move everything after van Nistelrooy's name before the comma.

• Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"the qualification campaign for the 2006 FIFA World Cup in Helsinki" - could be read as if the World Cup was in Helsinki.........

• Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"he scored four goals in a 11–0 victory" => an 11-0 victory

• Added "n".

"a 11–0 victory UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying match against San Marino" - think there's a word missing here somewhere

• Indeed, but worse, we both failed to spot the repeat of "September 2011"...! Reworded.

"Twenty of his goals were scored in his home stadium, the Johan Cruyff Arena" - the reference to it being his home stadium reads a bit oddly. He's never played for Ajax, whose stadium it is, and it isn't the sole stadium used by the Dutch team, so it isn't really their "home stadium". I'd be inclined to remove those words altogether.

• Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude thanks, I think I've got 'em all. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support--Lirim | T 21:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 15:36, 25 June 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) 00:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC) [4].

---

Best Female Athlete with a Disability ESPY Award

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Following on from the successful promotion of the Best Male Athlete with a Disability ESPY Award, here is the category's equivalent for those disabled sportswomen who have excelled. As ever, I will endeavour to address your concerns in a timely manner. Thank you in advance. MWright96 (talk) 06:38, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

:Hi MWright96, another fine job. Please find my comments below: Lead was first bestowed as part of the ESPY Awards in 2005 link 2005 ESPY Awards winning again in 2009 link 2009 ESPY Awards award three times (2007, 2012 and 2013 link 2012 ESPY Awards and 2013 ESPY Awards The 2017 winner link 2017 ESPY Awards accolade in 2015 link 2015 ESPY Awards Winners by sport table place Gymnastics after Goalball to maintain alphabetical order Refs Ref 6 link – SwimSwam Ref 10 – Multichannel News should be in italics I have cleaned up the code in table to be consistent across the other ESPY award articles, added a navbox of the winners, and checked all links and refs. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2018 (UTC) @Ianblair23: Thanks for the review and your edits. All of the above suggestions have been implemented. MWright96 (talk)

• Support – Great job MWright96, keep them coming. If you get a chance, I would appreciated if you could please review Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of England Test cricket records/archive1. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support, although it's probably worth linking disability sports in the lead..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments " in 2005 was " bit EASTER EGG, maybe "at the 2005 awards was"? Same for subsequent year links. "Winners by sport" table caption should probably be "Winners and nominees by sport" Archive date formats aren't consistent with accessdate formats. Otherwise it's all good for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: I have made all the edits you have suggested. MWright96 (talk) 15:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed. As a note- the ESPY list series seems to be inconsistent in whether it titles the column "Nation", "Nationality", or "Nation of Origin", so that should probably get standardized. No issue for this FLC, though, so promoting. --PresN 15:36, 25 June 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC) [5].

---

List of Chancellors of Germany

Nominator(s): BegbertBiggs (talk) - de 21:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

This has been a good and comprehensive list for a while. I have improved the lead and layout, made copyedits and added a number of references; now I believe it meets the criteria. BegbertBiggs (talk) - de 21:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Updated: I have made a change replacing each Chancellors's government coalition with their Vice Chancellors. Feel free to give feedback about which option is better. BegbertBiggs (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comments. I'm not familiar necessarily with Chancellors, but I've done a lot of work on U.S. governors so that informs some of how I see this:
  • Is having the date be smaller than the year a style used elsewhere?
    • I adopted it from List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. Can be removed if that's preferred. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Eh, I just wanted to see if it was used elsewhere. I don't care strongly enough.
  • Is the numbering of reichstags/elections official, or artificial based on just that "this was the 11th election" or what not? I would err away from putting a number there unless it's official (like how in the U.S. we refer to the "112th congress") I see that the Bundestags appear to be officially numbered, but are the Reichstags?
    • I'm not sure whether the numbering was contemporary or applied later by historians, but it is widely used. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Fair enough.
  • I don't understand why Cabinet has two columns in the Revolutionary Period table.
    • Changed to be more consistent with the other tables. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Should we get a translation of Ebert's position?
    • It's translated in the section lead (Chairman of the Council of the People's Deputies), highlighted it. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • What changed in 1919 that the position was renamed? from Reichsministerpräsident to Reichskanzler?
    • The Weimar Constitution formally (re)introduced the title Reichskanzler. Explained it in a footnote. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not a fan of the large inline notes about the person, rather than about the office, and the fact that they only appear after 1933. My feeling on these lists is they should be purely about: What is the office; how do you get into the office; who was in the office; and if it changed out-of-schedule, why. So I don't like Kiesinger's or Schröder's notes, it has nothing to do with any of those, and especially not Erhard's, but Scheel's makes sense because it's about a change in the office.
    • Removed these inline comments from the FRG table, and put Scheel's into a footnote. Edited the ones from the Nazi period to focus more on the office rather than general historical context. — 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Getting rid of the less relevant notes, and moving the necessary ones to footnotes, would also allow those tables to be sortable.
    • Done for FRG. The Nazi table is too small to benefit from sorting, I feel. — 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • That's fair; it's not like there was much to that period other than Hitler for 12 years, and then three weeks post-Hitler.
  • Some note about the period between 1945 and 1949 needs to be included - no mention of the fact that the office appears to not have existed for four years is made.
    • Addressed it in article lead. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks!
  • Why is the first election under Kohl "9 (....)" instead of, "9 (1980)"? Same for the others. I understand if you're saying it's the same, but why not just ... put the same? You're keeping the number, why not the year? (Getting rid of the notes and rowspanning the elections could help with this)
    • Fixed. — 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Now to some less important things that are probably peeves to me alone, and won't be counted against you:
    • I don't like the lifespan. It's extraneous info.
      • I don't have a strong opinion on that. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Instead of having 5 rows for Kohl's time in office, for example, you only need one. Put small dates in the cabinet cells, maybe? I dunno. Parliamentary systems are arcane to my American sensibilities.
      • I believe the reason is that the Chancellor is newly elected and sworn in for each term. Can be shifted to the cabinet cells if there's enough space. 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Nah, that explanation makes sense. Again, I'm generally unfamiliar with parliamentary systems.
    • Short vacancies in the Vice Chancellor office could probably be noted; for example, between von Bethmann-Hollweg and von Delbruck.
      • I don't think it's noteworthy if it's just a few days. In that particular case for example it wasn't intentionally left vacant, it just took a week for Bethman-Hollweg to succeed as Chancellor and form his own cabinet. — 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Fair enough.
• --Golbez (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Addressed some of your concerns. I'll deal with the rest later, specifically the ones about the Federal Republic table. BegbertBiggs (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@Golbez: Thank you for your comments. I have responded to them all. BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

• Support; I was going to say "i'm not a fan of the duration column" but then remembered - oh right, parliamentary. German elections aren't exactly on the strict four-year schedule we have in the U.S. --Golbez (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Great, thanks! BegbertBiggs (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Cmnts

• 2nd and 3rd table have cabinet and vice exchanged
  • I don't understand what you mean. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    • nvm I got confused
• intro does not mention GDR
  • It's not immediately relevant to the office of Chancellor, so I'd rather keep the lead from getting unnecessarily long. It's mentioned in the FRG section relevant to the time period. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• I think at the end there should be a stats table, with something like longest-serving
  • That's covered by separate lists: List of Chancellors of Germany by time in office, List of Chancellors of the Federal Republic of Germany by time in office BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I don't see why can't you list either the top10 longest, or the ones who were for more than either 4 or 5 years in office. Nergaal (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
      • The tables are sortable for a quick overview and the dedicated lists give a detailed view. I don't think a partial list would add much value and the selection for inclusion would be bound to be somewhat arbitrary. BegbertBiggs (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Regardless, the GDR list should be given as a seealso in that section
          • Added brief GDR mention in lead. BegbertBiggs (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
• why start with Reichstag 13?
  • Good point, it doesn't fit. Took it out. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    • You don't have to take it out. I would have preferred to have 1-12 plugged in (since they apparently did exist)
      • I did consider adding them, but I felt that it may unnecessarily clutter the table. The Chancellor wasn't responsible to parliament during that period so it's not immediately relevant to the office. BegbertBiggs (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Nergaal (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments Nergaal. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• Nazi section is a bit weird. It lacks a note for the - when the Reichstag was suspended, and the two subnotes can probably used as a footnote to the table instead of being the only two rows in the entire list with a note added right there.
  • Added footnotes. BegbertBiggs (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
• I might be wrong, but I think each section can/should have a short sentence explaining what changed from the previous section (i.e. constitution of X came into effect establishing Y). Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I had that in but I removed it again because I felt like it didn't fit. @Nergaal: See this version, if preferred I can add them back. BegbertBiggs (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I think having a sentence saying why the government scheme change would be appropriate. Nergaal (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Brought back the brief paragraphs of historical context (in slightly modified form). BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
• I just realized that both List of Chancellors of Germany by time in office and List of Chancellors of the Federal Republic of Germany by time in office are likely wp:cforks of this list. There is no obvious reason why they would need to be in separate places as they add nothing other than being sortable. Nergaal (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Too many paras in the lead per MOS:LEAD. Fixed. Image captions which are complete sentences need full stops. Fixed. "the Unification of " no need for capital U. Fixed. "This list of Chancellors contains the heads of government " feels odd to see this in the lead, with the bold. Can't this just be embodied as a note in the list itself? I don't understand the question, removed the paragraph. Where are the row scopes? Added. Left Office etc -> Left office. Fixed. Party and colour should really go side-by-side as they relate to the same entity. Changed. Images ought to have alt text. Added. It's a real shame to have to split these across various sections rather than have one large table. Consistent date formats in the refs please. Fixed. New York Times -> The New York Times. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC) Thank you for your comments The Rambling Man. — BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Support: As someone who knows german politics very well, i can say that the list is complete and gives all the right information. The lead gives an great instruction to the topic and the following tables look good. They have a good width are not to packed with informations. Great work!--Lirim.Z (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Quick comments –

• Haven't reviewed this in detail, but I did notice that the See also section came after the references. Normally it would appear before the refs, so you might want to consider moving it.
• Also, the publishers of refs 15 and 16 are print publications, so the publishers should be italicized. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Both fixed, thanks. BegbertBiggs (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "the longest-serving Chancellor to this date". "to this date" means nothing without knowing the date. I would delete - if Merkel hangs on long enough to overtake him it can easily be changed.
  • Took out the sentence because I agree it's not all that relevant.
• "Under the 1919 Weimar Constitution the Chancellors were to be appointed by the President" Why "were to be? I suggest "Under the 1919 Weimar Constitution Chancellors were appointed by the directly elected President" (adding that the president is directly ellected).
  • Good point, changed.
• A paragraph briefly summarizing the the powers of the Chancellor in different periods would be useful to the reader.
  • The lead is already a bit full, some more detail in the short paragraphs of each section may be possible. I'll look into it later again, if I remember.

• You could move the last paragraph of the lead to a note as it is not of general interest, unlike the powers of the chancellor. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• This extra paragraph might make room for moving up the Germany template, which is very inconveniently placed so that it is not possible to see the whole timeline.
  • Yeah, the template placement is awkward. I had it there because it didn't cause problems for me, but of course that's different on smaller screens. At the top of the page it would mess with the first section's table, so I have decided to move it to the See also section.
• A good article. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you! BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Any other concerns or comments that haven't been addressed yet? BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; @Dudley Miles: it appears that your outstanding comments are the only thing left. So a month late: are you good with this list? It appears there was one point left, BegbertBiggs, regarding a paragraph summarizing the powers of the Chancellor. --PresN 16:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh you're right, I totally failed to follow up on that last point. I'm still unsure about putting that in the lead but I'll see what I can do. BegbertBiggs (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:52, 24 June 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC) [6].

