Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2017

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Eve episodes

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone! The following is a list of episodes for Eve, an American television sitcom that revolves around two sets of male and female friends attempting to navigate relationships with the opposite sex. I would greatly appreciate any feedback for this list. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from 1989

• The lead looks good. I have no comments for that.

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• I see only a few episodes that claim the viewership. If you can't find the ones that are missing, that's fine.

• Unfortunately, I cannot find the ratings for the other episodes. Aoba47 (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• The summaries of the episodes are pretty short. Maybe expand them?

• I have attempted to expand some of the summaries, but unfortunately, I could not do that much as I have never actually watched a single episode of this show. I mostly relied on the episode summaries that were already in the list before I expanded it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

MCMLXXXIX 23:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• @1989: I have responded to your comments. Thank you for your input! I greatly appreciate it, and look forward to hearing back from you. Aoba47 (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support @Aoba47: Fair enough. Good work. When you have the chance, could you review my FLC? MCMLXXXIX 00:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• @1989: Thank you for your support and I will provide comments for your FLC by the end of tomorrow if that is okay. Aoba47 (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from User:Tintor2

The article looks in really good shape but I wonder why there is no information about the home media release of the series. Is it not applied in this project's guidelines? Anyways, that's the only issue I found besides adding references to every season's introduction. Wikipedia's summaries are written as neutral as possible so I don't why you need help from another source. Ping when you reply me.Tintor2 (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: Thank you for your comments! I have included information about the home media release of the series in the last sentence of the lead. It was never released on DVD or Blu-ray (most likely due to either lack of demand, the amount of copyrighted music, or a combination of both) and it only received a digital release through iTunes and Amazon.com. This information cannot really be represented in a table as done with physical home media releases, and I am not sure if it would be worth it to create a separate section that would only be repeating a sentence already found in the lead (the iTunes and Amazon releases are just the episodes and do not include any special features or anything else noteworthy). I have removed the references from the summaries per your comment. I need to read through Wikipedia's policies on summaries in the near future. Thank you again and I apologize for the long response. Aoba47 (talk) 14:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay then, I'll support it. Good work Tintor2 (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: Hello again! I apologize for the random message/ping, but I was wondering if you could do a source review for this. It should be relatively straight-forward, but I understand if you do not have the time. I am just curious as this has been sitting here for a little bit of time and I would like to get some forward progress done on it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review.

All sources appear to be reliable and are archived in case we lose the original. I'll support but doesn't the final one lack a wikilink for "TV Art". Then again I'm not too familar with the project. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Support from User:AffeL

Support. The article looks great. I can't seem to find any problems with it. - AffeL (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• @AffeL: Thank you for your response and I look forward to working with you further in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Carbrera

• On Reference #1, fix the publication link so it is no longer a redirect. Other than that I support this candidate. Carbrera (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC).

• @Carbrera: Thank you for your comment. I have corrected the publication link. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support as per Carbrera. Eddie891 (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@FLC director and delegates: Just providing a note to the FLC coordinators that I think this is ready for promotion as it has a source review and comments. Aoba47 (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do a review of the list in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you; I apologize for the inconvenience and pinging you >< Aoba47 (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

No apology necessary. I'll get to reviewing this as soon as I can, hopefully within the next 24 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments Any reason for the image caption to be centrally aligned? I copied and pasted the template from another article, and accidentally left in the central alignment. It has been removed. Aoba47 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC) " most often-recurring" looks odd to me, perhaps "most frequently recurring". Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC) Overview table, should that "U.S. viewers" be an "average"? What does the number actually represent? It should represent the average number of U.S. viewers that watched that seasons. However, after looking at it again, I am not sure if it is necessary and it could be safely removed. What do you think about it? Aoba47 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC) " at the end of Casablanca ." remove space before the full stop. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC) A lot of episodes have no viewer ratings, perhaps N/A instead of the em-dash. Good idea, I will complete this by the end of the day. Aoba47 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC) Done. Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC) Original air date references could all be put into the table header instead of repeating the same thing each and every line. Very true. I was wondering if I could that as it is unnecessarily repetitive as it currently stands. I will also get to this by the end of the day if that is okay. Aoba47 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC) Done. Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC) "doesn't know" avoid contractions, check the other synopses. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC) I apologize for this. I should have checked this more closely. I believe that I have caught all of them, but I will do another run-through later today when I complete the above two comments. Aoba47 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: I have addressed all of your comments. Thank you for your help! Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Any updates on this? Aoba47 (talk) 03:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC) [2].

---

List of ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This list covers all of the warships and large auxiliaries operated by the Royal Yugoslav Navy between its establishment immediately after World War I until its disbandment in the latter stages of World War II. It recently went through Milhist A-Class review and was significantly improved, with explanatory prose and ship characteristics added to the tables. This is my first naval FLC, my other two were orders of battle. All constructive criticism gratefully received. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments This is an excellent professional-grade summary. I have only the following comments:

• "Large auxiliary vessels such as submarine tenders and tankers are included, but hulks, tugs and smaller auxiliary craft are not." - is it possible to say that the list includes only commissioned ships, or did the Royal Yugoslav Navy not work this way? (I agree with this division though, which is common in listings of naval vessels - small craft and the like generally belong in lists of auxiliaries)
  • I don't believe we'd have a definitive split, plus I'm not sure they really operated that way. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
• "All four were sunk at Salonika in October 1944" - were they scuttled by the Germans (from memory, this is when they were evacuating Greece), or sunk by Allied forces? Nick-D (talk) 03:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Scuttled. Fixed. Thanks for taking a look, Nick! Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Support My comments are now addressed. Great work with this article: it really is a model for others. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, it got improved a great deal during ACR. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:56, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed the list at the ACR, and my concerns were addressed there. Great work. Parsecboy (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments I would kill that TOC, or reduce to top level headings as right now, with the brief lead, there's a vast amount of white space at the top of the article, very unappealing. Moved to TOC level 2. Claims in the lead, such as "The KJRM was formed in 1920, but it was not until March 1921 that a number of former Austro-Hungarian vessels were transferred...", if not expanded upon in the list (which they're not, are they?) should be inline referenced in the lead. Most are cited in the body, but added a citation for that sentence. " Royal Navy Flower-class corvette HMS Mallow" avoid WP:SEAOFBLUE. Yeah, but they are all relevant. T5 became Ter, but because of the row spans, this is difficult to follow. I get that in a couple of cases, but I think reducing repetition is more important in a list of this type. Kajmakčalan became TČ 392, but that's not explicitly described anywhere. For non-experts like me, this is a source of possible confusion, like a type (similar applies to the TA48 earlier, and several other of these renamed ships). This may be milhist convention for these lists, but with the formatting and lack of explicit notes, it's subject to confusion. Where the text doesn't specify, I've specified that they were renamed. What does "deleting" a boat mean? Generally deleting from the Navy List of commissioned ships. Linked. I don't know why you need the "Royal Yugoslav Navy" cat when you have a "Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy" category... Sure, removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support I reviewed this at ACR, but I have another concern.

• Regarding the citations in the tables, with reference to List of destroyers of India, List of battleships of Germany, List of heavy cruisers of Germany, List of battlecruisers of the United States etc. where it is instantly clear where each statistic in the tables comes from. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 04:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think it is pretty clear that the citations of the text cover the table below. Re-citing each column or row would just create unnecessary clutter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I do know that. But this issue was put in by AustralianRupert during my "List of destroyers of India" FLC. May be he could give us an opinion. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:37, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
      • Sure, although I think Rupert is taking a break from reviewing at present. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support, my only problem with the article was if the text citation covered the table info, which it does. You may wish to make some note of that, either in hidden text, or an {{efn}}. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look. Given Krishna made a similar comment, I've added a note to cover this issue. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:33, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 02:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC) [3].

---

List of international goals scored by Fernando Torres

Nominator(s): Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it reflects on the career statistics of a globally recognized footballer in a well structured and interesting manner. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:35, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments I'd prefer to see the image within the lead section. You start the article with a statement that could easily go out of date. I would go for something more static and then go on to say that "As of January 2017, he is the third-highest scorer for Spain". "Having previously represented Spain at various youth level" no need for "previously" here, it's implied by the "youth level" comment. "in an friendly match" a, not an. "included in which was a brace" just "including a brace" and link "brace". " thereby ending Spain's run" no need for "thereby". "all of which came in a hat-trick scoring performance in" simplify to "a hat-trick against..." " having previously scored in the 2008 edition" no need, you've already mentioned this two paras beforehand. Hi The Rambling Man, thank you for the comments. I have made all of the above changes. I will have the rest done by Sunday at the latest. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC) "which couldn't prevent the reigning champions from crashing out" avoid (a) contractions and (b) POV language. "and 4 a piece during" ->"4 in both" Avoid use of # to represent No., per WP:HASH. Done up until here so far. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC) Why isn't table sortable? Table needs row anc col scopes for WP:ACCESS. No explanation for bold in scorelines. Look at List of international goals scored by Wayne Rooney for an alternative way of doing it. Avoid WP:DASH violations in ref titles, e.g. scorelines should use en-dash, not hyphen. That's it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Alrighht, The Rambling Man, back to you. The table is now sortable with rows, the bold is explained and the dahses have been fixed. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC) You'll need to link everything that's linkable each time in the table now it's sortable, since the linked element may no longer appear first. Oh, and "Salamanca Spain" needs a comma. I'll do a thorough re-review in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Done the linking and added the comma. Give me a shout when you've got more feedback from the re-review. Thanks for your time. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Any further thoughts @The Rambling Man:? Liam E. Bekker (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Sorry Liam, other distractions. I appreciate the updates, very much. One thing still sticks and that's the intro sentence. I'd be tempted to write something like "Fernando Torres is a Spanish international footballer who has represented his country X times, scoring Y goals." and then go on to to do all the rest. After all, this is a list about the international goals that Torres has scored, I can think of no better way to introduce the topic... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC) I like that approach. I've made the change to the introduction and made one or two small edits to the body. Let me know if there is anything else that stands out. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support – I made a minor edit to the lede just now, but otherwise, the list looks nice! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 23:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - I made a minor edit to the lede removing word "also". This list looks good to me. We're looking for additional reviewers on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international goals scored by Abby Wambach/archive1. Hmlarson (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support. Looks great. Wonderful work on this. - AffeL (talk) 15:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support I believe its good enough to be a featured​ list articles. (Price Zero (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC))

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC) [4].

---

List of international goals scored by Abby Wambach

Nominator(s): Hmlarson (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... Wambach retired last year and the list is finalized. Hmlarson (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Fenix down and Harvardton

:Comments from Fenix down Overall, I think the basic information is contained within the list to ensure it would pass FL standards without too much in the way of additions. However, I think it actually needs a lot of trimming as there is an awful lot of what I would call "guff" in there which really makes it difficult to read. I would recommend the following actions taken as there is a clear style for FL Lists of International Goals as demonstrated by all the current FLs such as Rooney, Henry, Healy, Keane, Klose and Charlton, which this list should attempt to mirror: I don't think the summary is necessary, I'm not sure where the calculation methodologies have come from, but they seem a bit OR'y to me. also, much of what is there has nothing to do with the goals scored. The following columns should be removed from the list of goals: Goal - There is no need for this as there is no need to list each cap Lineup - not relevant to a list of goals and not standard use # - This is just confusing and is self evident from the tabulation Min - Not standard. To be honest though this does seem relevant, so not sure why it is not in the current FL selection, so no real problem keeping this in Assist / Pass - I could accept that this might be more relevant for an American player, but the notion of an "assist" is hotly debated in football, so if this were to remain, these would all need to be clearly referenced in the same way each goal is I'm not sure how helpful the colour coding is. It's not used anywhere else and is quite confusing. I would rework the order of columns so they match with the current FL standard I would have a separate reference column, that way where one reference covers multiple elements in a row there is no need to have multiple superscripts The "Goals Categorised by type of match display 1/2" is overkill. A more concise summary is simply to echo the breakdown section commonly used The assists table should be removed entirely, this is a list of Wambach's goals, not other peoples' assists. It is also completely unreferenced. The goals by country table is not standard. I'm not vehemently against it, but I'm not sure what it adds. All it seems to say is that she scored against a wide variety of teams which one would expect anyway. Is there anything particularly notable about this table? If not, I would remove it, if so, I would bring that out in sourced prose. The assists sections should be removed entirely, this is a list of Wambach's goals not her assists for other people's goals. Hope this helps. Fenix down (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC) Harvardton - do you have any thoughts on any of these suggestions? Would you be willing to edit the article with some or all of these to be more in line with other featured lists? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2017 (UTC)List of international goals scored by Landon Donovan is also an example that was recently passed as FL. Hmlarson (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Harvardton - perhaps the assist data could be moved to its own article so it is not lost. She ranks third in assists in the history of the team. Hmlarson (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC) User: Hmlarson, User:Fenix down - Comments from User: Harvardton the list was created for completeness of information, since this is an encyclopedia. USSoccer provided these information on their website, unlike other federation which makes it hard to find information on their players it is not intended to be a summary of goals scored, it is not just an article of Wambach for which there is a separate biographical article each piece of information contained in the list have at least one citation assist is part of the game just like goals, without the rest of the team Wambach will score no goal, nor will the other team members without the rest of the team. Assist should be enumerated as part of her achievement. There are some very good players who score few goals but provide assist to other players. Wambach is one player who scored more than anyone and has provided third number of assist, which makes her a great player. the calculations of summary is similar to other articles, and I took the trouble to put it in the article. Those are information fitting of an encyclopedia personally, I will not excise information from the article. However, it could use some editing to improve the appearance of the tables However, I made my contribution to wikipedia and expect nothing in return and is mindful that articles can be edited by others. Frankly, List of international goals scored by Landon Donovan is quite bland. BTW, I had collected all the match reports on Donovan's goals but did not have the time to put the list together. Harvardton (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Hmlarson do you intend to address these comments? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC) I'm going to have a look at this today and present an alternative version closer to the current accepted FL style for this type of list. Fenix down (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Fenix down what's happening? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC) I think I am most of the way there, currently working through a large number of dead links as pre 2012 the us soccer links are gone. Am replacing those with archived links. Will also then need to wiki link to the competitions goals were scored in and then use the sources to identify the ground matches were played at and link properly to them. One more small table to add and a bit of copy editing on the prose and I think we can have another look. Have been busy recently but will be sending a few hours on it tomorrow. Fenix down (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC) Competitions wiki-linked. ✔ Perhaps the bot that fixes dead links + updates with archive.org links can assist with the archive urls. Hmlarson (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the help. I'll have a look at the other bits today. Hopefully we can get this to FL soon. Fenix down (talk) 07:36, 30 January 2017 (UTC) re: your edit citing overlinking, featured list List of international goals scored by Landon Donovan is overlinked applying the same rationale. Hmlarson (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Hmlarson Harvardton The Rambling Man I have addressed all my points above. Not saying it is perfect, but if you guys want to have a look and make any changes you think are useful, please do, then we should try again at FL status. HMLarson, happy for you to increase the amount of linking if you think necessary, but I removed duplicates per MOS:DUPLINK and WP:OLINK, where the duplicated links were place names or competition names and so repeating the linkage would not help readers increase their understanding of the list, so arguable Landon Donovan should not have them either, but I'm not precious about it as the list is pretty lengthy so a degree of repetition is perhaps ok. Fenix down (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC) The article is currently a FL candidate. It's status has not changed. Can you clarify what you meany by "try again"? Hmlarson (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Sorry, as nothing had happened in three weeks before Ibegan editing it and because it had only edited the archive page, I assumed it had been closed as a failure due to inactivity. Fenix down (talk) 23:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from AF4JM

Only 2 things I see that might could use a bit of improvement... The reference tot he latest goal in a World Cup should be 120+2 since the game is only 120 minutes it couldn't have been at 122 minutes. The location names outside the US don't indicate what country. Sure the ones that are linked it's simple enough to hover, but for the ones that aren't, if you don't know it, you've got to either copy-paste to the search box to find out. I know there's some standards to follow here, but this one seems a bit weird to me. Either way, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be FL.--John, AF4JM (talk) 19:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look. I don't agree about 120+2. Every article I've seen about this notable goal says 122nd minute, including the reference included in the lead. Here's a video clip. I agree adding the countries (including USA) would be a useful addition to the list. Hmlarson (talk) 21:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Y Countries have been added. Hmlarson (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Comment this nomination appears to have stalled. I would recommend the nominator(s) work on gaining extra reviews or I'll close this in seven days time. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll post a request. Will this deadline also be applied to the other FL candidates that have been open two months (namely List of international goals scored by Fernando Torres, List of Celtic F.C. managers, List of Alien characters, List of teams and cyclists in the 2014 Tour de France, List of Cardiff City F.C. players)? Hmlarson (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

If no activity occurs on those nominations for three weeks, yes. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

What else is needed The Rambling Man? Previous suggestions have been incorporated.Hmlarson (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Well you need some community "support" for its promotion. There currently exists not one !vote either for or against this list's successful nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• I give my support to this article certainly, nicely done. R96Skinner (talk) 22:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you R96Skinner. Hmlarson (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Support. Great work with this list. - AffeL (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you AffeL. Hmlarson (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support Great Job! Eddie891 (talk) 17:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Eddie891. Hmlarson (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support

• a retired professional soccer player who played as a forward - is there no way to avoid having "player" and "played" so close to each other?