---

89th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Nauriya (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2017 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I have followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 were written. Nauriya (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

After so many FLs you guys still can't have intros that spell out the big 4. Nergaal (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I have edited that and reconstructs the section. Looking forward for more suggestions. Nauriya (talk) 20:32, April 1, 2018 (UTC)

I think you guys can probably expand the highlights part of the infobox to mention the big 4. Nergaal (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, the lead section already detailed all of the Big Five and it would be repetitive to include in the infobox and they have never been included before. But its not about what previous FLCs have done it or not, the reason perhaps is that it will look overcrowded. I would like to take more comments on that, and if everybody supports this, will include. Nauriya (talk) 14:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Since you've talked about other ceremonies in between the main Academy Awards and "Moonlight won three..." statement, it's unclear in which ceremony Moonlight won three....  In progress If you are talking about lead section prose, then it is obvious that it is reflecting the 89th one. Right? No, that's the point I'm making. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC) if its lead section than I think it's clear for which ceremony it has won. Lead section only reflects the winners of that year ceremony. If you are reading from the beginning, and reached third paragraph, it still is clear that we are talking about 89th ceremony, I have cross-checked previous articles as well, it seems fine to me. No, the previous sentence says "the Academy Scientific and Technical Awards were presented by hosts John Cho and Leslie Mann.[7]" so it could easily be misinterpreted that the very next sentence is related to the previous one via the the repeat of "award". It doesn't matter what previous articles did or did not say. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Tried to add best possible words. Please check.  Done "six awards, the most for the evening from its record-tying 14 nominations " MOS NUM for comparable items in a single sentence, either 6/14 or six/fourteen.  Done Piper is just at Piper (film) now.  Done Same for Pearl.  Done " 32-year-old Damien Chazelle " avoid starting sentences with numbers.  Done I think that's how it's been done before, anyhow tried to change the structure of sentence. Last sentence of "Winners and nominees" is tagged.  Done removed that as it was more of a trivia then actually something core related to article, also no credible source was found as well. Kevin J. Walsh doesn't need to be piped to a redirect back to itself.  Done Same comment applies to Travis Knight.  Done No row scopes?  Checking... Where? The tables? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC) We may can add it as previous FLCs have both with or without scoprows, it not an issue. Anyway I have added it.  Done Far too many images for my screen.  Done for any category, one picture should be there, removed multiple picture for same category. Others I think all are important, and even previous ceremony has even more pictures. Auliʻi Cravalho isn't an apostrophe.  Done " host, "Someone" -> "someone".  Done "criticism of host Jimmy Kimmel over" you've already linked him and already noted his first name, and there are no other Kimmels, so just plain Kimmel will be fine.  Done "Octavia Spencer became the first African-American actress to be nominated after having already won before." not referenced.  Done I think Russell's disqualification needs more than a footnote. How many actual winners have been subsequently DQ'd? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC)  In progress Only one actual winner in Oscar history was disqualified, a documentary Young Americans in 1967. However disqualification over a nomination(s) has been made since 1928, numerous times. Recent being in 86th Academy Awards, in same category which is too addressed as a footnote. Is there a list of the disqualifications anywhere? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC) No list but there has been nominations that were revoked and they are mentioned in that particular ceremony article, but not separate list. Adjusted in the footnotes section.  Done "snapshot of Emma Stone moments " again, no need to repeat the first name.  Done "Actress, Singer, Humanitarian" I take it the unnecessary over-capitalisation reflects what was displayed on-screen?  Done I agree on over-capitalisation, corrected that. On screen perhaps actress was displayed but montage didn't contained any info, some of the listed people are unknown to people, so it is better to write their core profession in-front of their name. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2018 (UTC) Thanks for such a brief review. Nauriya (talk) 6:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Brief? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Yes for your review! Why it seems you are in offending mode? (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Not in "offending mode", no. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: As you have resolved your comments please give your consensus. Nauriya - Let's talk, 20:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC).

Resolved comments from PresN 01:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments "In an event, unprecedented in the history of the Oscars, La La Land was incorrectly announced as the Best Picture but after a few minutes, the error was corrected and Moonlight was declared the winner." - the commas here are all over the place. Try "In an event unprecedented in the history of the Oscars, La La Land was incorrectly announced as the Best Picture, and a few minutes later the error was corrected and Moonlight was declared the winner." Reviewed and  Done "Following the win, Academy new rules barred" -> "Following the five-part documentary's win, new Academy rules barred" Reviewed and  Done I know it's been done for prior lists, but in the "Academy Honorary Awards" section, since the items are not full sentences they should not end in periods. Reviewed and  Done "They had to do the parachuting snack delivery thing three times?."" - double punctuation Reviewed and  Done A few instances of flipped quote-punctuation like '... Hollywood."' - the period only goes inside the quote if you're quoting a full sentence, otherwise it's '... Hollywood".' Reviewed and  Done The writing in the Critical reception and television ratings section, especially, is laborious- almost every single sentence is in the format "A from Outlet B said, "Full sentence quote that starts with a capital letter. Often multiple sentences." This really should be much shorter quotes and paraphrases, with less repetition in the sentence structure. Reviewed and  Done "Bewailed", "sniped", "graved", "perceived", "expressed"... the point was that the section used long quotes where paraphrases would do, and repetition sentence structure, not that it didn't have a wide enough range of verbs. Those problems are still there. Additionally, 'He also sniped saying, "Well one can't have everything."' adds nothing at all. --PresN 18:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC) I have tried to trimmed that was repetitive, but writing review for a particular newspaper/website - name of that outlet followed by its author has to be there and I am finding difficulty how to start it in a way that doesn't look repetitive. Nauriya (talk) 00:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC). The name of the writer/outlet needs to be there, but that doesn't mean it needs to start every sentence, nor that they need to be directly quoted. For example: "Jeff Jensen of Entertainment Weekly complained that, "Kimmel (and/or the producers) didn't know when to stop and didn't know when to bail on stuff that wasn't working."[75] [...] Writing for The Oregonian's Kristi Turnquist lamented that, "his recurring visits got less entertaining as the evening dragged on." She felt that the recurring segments featuring actors waxing on about favorite films were "tedious and ill-advised."[77]" can be: Critics complained about the repetition of jokes which did not land; Jeff Jensen of Entertainment Weekly said that the show "didn't know when to stop and didn't know when to bail on stuff that wasn't working", and The Oregonian's Kristi Turnquist agreed and especially noted the repeated segments featuring actors discussing their favorite films at length to be "tedious and ill-advised".[75][77] This is just an example, not a prescription, but it turns two sentences that basically say the same thing (with... a different complaint sandwiched in the middle) into one sentence that combines similar ideas and avoids repeating the same basic sentence format ("[critic/outlet] [verb], "Really long quote"). In fact, by shortening the amount of quoted material, it ends up being slightly shorter even with some new connecting phrases. Some playing with the sentence structure like that (combined with changing all the "perceived" stuff to just "said") will make it read a lot better. --PresN 15:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC) I really liked the way you suggested, and have kept it like that despite it wasn't a "prescription" but following this i have also changed the second half of the review as well. Nauriya talk 16:13, 24 May 2018 (UTC) emdashes should not be spaced ("sensibility — the treacly"); use endashes or drop the spaces. Have used endash, please check. The references are forcing the colwidth to 20em; now that reflist automatically applies columns without being told, it's best to not specify colwidths unless you have a specific reason (it defaults to 30em); on my screen at least it makes the reflist a couple inches shorter and more readable Reviewed and  Done Not doing a source review right now, but skimming it I see some text errors ("the Guardian", ref 24), some uses of website url instead of website name as the work (latimes.com, ref 25, instead of Los Angeles Times), and mixed use of date formats (yyyy-mm-dd and Month Day, Year and Day Month Year). You also stop linking works/publishers partway through and then pick it up again later.  Done and reviewed all the references, unlinked newspaper/media outlets that were linked more than once and aligned the date formats, added thw missing authors. --PresN 21:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Nauriya (talk) 6:19, 15 May 2018 (UTC).

Alright, Support. --PresN 01:58, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

• Its been two months now, please review further or proceed to closing this. Nauriya - Let's talk 20:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC).

  Nauriya I could close it as not promoted if that's what you prefer, or you could find some more people to review it. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

  PresN What's the point of all of this then? I want this to be promoted to FLC. Nauriya - Let's talk 20:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC).

  It has one support. That's never been enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

  I have invited editors to review. Nauriya - Let's talk 23:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC).

• Support Can't see any issue. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from FrB.TG (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments The lead should mention Damien Chazelle became the youngest Best Director winner. FrB.TG, If I mention this in lead, then other winners have significance achievement as well, e.g: Viola's Triple Crown, Ali's for being first Muslim winner. It has already been addressed in winners and nominees section, lead section should address Big 4 only I think. "The winners were announced during the awards ceremony on February 26, 2017.[15]Moonlight" - missing space.  Done "surpassing the 431-minute War and Peace" maybe add a "-long" to "431-minute"?  Done "Having previously been nominated for Doubt (2008) and The Help (2011), Viola Davis" - overlinking of Viola Davis here. You don't need to introduce their links every time you start a new para.  Done "Moonlight became the first film with an all-black cast to win the Best Picture award." - same  Done Watch for other similar instances, which there are a few of. FrB.TG (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)  Done Nauriya - Let's talk 23:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC).

Support FrB.TG (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review –

• All of the references are reliable enough, and the link-checker tool shows that they all work.

Yes checking myself also.

• Spot-checks of refs 4, 24, and 32 revealed one issue: ref 24 says that Taurog was 32 when he won his Best Director award, not 33 as the article states, and his bio article here seems to confirm it. That sentence will need to be reworked when correcting the problem.

 Done I am surprised no one noticed tht before, however Chazelle is still the youngest winner, just changed the sentence structure and added one more references.

• The article is saying that Taurog was 260 days older than Chazelle at the time of his win. This is incorrect according to the sources, which say that Taurog was 32 years, 260 days old when he won. The time period (222 days) will need to be fixed. Also, the new ref's access date is in a different format than the others, so it should be converted to the style used in the rest of the cites. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Dates format is corrected, and the the age difference has also been updated. Nauriya - Let's talk 17:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC).

• The only formatting issue I see is that the hyphens in the titles of refs 45 and 47 should be converted into en dashes instead. Otherwise things look good on the source front.

 Done

• This isn't strictly a review of sources presently being used, but I happened to notice on a quick glance that the second paragraph of Box office performance of nominated films and the first paragraph of Best Picture announcement error don't have any sources at all. I'd expect to see this addressed before this list is promoted. The lack of sources for the error paragraph really puzzles me, as this is what the ceremony in question is best remembered for.

 Done for error paragraphs.

 Done for box office first paragraph, for second its general actually, only reference that can be given is from Box office Mojo, if you have better reference then please suggest. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:24, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• If you can't cite that paragraph reliably, then it should probably be removed altogether. I wouldn't want to see totally unsourced content creeping into FLs. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

• Well I have cited it where it was necessary, and this is how in each previous FLC. Because it is not something trivial or fact that needs reference or proof to be included in the article. Nauriya - Let's talk 17:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC).

Giants2008 - Nauriya - Let's talk 17:06, 17 June 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC) [7].

---

List of titular churches

Nominator(s): RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a list of the titular churches assigned to Roman Catholic cardinals, past and present. I have attempted to incorporate advice from my previous nomination (List of living cardinals) into this one to improve it greatly, now meeting the FLC criteria. While there are several redlinks in the article, all of them have been duly interlanguage-linked to the corresponding Italian Wikipedia article. Comments and suggestions welcome. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jmnbqb (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Jmnbqb In the first sentence "...cleric who is created a cardinal...", I would prefer a different word other than "created" (unless that's a specific term for this application). Maybe "appointed as a Cardinal" but it seems awkward to me as someone not that familiar with Catholicism. Insert comma with "...and to the Pope, its bishop, and head of the Church..." Keep capitalization consistent, I notice that "Cardinal" is always capitalized in the article "Cardinal protector" but not in this list In the 3rd paragraph, "Currently" could be changed to a "As of" this date Is there a reason why some dates have month and day while others don't? I can understand the early AD dates, but the recent dates would definitely have month and day available. "Santissimo Redentore e Sant'Alfonso in Via Merulana" line in table is messed up There is a random parenthesis in the "Sant'Agnese in Agone" line Is there a reason why the "Santa Maria in Portico Octaviae" line has a term in square brackets instead of parentheses? I don't know what the "I. century" date means Overall it looks like you put a ton of work into this. Good job! If you get a chance, I would appreciate a review on one of the FLCs I have listed. Jmnbqb (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC) It is the official term used, yes. Reworded (partly to avoid serial comma). Properly speaking, the word "cardinal" is a common noun and as such should be normally uncapitalised (see Cardinal (Catholic Church) and elsewhere). It seems that the Cardinal protector article is using capitalisation inconsistently; this article, on the other hand, utilises the correct style. Paragraph rephrased, to also include the vacant titular churches under the "As of". Dates specified, with early AD dates incorporated in {{circa}}. Fixed. Fixed. This corresponds to the entry for "Santa Maria in Portico [Campitelli]" higher up in the article, with the unofficial disambiguator placed in square brackets, to differentiate it from Octaviae. First century (this has been replaced). @Jmnbqb: Thanks for your comments; my apologies for the delay in response. No problem, thanks for addressing. Jmnbqb (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Nergaal (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