• Changed to "competed". Hmlarson (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Why does "158 international goals" link to United States women's national soccer team?

• Updated broken link to subsection Hmlarson (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• In her 255 appearances for the senior national team, she scored 184 goals and currently holds the world record for international goals scored by both female and male soccer players. - I believe this should be split up. As someone who doesn't know much about soccer, I would appreciate more explanation here on the title, namely international (explaining the US's team in global soccer) and goals (I went ahead and linked it to here).

• I've changed the wording slightly from "international goals" to "goals scored at the international level". Hmlarson (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Make sure all numbers in the article have non-breaking spaces if they are in numeric form. 184 goals, for example.

• Updated two instances in lead ("184 goals" and "14 goals"). Hmlarson (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• She completed her international career having scored a total of 14 goals in her 25 World Cup match appearances, placing her second on the all-time World Cup scoring list behind Marta - as a general prose note in the 2nd and 3rd paragraph, you could use more variety from "her" and "she" with a few "Wambach"es. (possibly the first time Wambaches has appeared digitally)

• Updated. Hmlarson (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• "diving headers" - in the event someone who didn't know soccer read this article, they might not know what this is, especially since there isn't a Wikipedia article on it. Could you explain it a bit more?

• Linked to Header (association football) which details that headers "can be done by standing, jumping or diving position". Hmlarson (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• ""Wambach scored the equalizer in stoppage time helping the Americans to eventually progress to the World Cup final against Japan after defeating Brazil following a penalty shootout." - the sentence needs more structure (commas, prepositions), link "stoppage time". I got to the next sentence before realizing what the term meant, use a verb other than "helping", and put the World Cup bit in a separate sentence.

• Restructured. Hmlarson (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• There is a bit of overlinking in the "International goals" section. *Why is "2004 CONCACAF Women's Pre-Olympic Tournament" red-linked once, while other places are inconsistently linked.

• Modified. If you are looking at the table with the competitions column sorted, there will be duplicate links for goals scored on the same day. You can double-check this by looking when the column is not sorted. Some links for the Algarve Cup Group stage competitions, link to specific games within the Group Stage. Although they have Group Stage as the link text, they are actually different anchor (subsection) links. Hmlarson (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• What does the "Cap" section mean?

• Added sentence above table. Hmlarson (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• How is the "score" column sorted? Likewise, "result"? And what is the difference?

• This description is included above table. Hmlarson (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a very well-done list, and I believe my comments should be easy to address. Good work on an article related to in important soccer player! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you Hurricanehink for taking the time to review and provide feedback. I've updated the article and added comments above. Hmlarson (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for the quick reply! I'm happy to support now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Support - although I did a fair amount in the list, this was restricted entirely to formatting to align the list with other top goalscorer featured lists. None of the hard work to actually collate the information was performed by me, so think it appropriate to throw my weight behind this if it helps get it over the line to FL status. Fenix down (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC) [5].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Sharon Stone

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello, the following is a list of honors and "dishonors" received by American actress Sharon Stone. It also includes information on her non-performance honors. I look forward to receiving everyone's feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 18:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Paparazzzi

• The archived reference about the Emmy Awards does not support what is explained on the list; however, the original supports only what is on bold: "...recognizes excellence in the television industry, and corresponds to the Academy Award (for film), the Tony Award (for theatre), and the Grammy Award (for music)"

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• "The nominees are decided by MTV producers and executives; winners are decided online by the general public". Just a question, has always been that way?

• I would assume that it was not done this way through the internet (as the award show was started in 1992). Aoba47 (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Change the present tense in the The Stinkers Bad Movie Awards section, because the award is not given anymore

• Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47:: These are my comments. When you addressed them, I will support. Paparazzzi (talk) 20:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Paparazzzi: Thank you for your review! I have addressed your comments. Aoba47 (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I support this nomination. Congrats, @Aoba47:! Paparazzzi (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from FrB.TG (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