*List REALLY needs a column with location (address, coordinates, neighborhood). Is "supressed" the opposite of established? Nergaal (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC) @Nergaal: 1. Thus added (with a corresponding key above). 2. In Catholic parlance, yes. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Thanks, at least now it is easy to see that all titles are within Rome. Why are half of the diocheses outside of Rome, and how come 3 patriarchates are listed here and none of the other 5ish? Nergaal (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2018 (UTC) @Nergaal: The suburbicarian dioceses are simply those that are directly subject to Rome (the Holy See) and are located in its vicinity; this doesn't mean that they (in this case Sabina-Poggio Mirteto) are necessarily located in the Metropolitan City of Rome Capital (RM), which is a purely political jurisdiction and administrative subdivision. (Technically, the ones denoted with RM aren't in the city of Rome proper either.) Regarding patriarchates, this article lists only those whose patriarchs are currently cardinals (two from the Maronite Church and one from the Coptic Catholic Church). New cardinal patriarchs will be added to the article when they are created by the Pope. I hope that this clears up matters somewhat. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 13:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Rome in terms of the Catholic church has a specific meaning, and it has a different meaning when it comes to the authorities in Italy. That's why, unclarities should be explained in such an article, which talks about the ?diocese of Rome?. TBH, a map overlaying the range of this diocese vs administrative borders would be helpful. If not, at least should be a clarifying distinction between the two. Nergaal (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC) Maybe even mention Diocese_of_Rome#Suffragan_sees. Nergaal (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC) @Nergaal: Suburbicarian dioceses aside, I think it's clear that the titular churches (titles and deaconries) are all located within both the city of Rome and the Diocese of Rome. Most of the potential confusion (for suburbicarian dioceses, anyway) probably comes from the locations provided in the article, in which administrative divisions are provided for each entry, each of which constitutes a separate ecclesiastical jurisdiction. I've added some further clarifications to the article (in the lead and in the first two sections), but I don't believe that a full, in-depth distinction is strictly required, as the two definitions of Rome seem to be largely similar. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC) I am completely unaware of the jargon inside the Catholic church, so I finally opened Titular church: 1) is their main function as an office for the 120ish cardinals in the council? 2) what makes this list not a fork of the non-list (can titular church become an FA without this list)? 3) is the correct title "of Rome" or no "in Rome" at all? Nergaal (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC) @Nergaal: 1. Cardinals used to be just special priests of Rome who were attached to a specific church. This tradition is now continued by current cardinals being assigned to a church in Rome, a role which is largely nominal (the churches have their own parish priests and the cardinals lead their own (arch)dioceses somewhere else). Titular churches are still considered a key component of being a cardinal of the Catholic church. Not all Roman churches are titular churches but all titular churches are Roman (see 3). 2. I once tried to merge the two articles but quickly got opposed. The rationale is ostensibly that the Titular church article is for a general discussion of the topic (one that is admittedly incomplete), whereas this article is purely a list for them (one that is complete). 3. Either-or, really. Titular churches are directly associated with Rome, after all. Even without "in Rome" in the title, we would probably still need something like "of cardinals" to make it more precise. I think that the current title is the one that has been used since its creation, which probably seems fine enough for us to keep. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 23:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC) 1) "all titular churches are Roman" means "in Rome" part of the title is redundant AND confusing (I assumed there are others outside Rome because of it). 2) dealing with confusions in 1) should at least in part alleviate this. 3) why do you need to make it more precise if all titular ones are in Rome, and all are assignable to cardinals? I think "a cleric who is created a cardinal" is translated poorly; do you mean ordained? Nergaal (talk) 06:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC) @Nergaal: I feel the solution, then, after some consideration, would be to eliminate the "in Rome" portion of the title, as that seems to cause most confusion in this regard, to yield simply "List of titular churches". Would this be satisfactory? The correct terminology, as used by the Vatican, is that cardinals are created, not ordained, which is the proper term for deacons, for priests and for bishops. A cardinal is not a separate category of clergy, but is rather a title conferred on certain clerics by the Pope, thus being created. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 07:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC) "List of titular churches" would probably work best. Is the "created" nomenclature in Italian/Latin, or in English? Some things translate poorly. Anyways, saying "title of cardinal is conferred together with a titled church" would probably be ok. Nergaal (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC) @Nergaal: Done as suggested. The Vatican uses the nomenclature in English (see here and elsewhere). Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 10:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC) Ok, I've tried to rewrite the first paragraph to, IMO, more clearly explain the whole setup. Right now it is still very confusing. I think the intro paragraph about death can be removed (placed in the non-list article), and add a bit more info: 1) what is the exact relationship between suburbican diochese and a TC? 2) how exactly are the 3 patriarchs different than the other 5 to be covered here; 3) clearly say that all TI are located within M. 4) exactly how are deaconries different? Nergaal (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC) @Nergaal: While I do appreciate your efforts to improve the content, I would kindly suggest that it would possibly be better if I were to make the main alterations to the article, seeing that I seem to have more knowledge of the topic at hand and as the original nominator. The paragraph about deaths and transfers can help explain the existence of the term pro hac vice in the article and shed some insight on how they are assigned, which I feel is more useful information than, for example, the biretta or the cardinalatial ring. 1. Suburbicarian dioceses, strictly speaking, are not titular churches, but are included here because they serve a similar purpose to them. 2. The three (actually two) patriarchates are no more special except for the fact that their patriarchs or patriarchs emeritus are current cardinals of the church. 3. That can be done in the lead. 4. Deaconries are assigned to cardinal deacons, whereas titles are assigned to cardinal priests. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:26, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose as a non-involved reader I do not understand what is the list supposed to cover, since the current introduction does a terrible job of explaining. It is full of jargon not easily understandable to a non-expert, and as such does not pass wp:FL?. It is possible that this is a case of wp:fork since it is unclear to me how much of the subject can be understood outside of reading the entire titular church article. Nergaal (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nergaal: In the mutual interest of bringing this article up to FL status, what exactly are the main sections or parts that you would like elaborated in this article? Perhaps we may come to a consensus about how best to improve it, an outcome that does not sound too technical nor too repetitive of other articles. If I was a bit rash above, I apologise. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 13:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I have repeatedly tried to point out where the list falls short on the jargon aspect, and I tried to rewrite the intro from a 3rd-person perspective. Feel free to rewrite what I left behind into a form that is both technically accurate and digestible to a non-expert. Nergaal (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nergaal: I have now incorporated some improvements and clarifications into the article; hopefully you can find it more palatable. Further comments and suggestions welcome. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:17, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Nergaal, has Ravenpuff satisfied your comments? Ravenpuff, I think it's a real shame that you haven't incorporated images of each of these churches in the article, seems like that would greatly enrich the list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: That could be something that I could add, though I'm not sure by how much it would inflate an already expansive table. There's already a Commons link at the bottom of the page. Also, I'm fairly sure that some churches don't have pictures existing on Wikimedia, especially the demolished suppressed ones. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 06:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Meh, the introduction is far more readable to a non-expert right now than it was before. Still feels a bit clunky to read (probably because it's written as a ESL writer), but it is probably passable. I don't have any strong pro or against opinion for this FLC. I personally prefer some kind of stats and/or map, but that is outside of FL? requirements. Nergaal (talk) 06:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nergaal: There is a box to the right in the "Key to locations" section that can launch an interactive map to view or that can allow one to download the coordinates in the article. As for statistics, there is a paragraph in the lead on the current numbers. Are there any other statistics that you feel would be suitable for inclusion here? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 09:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Map is nice, but shows how difficult would be to get a meaningful pic of the map. Side-question: why are oldest titles only from 1983? Is there something preventing getting a title before an age? And why is Santa Maria in Cosmedin still vacant? Nergaal (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

"The patriarchates of Eastern Catholic patriarchs who are created cardinals are considered to be their titles" is unclear. How do they get to be cardinals, and the other 5 aren't? Nergaal (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nergaal: To be honest, many Roman churches are titular churches anyway; there are probably too many of them to properly display on a static map of the city. 1. I presume that you're looking at the "Since" column for the 1983 figure; the column shows when the cardinal was appointed to that title (the "Established" column shows when the title was first used as a titular church). Since there are no living cardinal priests who were created cardinals before then, the column only shows dates from 1983. 2. I have no idea of why Santa Maria in Cosmedin is still vacant. It is still officially listed as a titular church, though. 3. Eastern patriarchs are created cardinals in the same process as any other bishop or archbishop: the Pope decides. Currently, only three patriarchs of two patriarchates enjoy the privileges of a cardinal. If/when others are created cardinals, they will be added to the table like any other cardinal. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 00:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I think 3) needs some kind of explanation in the list - unless I am missing it. Nergaal (talk) 16:00, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Nergaal: The phrase in question is now reworded to make it clearer. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 16:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• If some other reviewer is fine with the potential forking issue, and with the copyediting in the list, I would be fine supporting this - looks quite a lot better than a the start. Nergaal (talk) 16:01, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comments, Nice list, but there are a few aspects that are not used in featured lists. For example " this list includes 230 titular churches," should be "there are 230 titular churches", and "The status of certain churches as basilicas are also indicated." is confusing, and I'm not sure what it means, and if it refers to information in the list it should be as a note or in the table itself. Also the Key to Locations section should be incorporated into the list or legend itself, instead of an explanatory section prior to the list itself. A good table does not require the reader to constantly refer to a previous section explaining the table. Is there a way to incorporate this information into the list itself? Either by making the abbreviations more clear or by adding a note instead? Mattximus (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mattximus: 1. Fixed "This list includes…" as suggested. 2. The statement on basilicas refers to the fact that certain entries in the table have "(basilica)" next to them; should it be replaced with something else to indicate this? 3. The "Key to locations" section is effectively a legend; it forms its own section because the list itself is split over multiple sections ("Suburbicarian dioceses" to "Suppressed deaconries"), to all of which the key applies. Adding {{Abbr}} tooltips to the tables could help, I suppose. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 00:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

That's better, and I can think of how to better incorporate the text of the "key" section into the list itself. Even though a lot of work has been put into this article, it still has more to go for an outsider. For example, what is "suppressed" mean? Is there a wikilink or a definition? Maybe some sections could use a one sentence description of what the table contains? There are also other instances of "in this table", "This section shows" which are all tautological and have been out of fashion for all featured lists. Mattximus (talk) 00:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mattximus: I have added a brief explanation of suppression in the lead and have removed tautologies as suggested. The descriptions of each table are also probably generally self-evident and don't require further explanation for clarification. How would you go about incorporating the key into the list sections, seamlessly? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 13:42, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

This nomination appears to have stalled out, after 3 months with no supports, and unless there's some movement soon will be closed. @Mattximus: Have you seen Ravenpuff's question above? @Jmnbqb: you closed your comments some time back; are you willing to support? --PresN 17:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The list itself is technically sound. It just seems to use jargon from an ESL perspective, so if anybody is willing to copyedit that aspect it should be a fine FL. Nergaal (talk) 22:26, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not willing to support as this time. Jmnbqb (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Oppose As someone who is somewhat familiar and works on the cardinalite, I'm going to have to oppose this: The list has issues with WP:V. Just looking at the section on the suburbicarian dioceses, it makes claims to the approximate date of their founding. On a spot check, none of the sources say this. Our articles on the suburbicarian sees themselves don't list actual dates (they list approximate times of founding), and even if they did, there is nothing in them to verify that either. Also not quite sure that the suburbicarian sees are within the scope of this list: they only became titular relatively recently (i.e. the cardinal bishops were until relatively recently also the actual diocesan bishops), and they have usually been a distinct category from the tituli of the cardinal priests and deacons. Patriarchates of Eastern Catholic Churches are not titular sees (as the individual Cardinal Patriarchs exercise actual jurisdiction over them, not just titular). They have also never been considered part of the Roman tituli, and previously they were also assigned Roman titular churches (as an example, see Gregorio Pietro Agagianian, who was Armenian Catholic Patriarch of Cilicia while also being cardinal-priest of San Bartolomeo all'Isola.) You will need a source classifying the cardinal patriarchates of Eastern Catholic Churches as being Roman tituli as this could also be very controversial in implying that the sui iuris churches are not on equal status (i.e. that these patriarchates are tituli of the mother see of the Latin Church). You do a decent job trying to explain this in the prose, but the issue is that the title implies it is within the scope, which they aren’t. Spot checked the titular churches of the cardinal priest priests. Have the same verifiability issue, and some of the dates directly contradict the articles that they link to (ex. Santi Apostoli, Rome claims to have been created as a tituli c. 112. The article claims the groundbreaking occurred in the 6th century, and only lists cardinal priests starting in the 12th. Given, some of these aren't verified as well, but it raises issues when you are claiming it was founded approximately 400 years earlier) I'm not going to go through each one, but Santi Apostoli is a pretty good example here. Dates of founding of deaconaries are also not verifiable. Sorry to have to do this, but from just a brief spot check, I'm not comfortable with supporting this list. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC) @TonyBallioni: It seems like your main concern with the article would be the dates of establishment of the titular churches. On account of their unverifiability, could it be resolved simply by removing such data from the article? Furthermore, on the topic of suburbicarian dioceses and of patriarchates, the prose already points out that they aren't titular churches per se (which you did point out) but I would tend to consider them within the scope of inclusion because they are to cardinal bishops what titles are to cardinal priests and deaconries are to cardinal deacons, so it would seem more appropriate to me if all cardinals were featured in such a way in the article, as being a jurisdiction conferred to them; they are also generally listed together in the CIC regarding cardinals. The same reasoning generally applies to the cardinal patriarchs. Regarding the example of Agagianian above, it seems like the concept of cardinal patriarchs' patriarchates being considered their titles as cardinals only came about relatively recently (likely the 1983 CIC). Can. 350 § 3 says: Eastern Patriarchs within the College of Cardinals have their patriarchal see as a title. By this, I feel that they merit inclusion in the article, even though they aren't "titular churches" in a way like how Roman churches are. I hope that this clears some ambiguities. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 09:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC) I did not do a full review because the verifiability problem was so large that it would lead to an oppose, so I’d need to further look at it beyond that if that problem was fixed. In terms of scope, the Easteen Catholic patriarchs are way outside of it for the reasons I mentioned above, but I’ll go into more detail now: the scope here is not people, i.e. the cardinals themselves. The scope is titular churches. Eastern Catholic patriarchates are not titular, are not buildings , but rather offices, and probably the largest problem: are not set as to which ones are cardinals. The suburbicarian sees issue is similar, but not as bad in that they don’t change when someone dies. Having thought on it again, I’m more inclined to see them as outside of scope as well: the Roman tituli refer to buildings, not sees. That the cardinals who hold them are titular now doesn’t change a dioceses into a building. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC) @TonyBallioni: I do tend to agree with you, but, the way I see it, suburbicarian dioceses are assigned in much the same way to cardinals as titles and deaconries are, as I mentioned above, regardless if one considers them to be buildings or jurisdictions or sees, which seems to place it within the scope, albeit on a less primary level than titular churches. Even if it potentially falls outside of the scope, it would be worthwhile to at least mention their existence in relation to the other tituli; a list probably wouldn't be out of place. The same would seem to go for the patriarchates, although removing the list of those could be beneficial. Personally, I don't think that considering cardinals along with churches to define the scope is necessarily unreasonable – what we're presenting is a list of jurisdictions that can be assigned to a cardinal of the Church that is symbolic of his office in that regard. That said, I would also consider the suburbicarian dioceses (and patriarchates) section to be more of auxiliary data than a core part of the list itself; perhaps more could be done to distinguish those from the titles and the deaconries. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 13:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC) The issue is that you very clearly define your scope as the buildings in the prose of the lead, and the title of the list strongly suggests that as well. We have List of living cardinals, which you already brought to FL status that covers all the living cardinals, and could easily incorporate their titles (and probably should), so duplicating that here by making this about the people doesn't make much sense. Additionally, there is a lot of interest in the historical churches of Rome, and having a list with a clearly defined scope covering the tituli of the cardinals as buildings (which is what this list suggests it is doing) brings value to the encyclopedia in a way a second list of living cardinals that also happens to mention the churches and jurisdictions they have in their title doesn't. I think this is a much larger issue for the Eastern Catholic patriarchs than it is for the suburbicarian sees. They are cardinals, but their titles are no longer one of the defined Roman sees or churches, but their own see. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC) @TonyBallioni: I once suggested that titular churches could go in List of living cardinals, but there was consensus that such information belonged in this article instead, as it could excessively lengthen the table over in that article. Furthermore, while this list could well serve as a list of Roman churches, it is neither an exhaustive list of "historical" churches (many titulars are modern) or even of all churches in Rome – that could potentially be a separate article of its own, without a focus on cardinals. As I mentioned in my reply above, the data on suburbicarian dioceses can be considered auxiliary and merely supplemental. What I would propose is to: 1. move the section on suburbicarian dioceses to the bottom of the article to lessen its current supposed importance in the article and 2. remove the table in the patriarchates section, which, as you pointed out, is subject to change upon death, etc. This would still leave the prose to explain the dynamics of the situation, especially in relation to cardinal bishops. Would this be an acceptable compromise? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC) I think that would work, yes. There are still the verifiability issues with the date of establishments though. Your solution is to remove the dates, which I wouldn't have a problem with, but Nergaal and Jmnbqb might have thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC) @TonyBallioni: The dates of establishment have been removed from the article (incidentally, something for which VisualEditor is exceptionally useful) and the section on suburbicarian dioceses has been moved to the bottom, as suggested above. Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 12:31, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support important topic that you have covered adequately and have resolved my concerns about verifiability and scope. Having looked over this again this morning, I'm prepared to support. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Thanks for your support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• " Eastern Catholic patriarchs who are created cardinal bishops are not assigned titles of suburbicarian dioceses." You should say whether Eastern Catholic priests can be second and third order cardinals and whether they are appointed to titular churches.
• "On occasion, a titular church may be held in commendam ("in trust") to a cardinal who has been transferred to a different one." This is not referenced and not covered in the linked article in commendam.
• " and the seven suburbicarian dioceses, as well as the three Eastern Catholic patriarch cardinals" I would delete as ungrammatical and repeating what is said above, apart from the numbers, which could be added to the text above.
• " All locations in this article are situated in the Italian region of Lazio; those outside the city of Rome incorporate abbreviations in the second table." You say in the lead that they are all in Rome.
• The sub-divisions are confusing. Do they refer to how close the church is to the centre of Rome? If so, you need to explain. What does "incorporate abbreviations in the second table" mean? in the fourth table on Suburbicarian dioceses?
• Some abbreviations such as M. XV and XV are not explained.
• This could be a good FL, but it is still some way off, especially on the locations. I would suggest deleting all references to subdivisions unless you can make them clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: The subdivisions were added in response to an FLC comment above, that I should provide localities/coords for the entries in the article. I thus decided to include, for locations within the city of Rome (the municipality), the general name for the neighbourhood and its type of subdivision ("R."/"Q."/"S."/"Z.") and also the municipio ("M.") in which it is located, which spans all of those. They have been briefly outlined in the Key to locations section, the links in which users can use to find out more about the administrative system of Rome. In this article, however, they are only used for the purpose of locations.

• The localities and coords are helpful, but the abbreviations for sub-division type and technical details such as the difference between Rome and Metropolitan City of Rome Capital are irrelevant to this article and mean nothing to English speaking readers. They are merely confusing and should be deleted. If you wish to add additional information, a separate column for the municipio together with the map in Administrative subdivision of Rome would be useful to visitors to Rome. However, this is only a suggestion as it would be a lot of work and is mostly covered in 'Map all coordinates'. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Dudley Miles: I think that some sort of differentiation is required to show that most of the suburbicarian dioceses are located outside of Rome; this could be done in the prose, while doing away with the "RM"/"RI" in the locations. Furthermore, the subdivision type can convey some information about its location within the city: "R." locations are in the city centre, followed by "Q." locations, etc. We could clarify this in the Key section above. An added benefit is that this identifies the locations as being situated in Rome. What do you think? RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Showing that most of the suburbicarian dioceses are outside Rome in prose would be better, and a symbol for city centre churches would be helpful. I do not see the point of the other symbols as they do not tell you what direction out of the centre they are in. I have also had second thoughts about the district names. Very few have articles in English Wikipedia, so unless there is a map you can add, they will not help readers. If you cannot find a map of districts, you might consider replacing the districts with the municipios, and you can then use the map in the Administrative subdivision article, and this will indicate to the reader who is visiting say, Aurelia, which churches are in the area. Of course, they are large areas, so the districts (if they are smaller) with a map would be better. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• @Dudley Miles: I've now removed all references to municipi, as well as other distinguishing abbreviations in the Suburbicarian dioceses section, with clarification in the prose. The Key section now also includes a short description of the "R."/"Q."/"S."/"Z." abbreviations, now with a map to show things better. I kept the abbreviations for communicating some basic locational information and because they seem more complete with them. Also, I'm quite certain that we can presume that readers utilising this article to sight-see in Rome would have a sort of digital map to search up these locations in the table (which seem to be better found with the abbreviations). Do bear in mind that this article does not aim to list all churches in Rome; that's better a separate article of its own. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 06:26, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

1. I've included the phrase "Other Eastern Catholic cardinals are assigned titular churches, as standard." to clarify in this regard.
2. Reference included.
3. I've removed the phrase on patriarchates (something I forgot to remove earlier). The numbers seem to fit in with the statistics of that paragraph.
4. In the second paragraph: "…suburbicarian diocese, in the vicinity of Rome". Some of the suburbicarians are located just outside the city boundaries but still within the same Italian region.
5. As above, they are merely reflective of the local Roman administrative system that is used to locate churches. The suburbicarian dioceses table uses the abbreviations in the second table to indicate that they are outside of the city of Rome (see 4.). I suppose that I could explain the system used above, although such information would be merely supplementary in regards to the actual content of the article at hand.
6. As above, these refer to a form of Roman administrative subdivision, explained and linked to in the Key to locations section, which are numbered using Roman numerals (I to XV).

Thanks for your comments. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. It is a lot clearer with the map. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:30, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Thanks for the support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 11:12, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, stalled out again, so taking a look: we have two supports, one conditional support, and 2 closed comments. I'm not finding anything objectionable, and the source review passed, so I'm going to promote. --PresN 17:03, 22 June 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) 00:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC) [8].

---

List of Governors of Illinois

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not sure about this one; it feels like it's missing something but I can't put my finger on what. It has everything the other governor FLs have, it just seems bare, I guess because there's much fewer transitions that need footnotes/references, and despite being an old state, the rules have remained pretty steady. So since it seems to meet the criteria, here we go. Golbez (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles is travelling (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

*The lead seems very bare, should be buffed up to 2-3 paragraphs. But with what? It had more info on the office but I think that's extraneous for the list. --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC) How many governors resigned, and for what reasons... who was impeached? Anyone but Blagojevich? Anyone move on to higher office like Senator or President...? Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC) I've readded the info on the office itself, and I've added a note on Blago. --Golbez (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC) Need a key for the colours. Not really, they're tied to the party, I was thinking of maybe moving the color bar to the party column to make that more obvious but I don't see a key being required. --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Most of the notes need sourcing. I'll source the ones that need it and update when done. --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Footnote F and L seems important enough to bring into the prose. F already is, I'll look into L. --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Thanks for this; L was incorrect. It wasn't an amendment, it was a schedule in the constitution that - in their wisdom - was to be struck out of all published versions once it was deemed complete. So there's very few places to find the original text. the lead is the biggie, and I suppose why no one has reviewed this list yet, right now, I don't see this meeting the criteria without work. Courcelles (talk) 17:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Or there's not enough people who care. One would hope that if a reviewer saw a list that was deficient, they'd say so rather than just closing the tab and moving on. --Golbez (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles is travelling (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
• Comments I will echo the statement above, the lead is far too short for a featured list. Maybe you can discuss the roles and responsibilities of the governors, if those changed over time, etc... give some context to the list as well as a summary. An example can be found here: List of Governors of Arkansas. Also note the useful infobox. Mattximus (talk) 01:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • But we already have an article on the office; I didn't want to needlessly duplicate info. I feel like Arkansas' should be trimmed, but only when it has an article. However, I've reverted myself to put it back. --Golbez (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
    • It's not needless duplication, what if a reader only clicks on the list page and doesn't refer to the main page? It will be hard to pass without adding this info, and I do like the inclusion of the infobox like in the Arkansas list. Mattximus (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
      • It's been added. --Golbez (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - sorry, for me this is a quick fail on the lead - two lines (on my screen) is nowhere near long enough -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I've readded the information on the office; @ChrisTheDude:, please review. --Golbez (talk) 14:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
    • The lead still seems a bit on the short side. Also, is there a reason why this list doesn't use the infobox that the Arkansas one does? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
      • It was on the Governor of Illinois page, but I've added it here. --Golbez (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
        • The only remaining thing I've got is that there's a sentence in the lead which starts with a numeral. Could you re-word it to avoid this? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
          • I rewrote the sentence a little bit. --Golbez (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
            • Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• Dates for the comments on Thompson and Blagojevich in the second paragraph would be helpful.
• The third paragraph needs references.
• "Illinois Territory was formed on March 1, 1809, from Indiana Territory. It had only one governor appointed by the President of the United States before it became a state. From March to June 1809, Territorial Secretary Nathaniel Pope served as acting governor; Edwards' arrival in Illinois ended Pope's brief administration." This paragraph has a number of issues. The first sentence could do with clarification and you refer to Edwards as if he has already been mentioned. Presumably, as you date Edwards' administration from March, he was appointed at the same time as the territory was created, but you do not make this clear. I am not sure of the best way to word it. Perhaps "Illinois was part of Indiana Territory from 1800 to March 1, 1809, when Illinois was separated off and Ninian Edwards was appointed governor of Illinois Territory. Territorial Secretary Nathaniel Pope served as acting governor until Edwards' arrival in June."
• "If the governor determines that they are seriously impeded, they can inform the secretary of state and the next in the line of succession" What does this mean? "They" appears to mean the governor and the lieutenant governor, but how impeded and who is the next in line of succession? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Added dates to Thompson and Blajo; removed third graf; cleaned up territory sentence; and ... that's just how the constitution is worded: "Whenever the Governor determines that he may be seriously impeded in the exercise of his powers, he shall so notify the Secretary of State and the officer next in line of succession." "They" refers to the governor. The next in line is [usually] the lieutenant governor: "the order of succession to the office of Governor or to the position of Acting Governor shall be the Lieutenant Governor, the elected Attorney General, the elected Secretary of State, and then as provided by law." Since it's never gone beyond Lt Gov, and since it could be lengthy ("as provided by law"), I didn't go into excess detail about the line of succession. --Golbez (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• It is still unclear as "they" appears to refer to the two people mentioned in the previous sentence, the governor and lieutenant governor. How about "If the governor determines that he or she may be seriously impeded in the exercise of their powers, they shall so notify the secretary of state and the lieutenant governor, who becomes acting governor until the governor can resume office." Dudley Miles (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• I prefer to avoid "he or she", I've rewritten that part of the sentence. --Golbez (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments The table fails MOS:COLOR for the parties represented by the Lt. Gov's. "Illinois was admitted to the Union on December 3, 1818, consisting of the southern portion of Illinois Territory; the remainder was assigned to Michigan Territory." unreferenced? Don't use hash for No., see WP:HASH. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC) re Color: I don't think it does; the Lieutenant Governors are noted as serving the same party as the governors unless noted, so no info is being conveyed purely by color. The other two are fixed. --Golbez (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Aha I missed those sneaky little notes! All good. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:03, 22 June 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC) [9].