;Comments "Stone received a Chicago Film Critics Association Award, Golden Globe Award, and Saturn Award nominations for her performance as Catherine Tramell in Basic Instinct (1992)" I know this is supposed to be her awards list, but the fact that BI proved a breakthrough for her should be mentioned and then you can mention her wins/noms for the movie. Revised and added a source. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC) We get it that she has an Emmy, so I think you should mention the category she won for The Practice otherwise it becomes just repetitive. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC) You might need to attach a source to the sentence about her role in the series. Added a source. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC) I know that Golden Raspberry = generally negative reviews, but let's source the "her return to the character Tramell received negative critical reviews" part just to be on the safe side. Added three sources and changed it to mixed as even though the movie received overwhelmingly negative reviews, Stone did receive some better responses for her performance from some. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC) "non-performance honors. She has been honored" - honor in close proximity. To avoid the repetition, I would suggest to rephrase the Walk of Fame part; something like "She was inducted to the HWoF in 1995 for her contribution to film" might be better. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Tables should meet WP:ACCESS for row and col scopes (see MOS:DTT). Could you possibly explain this part to me? I have always really bad with tables so I would greatly appreciate it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC) I am talking about the grey shades in year; see Emma's awards list for further help. Oh! Thank you for the clarification. I am not sure why I missed that. I have corrected this. Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC) I do not like the current table's width - too big and the entries barely take 40% of the space. I would suggest to simply remove "width" from the tables and let them adjust accordingly or perhaps something like List of awards and nominations received by Emma Stone? Also, with 100% width, the extra space when you "show" the infobox in the first section looks awkward. Revised using the format you pointed out in the Emma Stone list. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC) "The Golden Raspberry Award, often referred to simply as the "Razzies", is an annual award show to "recognize" the worst performances in film." Unnecessary IMO (the parts I have stricken through). Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC) I think that you need to link Casino only in the Academy Awards section and not the subsequent ones. The same applies to other films. I actually used the same format from List of awards and nominations received by Jennifer Lawrence (that was actually my guide when creating this list). I am assuming that he or she did it that way so that a reader going to each individual section can have a WikiLink without the need to scroll up, but I can still remove the links if you feel that is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC) I don't feel strongly about either of them so up to you. I for one have done the opposite of Lawrence's awards list but I guess it is all based on preference. Thank you. I only did that way as I was modeling it after the Jennifer Lawrence list and I have not had much exposure to these kinds of lists in the past. I wish that this sort of thing was standardized though in the future to prevent problems like this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC) "Stone has also been awarded honors" - I would get rid of "honors". Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Is the "traveled to Israel to promote peace in the Middle East through" necessary in the list? I don't see an accolade awarded in recognition of her work in the Middle East. Am I missing something here? It is in the "Other honors" section. It is the following line: (In March 2006, Stone traveled to Israel to promote peace in the Middle East through a press conference with Nobel Peace Prize winner Shimon Peres.) I know where it is located. What I am asking is whether it is relevant since no award has been given to her regarding her work in the Middle East—the section is titled "Other honors" not "Other work". – FrB.TG (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC) @FrB.TG: I have removed the information from both the lead and the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC) There is an error in ref 26; it takes you nowhere when you click on it. Also, you need a page number. Fixed the link. I found the resource in Google Books here and for some reason, it does not have any page numbers so I am not sure what to do about this. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Reference 28 and 29 have no links. Is there a way to confirm her nominations? Unfortunately, I simply could not find sources for several of the nominations; since I could not find a source, I cited the ceremony directly. I have seen this done on other featured lists such as List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan in references 22-24. I am not sure what else I can do as I do not think there are any sources out there for these. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC) To say that the method applied at Vidya's list is incorrect would make me sound like a complete hypocrite since I have written that list. @FLC director and delegates: ? – FrB.TG (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2017 (UTC) @FrB.TG: Thank you for your response. If needed, I can try to locate some sources to support these nominations. Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 23 February 2017 (UTC) That would be great, much better than having a reference that goes nowhere. – FrB.TG (talk) 14:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC) @FrB.TG: The problem is that I cannot find a reference for the above nominations. I have looked very careful for something, but found nothing so I think this is the only way to cite them to be perfectly honest. I did the citation this way as it already been done on a featured list so I would assume that means this method has been deemed permissible. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Ref 33-35, 37, 43-46; ditto. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC) Read above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC) @FrB.TG: Thank you for your review. I have been working on a lot of different list types to try and familiarize myself with everything. I have addressed your comments and look forward to hearing back from you. Aoba47 (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC) @FrB.TG: Any updates on this? Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC) @FrB.TG: I have responded to your above comments. I am not sure what else to do about the sourcing as I feel that it is the only way to cite these nominations given the lack of online resources about them. Aoba47 (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Note: all of my comments have been taken care of. I am still unsure about those 10 references (nr# 28, 29, 33-35, 37, 43-46) that have no links and I also understand that there is nothing we can do about it (I have been through this myself multiple times). I shall leave it on the source reviewer. Other than that issue, it is a fine piece of work. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Support I don't notice anything major. Very nice work. MCMLXXXIX 20:11, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support this list, just one thing to say. Add one or two external links. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Yashthepunisher: Thank you for your support, but "awards and nominations" lists do not typically use external links. Aoba47 (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments If "Los YoGa Awards" is not notable enough for an article, why would they be notable enough to be listed here? Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Similar applies to all other Wikipedia-non-notable awards. Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC) "She has been inducted" why not just "She was..."? Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC) "... into two categories - the International ..." fix spaced hyphens per WP:DASH. Corrected. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Refs for first two Golden Globes are formatted differently from the rest. Fixed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC) "Stone has received three awards from nine nominations." looks like 10 noms to me. Corrected. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC) "Hollywood Film Festival" or "Hollywood Film Awards"? Changed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC) "Stone has two awards from seven nominations." looks like 6 noms to me. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC) " two awards out of eight nominations." looks like 9 noms to me. Fixed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC) "dignitaries. She gained enough pledges" merge, "dignitaries, gaining enough pledges" Merged. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC) Notes d and e lack refs. References added. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Thank you for your comments! I have responded to all of them. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve this list. Aoba47 (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Support – I made one change for consistency. Great work. Carbrera (talk) 00:15, 2 March 2017 (UTC).

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Source Review

Nothing too objectionable, though a couple of points regarding formatting:

• While Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) is a little vague, typically you do not include incorporation marks (LLC, Inc, Co., etc.) in the names of companies in text or references like you're doing for some of the publishers- so ref. 2 would be "Tronc", not "Tronc, Inc."

• Removed Inc. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Also, typically you don't include the publisher in a reference if it's just the same as the work, or very similar- so "New York. New York Media." would just be "New York" in ref. 5. You're actually inconsistent with this- ref 16 is missing a publisher (Guardian Media Group), but you have it for other newspapers that publish themselves.

• Removed "New York Media" and added Guardian Media Group with a link. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Either link the first instance of a work/publisher or all of them- you link Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in refs 6 and 7, and Hastings Bad Cinema Society in refs 34-36, but then only link Hollywood Foreign Press Association in ref 10 and not the next 4 refs.