---

List of 1992 Winter Olympics medal winners

Nominator(s): Courcelles (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

The Albertville Olympics hold a special place in my memories, likely because they are the first Olympics I can actually remember watching. (A little clue to my age might be in there somewhere) This list has lots to cover, new sports, new nations, and the first medalist from the Southern Hemisphere. I've tried to pack it all in, and look forward to your comments. Courcelles (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - the only thing I have picked up so far is this sentence: "The newly independent republics of Croatia and Slovenia made their Olympic debuts, being newly independent from Yugoslavia". Can you find a way to re-word it so that you aren't saying "newly independent" twice in the same sentence? Also, and this is very minor, but the sentence does not currently have a full stop/period at the end -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
• Thanks, ChrisTheDude, both issues resolved. Courcelles (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Repinging ChrisTheDude, any more comments?. Courcelles (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    • No - happy to support. Apologies for forgetting to check back sooner.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

:Hi Courcelles, fantastic work! Please find my comments below: Infobox Both had been demonstration sports four years prior in Calgary rephrase so that "four years prior" doesn't appear in consecutive sentences. Alpine skiing table Correct link to Alpine skiing at the 1992 Winter Olympics – Men's super-G Correct link to Alpine skiing at the 1992 Winter Olympics – Women's super-G Biathlon table Correct link to Evgeny Redkin Correct link to Valeri Kiriyenko Correct link to Svetlana Petcherskaia Correct links to Elena Belova (biathlete) Cross-country skiing table replace x with × in the event column add this image of Martin Höllwarth He's a ski-jumper, not a cross-country skiier, and we already have an image down there. Courcelles (talk) 01:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Figure skating table Suggest linking to the sections within the Figure skating at the 1992 Winter Olympics article eg. Figure skating at the 1992 Winter Olympics#Men. The events really need their own article with the parent article providing an overview, but until then the link to the sections will have to do. Correct link to Natalia Mishkutionok Freestyle skiing table add sharper link to Freestyle skiing at the 1992 Winter Olympics – Men's moguls add sharper link to Freestyle skiing at the 1992 Winter Olympics – Women's moguls add this image of Edgar Grospiron Ice hockey table place Alexei Zhitnik second last in the gold medal column to maintain alphabetical order Luge table add this image of Georg Hackl Nordic combined table add this image of Fabrice Guy I find the copyright status of that image highly doubtful. It's a professional photograph then signed, which I imagine is in the uploader's possession, but not their copyright. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Short track speed skating table Correct link to Natalya Isakova Speed skating table Correct link to Speed skating at the 1992 Winter Olympics – Men's 10,000 metres add this image of Antje Misersky-Harvey add this image of Stefania Belmondo Those people are not speed skaters, and we already have two images here anyhow. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC) References Ref 4 – link Speed Skating Canada Refs 7 and 9 – unlink The New York Times Ref 10 – link Sports Reference Ref 11 – link New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame Ref 22 – unlink International Olympic Committee Never been a real fan of general references, any chance you could turn this into a reference and place this at the end of the opening paragraph and remove the "general" and "specific" headers Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:00, 2 June 2018 (UTC) @Ianblair23:, a couple responses inline, the rest has been changed, hopefully to your satisfaction. Courcelles (talk) 01:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Hi Courcelles, sorry I stuffed up with the images. I suggest that Antje Misersky-Harvey image and the Martin Höllwarth image be added to the multiple medalists section and the Stefania Belmondo image be added to the cross-country skiing section. – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Sorry for being so tired last night, @Ianblair23:. I've added two of those images, the multiple medalists section really isn't long enough for two distinct images. Courcelles (talk) 11:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Fair enough. Thanks for these changes. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Brilliant job Courcelles. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments "Two disciplines were added to the Olympic program compared to four years prior in Calgary: freestyle skiing and short track speed skating.[3] Both had been demonstration sports in Calgary; they were contested for medals for the first time in Albertville" I just get the feeling there's a little repetition going on here, or at least something's afoot. Doesn't "added to the Olympic program" equate to "contested for medals"? If not then they were added to the program in Calgary, just not contested for medals, right? And the quick repeat of Calgary doesn't inspire much confidence for me either. " New Zealand won its first Winter Olympics medal, a silver by alpine skier Annelise Coberger. This was the first Winter Olympics medal won by someone representing a Southern Hemisphere nation.[12]" I also feel this could be merged somehow, e.g. "New Zealander Annelise Coberger became the first medallist from the Southern Hemisphere, winning silver ...."? "Thirty-eight athletes won more than one medal in Albertville." is it worth noting that athletes from 20 NOCs won a medal? Bjørn Dæhlie caption needs a full stop. Otherwise lovely. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man:, try things now? Courcelles is travelling (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references are of appropriate reliability, and the link-checker tool shows that they all work. Spot-checks of refs 30, 47, 69, and 83 revealed one oddity worth looking into: ref 30 lists the bronze medal winner as Yelena Belova, while this article (and her bio here) gives her first name as Elena. The only other item worth commenting on is that reference 2 needs an access date. Other than those two things, everything else looks good. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Giants2008:, Ref 2 taken care of, not sure what to tell you about Yelena/Elena, it's just one of those where situations where both are valid translations, I originally had it as Yelena, and was told to change it by someone above to match our article. Courcelles is travelling (talk) 00:56, 14 June 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC) [10].

---

Miike Snow discography

Nominator(s): Pancake (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the critera as it is complete and well-sourced. The lead was recently copy-edited. Pancake (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It's been 10 days. Anyone wanna give this a look or...? Pancake (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll kick off with this and check back in with more later:

• "had moderate impact on charts in Belgium, Scotland, and the United Kingdom in 2009" - Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, so this really doesn't make sense as it's written. It would be like saying "had impact on charts in Texas and the USA". Upon further investigation it seems that there is a record chart for sales specifically in Scotland, but it's so minor that I really wonder if it's worth mentioning. If it is, then the sentence needs re-wording in some way to avoid the awkward "Scotland and the UK" thing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed Scotland on two occasions in the lead :) Pancake (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Some more comments......

• "Miike Snow is a Swedish indie pop band. Their discography consists" - is the group singular or plural? Worth checking the whole lead for consistency on this question.
• "While describing their debut record [....], Happy to You was" - the album is the subject of the main part of the sentence, so the first clause isn't grammatically correct as it stands. I would suggest changing the first bit to "While the band described....."
• "In addition to their studio efforts, Miike Snow has" - see above
• You have a section described as "List of guest appearances with other performing artists" but one is not with any other artist. Either find another section to put that in or change the description of the section.

Think that's all I've got........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

All issues addressed. Let me know what you think :) Pancake (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - all looks OK to me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Comments "Remixes" aren't listed in the opening line but seem quite important (both in the infobox and mentioned as the starting point for the band's career). Which territory/territories are the release dates relevant to? What does WW mean? Avoid spaced hyphens (e.g. ref titles). The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC) All done! Pancake (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support my issues resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support – Didn't spot any concerns when I read through the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:51, 14 June 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) 00:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC) [11].

---

List of Turkish football champions

Nominator(s): Akocsg (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This valuable list contains information about the Turkish football championships which are not covered appropriately the way they should and provides useful information and data, especially about the former championships (before 1957). What makes this list article especially interesting and engaging is the fact that the Turkish Football Federation negates and ignores the era before 1957, even though both former championships were the official competitions of the very same federation!

Given their unique situation and the general quality of the article, I think that this article deserves to be a Featured List. I have tried my best to meet all the criteria and I believe that the article is in an appropriate state. It is a personal concern for me that this list gains FL status, and I will genuinely try my best to improve it even further if necessary. I offer my thanks to all who have the time to comment on the list, and I promise that I'll get to each comment as soon as I can. Kind regards, Akocsg (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Query - what is sourcing the top goalscorers? I can't see any references either against individual rows or against the column headings as you have done with the champions............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Done. Good point, I totally forgot about them. Thank you for reminding, they are in the article now. I didn't really understand what you mean by the individual rows and column headings though. Could you specify? If you mean the championship titles, there are sources such as RSSSF and the Turkish FA's own magazine (TamSaha), for instance. Akocsg (talk) 19:44, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

All I meant was that the goalscorers could have been sourced either individually against each row or (if there was one source that listed them all) against the column header (as you did with the champions). When I commented, neither was present. Now you have put a source against the column header so all is good......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Oh, now I see. Thanks. Akocsg (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Kosack (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments Images need WP:ALT text. Remove the Turkey flag from the infobox per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Turkey is linked in the infobox and the opening sentence. WP:OVERLINK advises against linking major geographic locations. "Englishmen brought the game with them while living in Thessaloniki.", what's the source for this? Is there a reason the earlier seasons are not counted by the TFF? The star rating system paragraph is unsourced or at least seems that way. I would say to use the full name of the Rsssf in references, Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation, to keep consistency as all other organisations are done that way apart from the Rsssf. Just a very quick read through, I may add more if I get the chance. Kosack (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2018 (UTC) @Kosack: All done I think. The images have a bit more text now, I don't know what else I could add. Removed the flag and internal link from the infobox. Provided a source for the part about the Englishmen (it was already there though, just at another spot). Provided a source for the star rating. The link to RSSSF uses the full name now. About the Turkish FA not counting the earler ones, well that's a very good question. Until today, no official answer or motive was given for this denial. Even though both former championships are their own official competitions. In the article about the Turkish Football Federation you can read more about that topic. Thank you for your input. Akocsg (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC) WP:ALT text is not the caption that is displayed with the image, it is an accessibility aid for people who may not view images in the same way as other users. It is added using

Support - issues addressed, no further concerns. Kosack (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Support Very good and informative article. I didn't notice anything else apart from the points addressed above. Baki.d (talk) 10:42, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments – There are two stubby one-sentence paragraphs in the lead. Putting all three of them into one larger paragraph seems like the easiest solution, as the size would be just about right. What is meant to be sourcing the runners-up and third place columns in the tables? If it's the same sources as for the winners, they should be added to those columns as well. For the blank third place cells in 1957–58 and 1959, and for the blank cells in the all-time tables consider adding a dash of some kind. That would look nicer than the blank space that is currently there. All-time performance (1924–): The bolding here is discouraged by Manual of Style guidelines, which say not to use bolding for emphasis. Italics are permitted, if you want to use that as a substitute. Minor style note: The hyphens in the titles of references 2, 4, 8, and 15, along with the ones in the title of the Yuce book and the first external link, should be converted into en dashes instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC) @Giants2008: All done. Although I don't really agree with not using bolding. See for example the List of English football champions, List of Danish football champions, and List of French football champions. All three are Featured Lists and use bolding. But I still removed them from the Turkish list. Akocsg (talk) 18:15, 31 May 2018 (UTC) The third-place columns still don't have a source. The rest of the comments have been resolved, so I'm just waiting on this one point before offering my support. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC) @Giants2008: Done. Thank you for your input. Akocsg (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support – With all of my comments (and those below) resolved, I think this meets FL standards now. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