• Linked all of the references to Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for archiving your online sources. I agree that you don't need access dates if you do that.

• Thank you! I tried my best with this for all of my articles/lists. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Man, citing the award ceremony is definitely sketchy. I know the precedent has been set before, but I'm still not 100% about it. Wish the minor award groups would just put up a website with some ugly lists with the information and call it a day.

• I completely agree and I do admit that it is very sketchy indeed. If this prevents the list from passing as a FLC, then I completely understand and can try to dig even deeper to find resources that cover the information. I just have not had any luck with my previous searches. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• "Movies for Grownups® Gala" - remove the trade mark in ref 53

• Oops, that is embarrassing. Removed the trade mark. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That's all, spotchecks showed no problems. --PresN 21:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• @PresN: Thank you for your review! I greatly appreciate it. I have addressed all of your comments. Let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the list. Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

A couple more:

• Ref 2 was an example, you also have them in ref 18 and 23

• Completed. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• The works in 41-44 should probably link to Chicago Film Critics Association- or better yet, have that as the publisher like you do for the Stinker awards in 34-36

• Completed. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Missed this the first time- in ref 4, you have the website non-italicized and with a capital first letter, but the opposite in ref 58. --PresN 21:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• @PresN: Thank you for the further comments. I have addressed your above comments. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Alright, passing. --PresN 02:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC) [6].

---

List of Blood-C episodes

Nominator(s): ProtoDrake (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... this article is, I feel, fairly close to becoming a featured list, as all relevant information about the episodes are included in this article and would merely create clutter if merged with another article. It's also not the right structure to be a "GA" or "FA". The one thing that may be in the way of its promotion are the episode synopses, which I will willingly alter and trim during the article's candidacy. ProtoDrake (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by User:Tintor2

The article looks good to me but there are somethings that bother me before doing the support:

• Why is every episode summary given a reference? I don't think such thing is needed.
  • Done. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Is it possible to give credits to a director, writer, or producer? See one of the latest FL, List of Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion episodes, as an example. Still, it's not that important.
  • Done. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Lastly, I suggest making a Home media release after the episodes. See the Code Geass list or List of Buso Renkin episodes.
  • I didn't realize it was necessary. I was using List of The Adventures of Mini-Goddess episodes as a reference. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• Giving my support. Good work.Tintor2 (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support @ProtoDrake: It looks fine to me. Good luck with the promotion. If you have the time, could you review a list similar to this one, since it involves anime? Thanks. MCMLXXXIX 18:00, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by User:Aoba47

• The image needs an ALT description.
• I would include the exact dates of the show's run in the lead rather than referencing just the months (between July and September 2012).
• The second and third sentences of the lead's first paragraph seem somewhat awkwardly constructed as they appear more like a list. I would revise this part and vary up the sentence structure a little to avoid making this come across as too stilted.
• Shouldn't the information about the show come before the directing/writing/production credits and the time of its broadcast? As someone who has never seen or heard of this show, it would be more beneficial to move the last sentence of the lead's first paragraph as the second sentence instead to help with an unfamiliar reader.
• Right now, there is information about the show's broadcast schedule in both the first and second paragraph of the lead. Ideally, it would better to put this information together to avoid going back and forth between topics and make a more cohesive narrative.
• You use the word "broadcast" three times in the second paragraph of the lead. Please vary your word choice.
• While it is interesting information, is the last paragraph of the lead really necessary? It is information about the show, but this list is about the episodes of the show so it is off topic. It feels more appropriate for the main article rather than here, at least to me. I would suggest removing this.

• @ProtoDrake: Great work with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Good luck getting this passed, and congratulations on getting the main article through GAN. Aoba47 (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I've done my best to address all the issues you raised. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: Everything looks good to me. Good luck with this list. If possible, could you look at my FLC as well? Aoba47 (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

DragonZero

• First episode, first sentence. The third note (Meeting the dog daily) sounds odd grammatically. I could be wrong here.
• Is there something to link Jizō to? Kshitigarbha?
• "an Train Elder Bairn" a
• I think you can do without the emphasis on terms such as guimauve or convenant.
• Do you mean the train monster is saying he was trying to honor a convenant? Or is he reminding Saya about some convenant. A bit of clarity here.
• "but he brushes him off." her off?
• "Saya encounters both the mysterious dog and has a meeting with Shinichirō" I think there's something grammatically wrong here.
• "Saya begins to experience headaches related to visions and attempts to remember her past, but finds Fumito's coffee soothes her." Clarity
• "At school the next day due to rain, Nene & Nono Motoe persuade the class to tell ghost stories, leading to Kanako to retell a legend about the Elder Bairns, in which Saya suffers another headache and fains" To improve flow, remove the "due to rain". If Nene and Nono are not a major plot point, consider rewriting to to say the class shares ghost stories leading to...
• "Saya is later confronted by the dog" Is this also the same dog from the first episode?
• Injecting Tadayoshi three times is affecting the flow of episode 7. I suggest removing her internal debate about Tadayoshi, leaving only the monster's last words to question the character.
• "As Shinichirō's attempt to confess his love for Saya is halted by Tadayoshi's arrival, Saya questions why she does not know her mother's name. " Awkward writing
• This would probably be the hardest to fix, but I think episode 12 should be written at a more overall view. Something like "Saya battles the xxx as her friends die one by one, leading to confrontation with yyy" I don't understand the yyy guy's motive though.
• Remove leading zeros and I suggest applying Mos Cap to the reference titles.

I'm not checking the references one by one but they are from reliable sources. You'll have my support after addressing the issues. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:43, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@DragonZero: I've done my best to address all the issues you raised. The only thing I can't figure out is "leading zeros". Do you mean the letter "O" in the first episode? Because that's what the episode is called. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@ProtoDrake: Probably refers to the episode numbering - the episodes are numbered 01, 02, etc rather than 1, 2...--IDV^talk 10:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Sorted. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

" Fumito shots Saya" Shoots. Support DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Source Review: Not seeing any formatting problems, and spotchecks reveal no issues, either. Passing source review and promoting. --PresN 21:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC) [7].