• Apologies for not checking back. Here's some other comments from me:
  • "After some time, many other regional and local leagues followed in other major cities, such as Ankara (1923), Eskişehir (1920), or İzmir (1923), to name a few." => "Other regional and local leagues followed in other major cities, including Ankara (1923), Eskişehir (1920), and İzmir (1923)."
  • "At the end of the 1924 season, Harp Okulu were the first club to be crowned champions after completing their fixtures unbeaten.[2] They are also the only club who have ever changed their name after winning a championship title having been known as Harbiye for the first of their three titles" => "At the end of the 1924 season, Harbiye were the first club to be crowned champions after completing their fixtures unbeaten.[2] They are also the only club who have ever changed their name after winning a championship title, changing their name to Harp Okulu after the first of their three titles"
  • "the three lowest-placed teams are relegated to the 1. Lig and replaced by the top three teams in that division" - not relevant to a list of champions and definitely doesn't belong in the lead
  • "No clubs were promoted or relegated during the first season" - not relevant
  • "Before the creation of a second tier league, the bottom three clubs competed with regional league winners in a competition called the Baraj Games. The top three teams of the seven team group were promoted to the Millî Lig." - not relevant
  • "(not counted and denied by TFF)" => "(not recognised by TFF)"
  • Where there really two national championships in the same year in the 1940s? With (some of) the same teams competing in both?
  • You have a section heading of "Super League", but everywhere else it is referred to by its Turkish name of Süper Lig - I see no reason why this name should not be used in the section heading too.
  • "In the table below all national championship titles since 1924 are included, comprising the Turkish Football Championship and National Division" => "In the table below all national championship titles since 1924 are included, including the Turkish Football Championship and National Division"
  • "which are denied and not counted by the Turkish Football Federation, even though they were official championships by the TFF itself." => "which are not recognised by the Turkish Football Federation, even though they were official championships organised by the TFF itself."
• Think that is all I have.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: All done. About both competitions existing at the same time in the 1940s, yes it is true. You can look up those seasons. The difference was the competition system and the qualification criteria: the National Division was based on a classical league system (double round robin), with the top placed clubs of the three major regional leagues (Istanbul, Izmir, and Ankara; only them) as participants. The Turkish Championship was initially contested by all regional league champions (and them only). After 1941, it was played in a Final Group, consisting of the champions only of the aforementioned three major regional leagues. The fourth club was decided in a qualification play-off, which was contested by the regional league winners who could not play in the National Division. I guess that's why they both were held, so that the clubs who could not play in the National Division also had a chance to win a national championship. It's a bit complicated, and quite interesting. Definitely unique in Europe. It's a shame that they are denied and not recognised by the very same corrupt federation which held them. Hence the importance of this list article. Akocsg (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Support - all of my concerns seem to have been addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments Row and col scopes are missing per MOS:ACCESS. Second and third places don't seem to be referenced by RSSSF? Shouldn't "Year" be "Season" in the table headings? What are all teh stars about in the "Performance since 1957" section? Check for WP:DASH violations in the ref titles e.g. Ref 13 should use an en-dash in the year range, not a hyphen. RSSSF source has an author and a different publication date... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:26, 8 June 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: All done except one point (partially). Most second places are referenced by RSSSF. For those not listed and the third places you just have to look up the relevant season individually. There is no source which lists the third placed clubs extra. The other Featured Lists (List of English football champions, List of Italian football champions, List of Israeli football champions, and List of French football champions etc.) don't have them sourced either. Please don't set practically impossible standards. If there is no source which lists them specifically, there's nothing I can do. The stars are explained in the "Star rating system" section. One star is awarded for each five championship titles (for those since 1957). Akocsg (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Please note, I'm not setting "practically impossible standards", I'm asking how our readers verify second and third places. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: By choosing the respective season in the RSSSF source, where the final tables and results are available. There they can be verified. An additional source has also been added (for after 1959). Akocsg (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man:@Giants2008:@Kosack: I have added the sites of Erdinc Sivritepe now in the respective columns, where the final tables (and as a result the third placed teams) are all listed without exception. I think this should be enough to verify them. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:51, 14 June 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) 00:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC) [12].

---

List of Premier League winning players

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

This is a list of players of Premier League who have received a medal for winning the title. The introduction includes a brief summary of what the Premier League is and its history, the requirements for receiving a medal, and statistics regarding the medals that have been awarded over the years. The list includes what I believe to be the key relevant information for a list of this nature. The entries are cited to the player profiles on the Premier League site, which hold a record as to which players have and have not received medals. The content in the nationality and club tables is taken from the Premier League references used in the main list.

I stumbled across this list only a few weeks ago when using it as a directory for adding the player profiles as a reference for Premier League honours in player biographies. I noticed a couple of players in the list who hadn't actually received medals, which I removed accordingly, before deciding to give the list a more thorough cleanup. This is what the list looked like before my recent updates, in which not a single entry was referenced. I believe the list has now been brought up to the standards set out at the FL criteria. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Minor comments by Lemonade51

• Think https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giggs_PL_trophy.jpg would work better as a lead image. For a start he's actually holding the prize in question.
  • Agreed. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
• The only issue I have at first glance is medals. "484 medals awarded to 243 players", does this take into account that the 92–93 United side never actually got medals but mini trophies? Igors Stepanovs didn't receive anything at the Arsenal's 2001–02 trophy presentation because he didn't play the required number of games then. There is footage on YouTube, I'll try and dig it out. But then the PL website suggests he did. Maybe he got one later on. Think you've done the right thing in renaming the list to reflect this. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • It does include the players from the first season who received the mini trophies. Do you think this needs clarifying? Mattythewhite (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing Stepanovs qualified through special dispensation. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

*"for back-up goalkeepers and outfield players who did not make the minimum number of appearances through injury." Does the injury clause apply to the goaltenders as well? Right now that is ambiguous whether both positions must have suffered injury to get a medal. Otherwise this looks good. Courcelles (talk) 17:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Removed "outfield", which is in line with the source. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles (talk) 16:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments You could probably beef up that lead image, as the TOC adds quite a bit of whitespace below the lead. Expanded, what do you think? Mattythewhite (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Having read the lead, shouldn't the title really be "Premier League medal-winners"? Possibly. Although that exact wording would be ambiguous as managers receive medals too. Lemonade51, Courcelles, ChrisTheDude, do you have any thoughts on this, having already taken a look at the list? Mattythewhite (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Not to mention the problem of the first year. I think the current title is fine. Courcelles (talk) 23:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC) I'm just not convinced. The players listed below technically won the Premier League, or at least played in Premier League-winning teams, (ooh, should the current title be hyphenated??), they just didn't receive a winner's medal. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Surely if the official PL website doesn't list it in their honours, then it doesn't regard them as having won it? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Yeah, that's fair. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC) Just out of interest, can you find any examples of people who played fewer than five matches for a title-winning team and check their Premier League web page doesn't list them as winners? I could find them all, but that would be boring even by my standards :-) Here's a few: Neil Webb (Man Utd, 92/93), Scott Marshall (Arsenal, 97/98), Chris Eagles (Man Utd, 06/07), Ola Aina (Chelsea, 16/17). Mattythewhite (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC) Thanks, that's helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2018 (UTC) "who spent his entire career at the club, " probably needs a ref. Referenced. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC) "The list is ordered" -> "The list is initially ordered" (it's sortable). Added. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC) " Highest number of " why not just "Most"? "Most" it is. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:51, 14 June 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) 00:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC) [13].

---

Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, March 1605

Nominator(s): TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I've been working through the 17th century conclaves bringing them up to GA status, and have most of them done, so I've turned to working on the list of electors for them, and this is my first attempt at that. The March 1605 papal conclave was the first of two conclaves in 1605, which was the last Year of Three Popes popes before 1978: Clement VIII had recently died, and left a nearly full college. This list of electors includes several names that are very significant in the history of the Counter-Reformation, and was by far one of the most enjoyable conclaves to research and write about. I'm nominating this as a featured list because it is complete and I feel it either meets the criteria or is very close to doing so. I hope you all enjoy it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support per my extensive pre-FLC commentary yesterday. Great work. Courcelles (talk) 15:45, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments: Lower-case "cardinal" for list section title. Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC) If possible, you could instead list the cardinals within each rank/order by the date of their creation, rather than by alphabetical order, as representative of precedence. Unless, of course, that concept didn't exist in 1605 or is unimportant for the article. I can try to go through Eubel and do this by date of creation. I think he does it alphabetical by consistory date instead of by precedence as is the current practice, but it will get a rough idea of rank within the college (i.e. to the date of creation and then alphabetical on that date.) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC) That could be most beneficial, although I'm unsure if some sources might also list cardinals for each consistory in some meaningful order. Eubel is the standard reference work on this sort of thing for this era, so what he says is probably what other sourcing would have unless primary. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Red-linked cardinals could be interlanguage-linked to e.g. the Italian Wikipedia. For example, Antonio Maria Gallo (Galli?) to here. Also, some cardinals without articles are red-linked, while others don't have links at all. I generally prefer red-links to inter-wiki links for a few reasons: first, it encourages creation of the articles on en.wiki, second, the quality of it.wiki articles from this era of Catholic history is pretty low, in my opinion (not that our articles are necessarily better...) if you think it's needed, I can do it, just wanted to explain my reasoning. Also, why some aren't linked: the ones that aren't linked are individuals were articles exist on a person of that name, but the person is not the cardinal in the list. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC) In my opinion, a link to an extant article on another wiki is still more valuable than a red-link to readers. WP:FLCR section 5(a) also seems to require that "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked", although I'm personally rather ambivalent about this issue, as far as linking goes, so I'm largely fine with either case. (Also, you could deal with the unlinked cardinals by linking to [[<name> (cardinal)]], for example). The elected cardinal surely needs more than a footnote in the table to indicate that; a different table row colour could be in order, as for recent papal conclaves (e.g. 2013). Done. Used the 2013 colour. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Again, if possible, you could perhaps include a column for the offices held by the cardinals in the table. This would be more difficult: Eubel includes offices, but for the ones with non-resident sees it is often just the titular see or a listing of positions that don't necessarily confirm the dates held (so it would be unclear if the position was held at this time). I don't think the titulus would add much value to this particular list personally (the focus being on the conclave and it's demographics. Ironic, I know, given the other FLC we just interacted on :) ). TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Very well, then. I do suppose it's probably not as useful here. Footnotes [iii] and [v] are identical and should be combined. Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Nationalities could be linked and flags added (although, considering the 17th century state of Europe, this could be slightly more difficult). This one would be tough re: flags. The narrative sourcing refers to the electors in general by nationality, while Eubel refers to Italians by city (and there was no defined Italy back then as a single state). I made the choice to go with the geographic location/nationality since that is what all the narrative sourcing went with. A possibility here is to link to the nationality articles Italians, French people, Germans, etc. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Just did this here as it was pretty easy to do. Let me know what you think. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC) On second thought, nationality links probably seem slightly out of place here. The best solution now would probably be to keep them as they are, unlinked, unless they could be linked to contemporary countries (e.g. Kingdom of France or any of the Italian cities/states to which your source refers, such as the Grand Duchy of Tuscany or the Papal States). Unlinked. The way Eubel handles Italians would make it difficult to link to contemporary states and meet WP:V. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC) That should be all that I can spot for now. Otherwise, a good article indeed. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC) @Ravenpuff: see above and let me know your thoughts. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Some further replies and comments for the time being. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 08:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC) Ravenpuff: changes made. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:49, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Support: largely well-written and mostly thorough for its time period. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Support

• Add trans-title for titles in foreign languages; indicate the language of the source material.
  • Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Eubel, Konrad (1913a) does not have authors listed even though Worldcat does; I did not check all of them.\
  • Fixed: I also went through and updated the two sources that had previously been attributed to Eubel: archive.org had used the wrong bigliographic information on the second. This is easy to do because all the works are typically referred to as "Eubel", because he was the first author. I've double verified it against Worldcat, Google Books, and the publication information in the scans on archive.org. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Ref number order " Leo XI.[8][1]"
  • Fixed. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Do you know who took the photograph of the painting? Is there any way we can know if it is copyrighted or are we going to have to AGF on it?
  • The official stance of the WMF is that photographic reproductions of public domain two-dimensional art are public domain. I checked to see if Getty had a version of this available for license to see if they listed an original creator and they don’t: but they agree it is 17th century. Under our copyright policy we consider it public domain, and the license tag reflects this, so we should be good. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Rephrase Pope Sixtus V had mandated that the maximum number of cardinals would be seventy in 1586. to In 1586, Pope Sixtus V mandated that the maximum number of cardinals would be seventy., unless I misunderstand what the sentence is conveying
  • Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Change having created to creating, and all those hads seem unnecessary
  • Tried this and ended up not doing either. I think the pluperfect is correct here as it is referring to specific events in the past that were complete before the event we are discussing. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• Your alt text on the image could be improved
  • I added a bit here. I’m never good at these, so if it needs more, let me know. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Will come back from more comments later. Kees08 (Talk) 21:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

• Kees08, made these changes. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Kees08: see responses. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments The title is March 1605 yet the opening sentence of the lead calls it the "conclave of March–April 1605". Borrowed this from the main article text. Someone else had added April to it, since it technically did exist one day in April. I've removed it. I don't think a move of both pages (the conclave page and this page) is warranted over one day given the principles of concision in the naming policy. The date of his election is discussed in the prose, which should cover it. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC) I would have thought Alessandro Ottaviano de' Medici should be linked in the lead. He is, as Pope Leo XI. I can add a Wikilink to the redirect/pipe it to the Leo article, if you think it necessary. Just didn't want to have two links to the same article in the same sentence. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC) " two papal conclaves in 1605" this is a bogus pipe, I would expect you say something like "the second being held in May" and piping "second" or "second being held in May". Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Is "Cardinal Ávila" notable enough to be linked? Yes, but we don't have an article on this Ávilia (the existing article is of someone different with the same name.) I was trying to keep the red links out of the lead, since they're all linked in the list. I can add it to the lead if you think it'd be helpful in encouraging someone to create an article, though. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC) You could link cardinal bishop for those of us who struggle with the hierarchy of the Catholic Church... Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC) "Out of this maximum of seventy" no need to repeat these facts so quickly after the previous sentence. "From these" (or similar) would suffice. Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Since [9] and [12] apply to pretty much every entry, you could add each ref once in the table heading and then just add the extra refs in the Sources column to avoid the huge multiple usage. Done. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC) Any images of the electors that could fill some of the whitespace down the right-hand side of the table? I've added an image of Baronius as the runner up. I could also add images of Montalto and Pietro Aldobrandini as two of the cardinal nephews/factional leaders. I wouldn't want to include images of every elector, as we don't have them for each one, and I think it would be distracting in the table to have some and not others. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: done most of your suggestions, replied to some. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed, and an interesting list for me too. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:51, 14 June 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 Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC) [14].

---

List of Hot Country Songs number ones of 2008

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I have successfully nominated the lists for 2000-2006 inclusive (as well, rather randomly, as 1959), and the list for 2007 now has multiple supports, so why the heck not? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support I think you have the formula for these down pat. Courcelles (talk) 01:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support Basically a copy of the 2007, etc. lists. Did some tweaks to the references, but also Source review passed. --PresN 18:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
Comments Link "chart". " In October former" I would expect a comma after October. The last sentence of the lead is tooooooo long. "in" in "Come Onin Boy" appears to be capitalised per our article. Ref 5 date format needs to be made consistent with the others. That's it. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:24, 8 June 2018 (UTC) All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:53, 9 June 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2018 (UTC) [15].

---

List of international goals scored by Cristiano Ronaldo

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

My other lists, although long in the nomination tooth, are fully supported with no outstanding issues. This one, about some guy called Ronaldo, may generate a bit more interest, or at least I hope so. All comments are welcome, and I will endeavour to fix any issues raised as soon as is humanly possible. Thanks to you all for your generous time and effort. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Scoring in a shoot-off is more relevant to a "Goals scored by..." list than saying "Following Portugal's win at UEFA Euro 2016, Ronaldo lifted the trophy as his team's captain". Also 3rd goalscorer worldwide is relevant. Nergaal (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

  I'm sure you're right, but could you clarify what you would like to include, what sources you have, and what you'd like to remove? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

AFAICT Ronaldo is the 3rd among all-time goalscorers in international games. And, you have repeatedly rejected mentioning shoot-off "goals" in such lists, yet I see you talk in the introduction about how he won a championship as a captain in which he only scored once. Nergaal (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"Ronaldo has scored goals [...], hence becoming the first player to score [...], which also makes him second [...]." I can't believe you see nothing wrong with this sentence structure. Nergaal (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Who said I can't see anything wrong with this sentence structure? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Slightly perverse as it may sound, kicking the ball into the net during a shoot-out is not considered to equate to scoring a goal, so there is no reason to mention it in a "list of goals" article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I never said equating it to a goal. It is still "scoring", and has more to do with a goal than lifting a trophy (mentioned in the intro) does to scoring a goal. Nergaal (talk)

No, we're not including penalty shootout goals here. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

we're not including penalty shootout goals. Glad to see lifting cups have a place here though /s. Nergaal (talk) 12:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point, but thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You have tried so hard to ignore what I said that EVEN NOW the list does not state that Ronaldo IS the 3rd highest international goalscorer in history. That is definitely the type of achievement not relevant to THE list of international goals by him. And it's not like this intro doesn't already mention that Ronaldo is number 2 in continental qualifiers. That same refferece in use here lists like 5 goal-scoring records not listed in the obviously-subpar introduction. Meanwhile, there are STILL phrases like "he scored the only goal in a UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying match against Armenia, his 23rd in European Championship matches. This surpassed the record previously held by". Excellent phrasing, definitely featured-level prose /s. Nergaal (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to follow your comment, it's like a negative-negative-negative-positive-negative-negative sentence. If you bullet point your list of concerns, and add sources to back up your claims which you would prefer to see included in the list, that's fine. If you just want to yell and be sarcastic, that's fine too, but you'll be ignored. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• My only comment is this bit: "Ronaldo has scored 30 goals in FIFA World Cup qualifiers, and 20 in UEFA Euro qualifiers, hence becoming the first player ever to score 50 goals in European qualifiers, which also makes him second in the list of all-time top scorers in European qualifiers, behind Poland's Robert Lewandowski" - people may be confused by the (seeming) fact that Ronaldo is the first player to hit 50 yet is only second on the all-time list, so it would be worth clarifying that he was the first to hit 50 but that Lewandowski has since overtaken him -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

  Hi Chris, thanks. I've tried a re-word and sentence split to hopefully clarify this. Let me know what you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support - all looks good now (you missed a pipe out of the As Of template, I fixed that for you.....) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

  Tsk, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support – I'm not a fan of football or soccer, but the list looks really good. Great work.--Lirim | T 09:24, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

*"the most goals among currently active players" Assume you mean international goals here? "as one of the second-highest" As joint second highest goalscorer, perhaps? "hence becoming the first player to score 50 goals in European qualifiers." Going to need a source for that. Courcelles (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Courcelles, sorry for the lengthy delay, I didn't see this pass through my watchlist. Comments addressed I think, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Courcelles (talk) 17:32, 30 May 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2018 (UTC) [16].

---

List of ecclesiastical parishes in the Diocese of Bath and Wells

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 17:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This list was created as a bit of an experiment to examine how closely ecclesiastical parishes (EP) match civil parishes, and it may become the standard for a whole load of other UK lists on similar topics. It has gone through multiple iterations (mostly from User:Nilfanion and myself) about how it should be subdivided and what should be included. It is now comprehensive including all EPs in the Diocese of Bath and Wells supported by over 600 references. I feel it now meets the FL criteria but would welcome your comments about the organisation as well as any individual entries.— Rod ^talk 17:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

quick comment: "This is a list of... " is no longer appropriate for featured lists, as it is tautological. Mattximus (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - tweaked.— Rod ^talk 20:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Same goes for "When the civil parish is identical to the ecclesiastical parish, this is shown in the tables below in bold." Which should be a note for the table (or in a legend), not in the lead itself. I don't have time for a full review, but just want to say great work on the page so far! Mattximus (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Remove that if appropriate. A footnote on the lines of "identical to civil parish" should suffice for those cases where there is a 1:1 correspondence.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Could you do this to ensure it meets what you were trying to achieve with the list.— Rod ^talk 18:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments Six paragraphs for the lead is too many. Consider making "Background" or "History" section or whatever. It is now 3.— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Is there an article on "ecclesiastical parish" or at least something which we could link to? No ecclesiastical parish currently redirects to Parish, perhaps one needs to be written but it appears "Parish is taken to mean the church unit while civil parish is the local government unit. There is Parish (Church of England) which is wikilinked in the lead as well. Given the pipe, I wonder if " English county " should be the blue link rather than just "county"? Done.— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Not sure I understand the use of italics in the explanation of the name. In fact, this is footnote territory. I have changed to "speech marks".— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) " Alternative episcopal oversight (for parishes in the diocese who reject the ministry of priests who are women) is provided by the provincial episcopal visitor" the first link in this sentence is a redirect to the second linked article in this sentence. Link to the redirect removed.— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Parish is linked twice to different targets. Second wikilink removed.— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Meanwhile I'm not even sure you linked diocese? Tis now.— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) " 44 dioceses divided between the provinces of Canterbury, with thirty d..." MOSNUM, either all numbers or all words for comparable items in a single sentence. Changed to numbers.— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "Ecclesiastical parish" just links back to "Parish". As discussed above - perhaps a new article is needed. I have removed the wikilink.— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "When the civil parish is identical to the ecclesiastical parish, this is shown in the tables below in bold." per MOS:BOLD we can't just use bold to denote some property of an item. This was mentioned above. I am waiting for a comment from User:Nilfanion before changing this as it was a key purpose of this list initially to look at how similar they are.— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) I would collapse the TOC down too, limit it to second level headings, as currently there's too much whitespace. Done.— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Link archdeacon in the prose. I'm not quite sure where this should be wikilined. Archdeacon of Bath etc is already linked - the others are to "archdeaconry" are you suggesting I should link that to archdeacon?— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Table headings, reduce over-caps, Ecclesiastical Parish -> parish, Civil Parish(es) -> Civil parish(es). Done.— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Table headings, photo -> image. Done (but I don't know why they are all photos?)— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Is it clear what "unparished" means? The whole of Bath, Somerset does not have parishes - not sure what change to make here?— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Bath has parishes - there are several ecclesiastical parishes listed in the relevant section. It doesn't have civil parishes, and an appropriate wikilink to unparished area should suffice. That is the correct term, although it is somewhat confusing in this context...--Nilfanion (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Done.— Rod talk 18:27, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "St Michael: Twerton" colon not comma? Several instances of this. I thought they were all like this with colon - it is only used where there is more than one church in a parish to differentiate between them.— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) As noted above, can't use just bold, need a symbol or something, per MOS:ACCESS, MOS:BOLD. I am waiting for a comment from User:Nilfanion before changing this as it was a key purpose of this list initially to look at how similar they are.— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) What differentiates between whether a parish church without an article gets red-linked or not linked at all? Generally if they are Grade I or II* they have a link or have a red link. If Grade II or not listed they do not have a red link if no article has been written. (this list has made me realise just of how Somerset churches I have written articles about).— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) I would prefer column widths to be the same from section to section. I set all the tables to be the same width, but the columns are auto - are you suggesting a specific number of pixels (which may be strange of different monitors or as percentages of the table?— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) You use A Church Near You as a website but inconsistently, e.g. currently looking at refs 453 to 458, I would have expected all but the title to differ, yet two have the website while four don't. I must have fallen asleep when doing that section. I've added some in & will look for others, but if spot any others please shout.— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) You also have a few archived links, but not many at all, suggest that's made more consistent. I will try to rectify this.— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Is there no "Lists of ..." category into which this could also fall? Not that I could find - as I said this is "first of kind".— Rod talk 17:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC) Put it in the same list categories as List of Church of England dioceses (ie a CofE parent and a relevant geography parent).--Nilfanion (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC) I think I'm all good but for the use of bold alone which is in contravention of MOS:ACCESS, like WP:NOSTRIKE, i.e. By default, most screen readers do not indicate presentational text attributes (bold, italic, underline).... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC) @Rodw, The Rambling Man, and Mattximus: I've removed the bolding, replacing it with a footnote. I think that gives the message more clearly and in a compliant fashion now?--Nilfanion (talk) 20:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Each parish is administered by a parish priest who may be assisted in his pastoral duties by a curate or curates, who are also ordained but not the parish priest." This does not sound right. Maybe "also ordained but are not parish priests".

• Done.— Rod ^talk 18:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• " A benefice or living in the Church of England describes any ecclesiastical parish or group of ecclesiastical parishes under a single stipendiary minister, as well as its related historical meaning." I would delete " as well as its related historical meaning" as unnecessary and confusing.

• Done.— Rod ^talk 18:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• "The term dates from the grant of benefices by bishops to clerks in holy orders as a reward for extraordinary services." I cannot see anything about extraordinary services in the source.

• The source does say "on the ground of some extraordinary merit on the part of the grantee." which I think has been rephrased.— Rod ^talk 18:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• This seems to me misleading. The article says that the term dates from the grants of land to soldiers in the Roman Empire, and was adopted by the church on the Continent in the sixth century for grants of land to clergy of extraordinary merit. Extraordinary merit is different from extraordinary services, and "clerks in holy orders" are not mentioned. The term may not have been used in sixth century Frankia. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:36, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have removed that sentence as it is explained at benefice which is wikilinked from that paragraph.— Rod ^talk 16:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• The rest of the paragraph is unreferenced.