---

List of songs recorded by Oh Land

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list (as a competitor in the 2017 WikiCup) because I am sure it meets the criteria necessary for the FL process. It is a complete and comprehensive look at Oh Land's discography and is well sourced with all of the necessary citations. Thanks to all in advance. I will be pinging Aoba47 and The Rambling Man as they had helped me during the previous nomination. Carbrera (talk) 23:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• I support this nomination as all of my concerns were addressed in the previous nomination. I do not believe that this will count toward the WikiCup however, as you have done all of the work for the list in 2016. According to this discussion here from the talk page for the WikiCup, only contributions done after the starting date of January 1, 2017 count towards the WikiCup. However, feel free to contact the more experienced WikiCup handlers for more information and clarification about this. I just want to bring this up to you. Either way, wonderful job with the list and good luck getting it promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: Thanks. Yeah, I figured it wouldn't count. I just made the mention because the rules recommends that all participants clarify this during the process. Whether or not it applies to the candidates/nominations just for the Cup, I don't know. Better safe than sorry ;) Carbrera (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC).

• Cool, and I agree 100%. I just wanted to make sure you knew about it. Aoba47 (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've added a couple categories and support this list's promotion. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:16, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

*"independent issuing" -> "independently issuing" Done "two year" -> "two-year" Done The "0–9" link in the contents doesn't work. Done Per MOS:QWQ, "Etude in E Major, Op. 10 No. 3 "Tristesse"" -> "Etude in E Major, Op. 10 No. 3 'Tristesse{{'"}} Done Similarly, "Oh Land "Oh Land" (Alarm)" -> "Oh Land 'Oh Land' (Alarm)" Done Album titles beginning with "The" need to sort under their second word (Chopin, Flying, Papercut). Done It may be relevant to add " • Oh Land songs at Allmusic" to an External links section. Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Oppose I'm afraid that I don't think this article is at FL quality just yet. The biggest sticking point for me is the lack of references – 24 is fewer than I would expect to see in a list of this type, and, of those 24, three-quarters of them are just citations to CD liner notes. Of the remaining six, four of them reference chart placings for Oh Land's albums, leaving just two references (McAlpine and MacInnes) that provide any kind of commentary about Oh Land's songs. Surely there must be more? A Google News search for "oh land" songs returns 659 results – could any of these be used for references? Beefing up the references would also beef up the lead, which, in my opinion, is rather brief. By my count the prose portion of this article is 1,501 characters, which would just barely qualify it for DYK, never mind FL – this suggests to me that the article is not as comprehensive as it needs to be. Just one sentence is spent on Oh Land's fourth album, and only half a sentence on her debut. Is there anything more you could say? For example, are there any particular subjects that she sings about in her music? Is there any instrumentation that she regularly makes use of (strings, synth, brass)? What genres do her songs fall into? Can you be anymore specific than just "pop"? Does she have any "signature" songs? Where are her songs usually recorded? Who produces them? Which songs have been the most downloaded or streamed? On the subject of the prose, I'm concerned that some of it lacks focus. Info about album sales/chart placings/certifications would be relevant in a discography article, but is less so here – this is specifically about Oh Land's songs, not her albums. @A Thousand Doors: thank you for your concerns. I have addressed several of them already. However, I'd like to point out (that from my research) many FLs about "List of songs" generally only use CD/digital liner notes to cite within the list itself as they are sometimes the only sources that list all of the information for each particular song. I'd also like to state that a little chart performance would be beneficial in this article, as it pertains to the success of the songs (and given Oh Land, she really hasn't been too successful). I'll get on finding some sources referencing her sound/genre and ping you again ASAP. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC). I'm not saying that you need to remove any of the references, just add to the ones that are already there. Only two references that provide any discussion or commentary on Oh Land's songs is fewer than I would ordinarily expect to see in a FL. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: Thanks for the clarification. Could you check over the article again? I added new information based upon her recent soundtrack release, and some music style/production info. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC). @A Thousand Doors: Are you able to revisit your comments? Just trying to keep the ball rolling on this review. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC) Apologies for my absence. I see that two extra sentences have been added to the lead, but I'm afraid that I'm still reading this article and thinking "What else?" when I reach the end. The prose for featured lists on similar topics (e.g. songs recorded by Leona Lewis, songs recorded by Fiona Apple and songs recorded by Kelly Clarkson) is usually about 1½–2 times longer than in this article. And while I'm obviously not suggesting unnecessarily padding the lead, is there really nothing else of note that can be said about Oh Land's songs? For example, a few minutes of research turned up this article by The Guardian, which says that she recorded some of her earlier songs in a makeshift bedroom studio, then uploaded them onto MySpace. That's the sort of info that would be within the scope of this list. According to NME, the beats for some of her songs are taken from sounds she recorded out on the street. W Magazine says that her songs are characterised by "otherworldly vocals" and "lush soundscapes", and compares them to Bjork, La Roux and Lykke Li. musicOMH suggests that Dave Sitek's production on Wish Bone's songs make them not very radio-friendly. I'm not saying that you have to use any of this material, but I do think that it's close to the sort of information that could be included in the intro to make the article more comprehensive. "A Perfect Fit" needs to sort under P rather than A. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: I added two more sentences of information and am planning on adding a bit more in the next day or so. I added info from two source you mentioned. Just a thought, but I'd like to point out that Oh Land is quite frankly a less recognizable artist when compared to singers like Leona Lewis, Fiona Apple, and Kelly Clarkson. Could you do me a favor and tell me how things look so far? Are they getting any better? Thanks so much for your comments. Carbrera (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC).