• Ref added for civil parishes but I'm not sure the final sentence can be sourced.— Rod ^talk 19:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• "The area covered includes the Chew Valley, and used less formally to cover other nearby areas" I do not understand this. Surely an area must be formally either in or out of a deanery area?

• Changed to "and surrounding areas.— Rod ^talk 19:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• What does "unparished" mean?

• See comment & responses to TRM in capped section above - where User:Nilfanion said "::*Bath has parishes - there are several ecclesiastical parishes listed in the relevant section. It doesn't have civil parishes, and an appropriate wikilink to unparished area should suffice. That is the correct term, although it is somewhat confusing in this context...".— Rod ^talk 19:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Is information available on which parishes have alternative oversight?

• I will go and look for this.— Rod ^talk 19:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• The Bishops of Ebbsfleet provides alternative oversight to this area, see [17]. Not sure how to format, but that fact is probably more interesting than most.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• The Bishop of Ebbsfleet is included (and I've added a reference for this) however I can not find a list of which parishes this applies to.— Rod ^talk 10:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Most of the undeveloped area is within the Bristol and Bath Green Belt." Does undeveloped mean rural? If so, I think it is a better word.

• Some is rural farmland, but there centres of population, so I think it might depend on your definition of "rural" but have changed & linked to Rural area (see Rural area#United Kingdom for some definitions but I don't know if the area covered by the Chew Magna Deanery strictly meets this (even though I live in it).— Rod ^talk 19:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• "The area is split between Bath and North East Somerset and Mendip." I would clarify that you are referring to local government areas.

• Done

• This is a first rate list, but I do not think that you should have so many names, especially of deans. It will be very difficult to ensure that the article is always kept up to date. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:33, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comments. I am only aware of four names & then change very infrequently

• I am not sure whether we are talking about the same thing regarding names. I find around 18 deans, each of whom you name, and with other officials you name about 24. There must surely be several changes each year with promotions, retirements etc?

• I will remove the specific names at Deanery level as I try to add the location coords but will leave this at Archdeaconry level as these are more significant, fewer & don't change often.— Rod ^talk 10:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. I have now removed the names at Deanery level.— Rod ^talk 16:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Cmnt

I think this sort of list, since it covers public locations, should include address or map locations. Nergaal (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. This would not be simple as the parishes covers irregular areas of widely different sizes. We could give the grid refs for the churches (which are all available in the church articles) but these would not necessarily be a central point in the parish & would get complex where there is more than one church in the parish.— Rod ^talk 19:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• There are many entries with no linked article. Considering the scope of this list, having some locator here would be quite convenient. Nergaal (talk) 20:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• Would you suggest that the grid ref/lat long of the church is given?16:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have changed the first table (Deanery of Bath) to include the coords - could you look at this to see if it is what you mean before I do the rest? - with a long list like this it is a significant edit.— Rod ^talk 16:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help. I've now done all tables. Could you take a look & make sure this is what you intended.— Rod ^talk 16:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Review by PresN

• "The parish with its local parish church is the basic unit of the Church of England." - halfway through this paragraph, you change subjects entirely, and not as a short setup for discussing parishes within Bath and Wells. I think that it would flow better if the first half of this paragraph was a part of the 1st paragraph, and the rest with the 3rd, even if that makes the (new) second paragraph a bit long.

• Done.— Rod ^talk 10:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• "Such a life freehold is now subject to certain constraints" - this sentence is odd, given that there's nothing else for the "now" to be set against, and since it doesn't say what the constraints are the sentence doesn't mean very much.

• Removed.— Rod ^talk 10:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• It's odd that you call out that there are 12,600 parishes in the CofE, but don't say how many parishes are in Bath and Wells (I know it's in the infobox, but still).

• Added.— Rod ^talk 10:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• "The deadery covers villages in South Somerset and Taunton Deane" - deanery?

• Well spotted - changed.— Rod ^talk 10:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Grid refs for the churches would be good, I think (perhaps with a note up at the top that its for the church(s), not the center of the area); area polygons for the parishes is far too heavy an ask even if it'd be more helpful.

• I am going to work on adding grid refs over the next day or two. Nilfanion would be much better than me to comment on polygons & maps than I am.— Rod ^talk 10:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Also, can we get a small map of where in England this diocese is? Like the kind in Somerset, with "Somerset and small areas of Devon, Dorset, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire" shaded?

• With regards to maps/polygons, the CofE has created online data which could easily be adapted. Unfortunately its licensing is too restrictive for us (and I have asked). That rules out individual maps for each parish. For small scale maps, the civil parishes could be used as an approximation and would capture the major deviations from the county boundary.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• The tables do not meet WP:ACCESS requirements; specifically, they need colscopes and rowscopes. --PresN 18:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• I have changed the first table (Deanery of Bath) to include column & row scope - could you look at this to see if it is what you mean before I do the rest? - with a long list like this it is a significant edit.— Rod ^talk 16:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

• Almost, with rowspans you have to have a line break after the first column's cells. I've done this for you in that first table. --PresN 15:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for the advice (and example). I've copied your lead with the next couple of deaneries and will work on doing these (along with coords) for the others over the next few days.— Rod ^talk 17:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks - I've followed your lead and now done the other tables. Could you check this now meets WP:ACCESS requirements please.— Rod ^talk 16:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

• Looks good, Support. --PresN 02:00, 29 May 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC) [18].

---

Billboard Latin Music Award for Hot Latin Song of the Year

Nominator(s): Brankestein (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think that the Billboard Latin Music Award for Hot Latin Songs is an important recognition for Spanish-language hits in the United States. Brankestein (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from – jona ✉ 17:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

;Comments by AJona1992 Why isn't Latin music, radio airplay, streaming, and digital (music downloads), not linked? "performers of the best performing" – needs variety "when it started to also measure" – awkward English "From 1995 to 1998, each music genre's field (Pop, Tropical/Salsa and Regional Mexican) had their own Hot Latin Track of the Year category" – why aren't they linked to their respective articles? "Both artists are also the only ones to have received more than one award." – the prose could be improved You've mentioned Enrique Iglesias already; Iglesias would suffice in subsequent mentions. "Nominations were not present prior to 1999" – another example of weak prose. Should artists be linked more than once in the table? Is it really necessary to add all artists who have received an award be mentioned in the "records" subsection? – jona ✉ 21:55, 16 April 2018 (UTC) @AJona1992: Thanks for your comments! I edited the page following your suggestions. It should be better now. Brankestein (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC) "songs" is mentioned three times in a single sentence I actually meant that the pop, tropical/salsa, and regional Mexican fields should have been linked with their corresponding award articles, though on further investigation, they do not exist which is probably why you did not link them. But on further thought, it is best to still have the genre's link for readers uninformed on the diversity of Latin music, so no changes there. – jona ✉ 19:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC) I suppose the "songs" repetition is better now. Brankestein (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support now that my comments have been resolved. – jona ✉ 17:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

*Don't be afraid of redlinks. I know there aren't articles for several of the awards shows, but there likely should be, which makes redlinks acceptable. "The award is given to the best performing singles' acts" Clunky, leaves open for interpretation rather this is awarded for "singles" in the record sense, or "singles" in the solo act sense. In the infobox, 2015 is not current. Is this a judged award at all? Or based purely on sales/airplay? Then wouldn't the winners be actually known ahead of time? Courcelles (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. According to the Billboard Music Awards website, "finalists are based on key interactions with music fans, as well as album and digital songs sales, radio airplay, streaming, touring and social engagement." I couldn't find anything about how the winners are chosen. I thought the awards were given according to Billboard's year-end charts, but in 2017 those measured data from December 3, 2016 to November 25, 2017, while the 2018 awards measured data from February 4, 2017 to January 27, 2018. Despite that, in 2007 the Hot Latin Song of the Year (for the 2006 period) was Mariano Barba's "Aliado del Tiempo", which ranked at number four on the 2006 Hot Latin Songs year-end chart. The same goes for Tito El Bambino's "El Amor", which won the award in 2010 despite not having ranked within the chart's top 100 best-performing songs of 2009. Also, Don Omar won in 2012 for "Taboo" (number two on 2011's year-end) and Michel Telo in 2013 for "Ai Se Eu Te Pego" (number five on 2012's year-end), so I don't know how the winners are chosen. Brankestein (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support I'd still like to see all the years' ceremonies redlinked, but that's not enough to withhold support for. Courcelles (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• I'm seeing a couple violations of MOS:ALLCAPS in the references.
• Some references give the publisher by their name (I.e Billboard and Telemundo), while others give the base url (i.e axs.com and billboardevents.com). Try and keep it consistent.

That's all I found. Freikorp (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Brankestein: The comments from Freikorp have been up for a while, and it's unclear if you addressed all of Courcelles comments beyond the final question. Are you still working on this list? --PresN 19:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I did not see those comments on my notifications. I have edited the article following the user's suggestions. Brankestein (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Happy to support this now. Don't feel obligated but I'm looking for comments on my FLC. Freikorp (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments Is there a reason that " (Pop, Tropical/Salsa ..." pop, tropical and salsa are capitalised here and in the table? Alejandro Fernandez has a diacritic missing. " The current holders as of the 2018" you don't need both, stick with "as of 2018, the holder..." "[6][7][8]" why aren't those in the Ref column? Image captions which are fragments should not use a full stop. Several song titles (e.g. "No Me Doy Por Vencido", "Livin' La Vida Loca") have capitalisation issues. Tal Vez is piped to a redirect. "Juan Magan " diacritic please. Award ceremonies without articles should be linked, even though they'll be red. Avoid SHOUTING in the ref titles. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The article was edited following your comments. Thanks for your suggestions! Brankestein (talk) 00:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Source review – The references for this article all appear to be reliable, and spot-checks of refs 5, 12, and 13 show no verifiability concerns. I did find a few items worth commenting on, though:

• Reference 28 (AXS) is showing up in orange on the link-checker tool, which means it may be dead. Please check it to see if it's still working. If not, try looking on the Internet Archive for an archived version or find a replacement for it if no archive exists of the page. The rest of the links check out fine.
• The page number for ref 5 is LM-8, not LM-52 as the cite says. I think this was meant to give the total number of pages to that point, but this is an incorrect citation method. We should be using the page number of the given section, not some total that doesn't actually help the reader find the page in the most direct way.
• Minor, but the hyphen in ref 29's title should be turned into an en dash for style purposes. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I edited the page number for ref 5 and added an en dash in ref 29. The link for ref 28 is still working. Brankestein (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Your changes look good. With everything resolved, I consider this source review a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 31 May 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:02, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 4 June 2018 (UTC) [19].

---

Best Male Athlete with a Disability ESPY Award

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Here's another list from the ESPY stable, the award that honors those male athletes with a disability who have excelled. I will endeavour to address the queries raised by those who care to review this list in a timely manner. Thanks in advance. MWright96 (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Like disability sports in lead
  • Actually that's all I could find.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Your sole query has been resolved. MWright96 (talk) 14:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
      • In that case I support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support I got nothing. Courcelles (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Surely Eli Wolff, as a Paralympian, is inherently notable and should be linked/have an article?

  Paralympians aren't considered inherently notable unless they won a medal, per WP:NOLY. Courcelles (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• I would reorganise the lead so that after the Wolff clause, you talk about "The Best Male Athlete with a Disability ESPY Award trophy, designed by sculptor Lawrence Nowlan,[6] is presented to the disabled sportsman adjudged to be the best at the annual ESPY Awards ceremony in Los Angeles.[3]" and then go on to talk about the previous three years awards, keeping the detail on this specific award together rather than split by the former award.
• "who had won two" not sure you need "had" here.
• "those who have competed in sledge hockey, mixed martial arts and wrestling have all won twice" reads odd to me, something like "with two winners each coming in sledge hockey..."?
• Add row scopes.
• Ref(s) -> Refs
• Spaced hyphen in ref 1 title should be a spaced en-dash.

That's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: Everything apart from the Eli Wolff wikilink has been addressed. MWright96 (talk) 13:19, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

  Ahh, well I didn't know that. I learned something today! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:20, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

:Hi MWright96, great work! Please find my comments below: Lead was first bestowed as part of the ESPY Awards in 2005 link 2005 ESPY Awards more awards than any other sport with four with two winners each coming in sledge hockey, sledge hockey removed duplicate unlinked "sledge hockey" The 2017 winner link 2017 ESPY Awards Winners by sport table correct link to Paralympic association football Refs Ref 27 link – The Union (newspaper) I have cleaned up the code in table to be consistent across the other ESPY award articles, added a navbox of the winners, and checked all links and refs. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC) @Ianblair23: Thanks for the review and your edits. All of the above suggestions have been implemented into the list. MWright96 (talk) 06:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Wonderful job MWright96, looking forward to see the remainder of the series here at FLC. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

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