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Aside from details on genres and lyrics, the lead is too singles-centric and needs more detail on non-singles; this isn't supposed to be a discography page. For example, you could say that Oh Land was the lone writer for "Love a Man Dead", "Next Summer", and "Renaissance Girls" on Wish Bone while she solely wrote all of the tracks from Earth Sick except for "Machine" and "Nothing Is Over". File:Oh Land - Roskilde Festival 2011 - Cosmopol.jpg could use a more informative description Let me know when this has been revised. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: – I added a few sentences and improved the pic. Thanks for your comments. Carbrera (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC).

• I can support this following its improvements. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC) [8].

---

List of Local Nature Reserves in Cambridgeshire

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Local Nature Reserves, in the same format as others such as List of Local Nature Reserves in Essex and List of Local Nature Reserves in Bedfordshire. I trust it will also be found to meet the FL standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments Convert the area in the lead to hectares or something equally metric. Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Any reason not to include the River Cam in that list of rivers? Perhaps it's not "major" enough...? The source refers to the county's two major rivers, the Nene and the Ouse, and its tributary the Cam. "the" should be "The Fens". Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC) "There are twenty-seven LNRs in Cambridgeshire" is there a link for this, i.e. the LNR search results, so we know this list is comprehensive? Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC) " 64 species, including four" 4 per MOSNUM. Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC) You have 10 hectares and 60.0 hectares. Be consistent with the level of precision. I am not sure what to do here. The authoritative source is the Natural England map, but the map for this site is wrong. The Wildlife Trust gives the area as 10.00 hectares, but I doubt whether it is accurate to one decimal place, let alone two. I have a contact at the Trust who I can ask. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC) The Trust say that 10 hectares is wrong and the correct figure is 11.00. They have corrected their web page and I have amended the article to show 11.0. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC) "views over the Fens. " see previous Fens comment. Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Many thanks for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man I have now completed my replies. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:06, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support thanks for your updates, decent list, good work, well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support - I ran a check of the sources, and everything is cited properly, and the links are working.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support - Well written and formatted clearly. Looks good to me. We're looking for additional reviewers on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international goals scored by Abby Wambach/archive1. Hmlarson (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2017 (UTC) [9].

---

List of Celtic F.C. managers

Nominator(s): ShugSty (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have added various references to confirm the statistics listed, verified suitability of existing references, and have added a fair bit of narrative to give context to the facts and figures. ShugSty (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Kosack (talk)

Comments: A few points from a quick run through Opening line should be Celtic Football Club rather than just Celtic - Done (ShugSty) The entire three opening paragraphs are unreferenced - The first three paragraphs are just a summary of the main text below, so I've not put any references there as per guidelines for lead sections in articles (ShugSty) Ref 8 should be attributed to The Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation rather than just rsssf - Done (ShugSty) The website in Ref 13 is no longer valid - Replaced with different source (ShugSty) Ref 28 doesn't link anywhere - Sorted (ShugSty) Ref 36 appears to be a dead link - Sorted (ShugSty) Ref 57 is listed as a match report but the link directs to an article about HIV drugs? - Sorted (ShugSty) Refs 8, 44, 50, 52, 59, 60, 61 and 66 need authors included - Done (ShugSty) Kosack (talk) 12:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Thanks a lot for the above points; I've sorted them all out, aside from the issue of no references in the lead section. ShugSty (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Comments Just a couple of other points: WP:LEAD does state that the lead should be "carefully sourced as appropriate". The only two points I would say need sourcing would be the formation date of the club and the amount of league titles, cups etc won as I don't see them mentioned or referenced within the main text. Images need alternative text, per WP:ALT. Ref 9 would be better placed at the end of the following sentence regarding the British record, at the moment the claim of the record looks unreferenced. "resigned at the behest of the Board" no need for upper case letter in board. Ref 28 will still need page numbers if you're combining its use into one reference. The Celtic F.C. category is redundant as the page is also included in the more pertinent Celtic F.C. managers category. Think that's about it. Kosack (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2016 (UTC) All points now addressed - I'm now going out to watch a certain match (and consuming appropriate beverages), so probably won't be available for day or two to check up on article review. ShugSty (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Support Looks good now. Kosack (talk) 10:22, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments nice bit of work. A couple of observations. " 1960s and '70s" -> " 1960s and 1970s" - Done (ShugSty) "18 full-time managers" 18 different full-time managers as McNeill had two separate stints.Mccccccccc - Done (ShugSty) "Jock Stein is considered the club's greatest manager, having revived..." you've already mentioned his first name in the preceding para. Also, and while I don't doubt it, this claim isn't referenced - I've referenced the claim, but still feel the text reads better using "Jock Stein" in the paragraph as opposed to just Stein - although in the subsequent sentence I have changed "Stein" to "He" (ShugSty) Name doesn't sort correctly in the table - Yep, just can't get it to work. I've removed the sort function for that column (ShugSty) That's a shame, it shouldn't be too difficult to get the sortname template working. It's probably because you have the flag in the name column too, consider breaking that out in a Nationality column of its own, which would be nice because then you could sort by it independently of the name of the manager. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC) - Good shout! Sorted (in every sense) - Shugsty Shouldn't "Caretaker manager" in the key be italics? - Done (ShugSty) McStay's note needs referencing - Done (ShugSty) It should also be a Note, not a reference - Done (ShugSty) That's about it for now. (I fixed your en-dash issues!) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Thanks for highlighting these points; hopefully I've addressed them satisfactorily. ShugSty (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support outstanding piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - Looks good to me. We're looking for additional reviewers on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of international goals scored by Abby Wambach/archive1. Hmlarson (talk) 22:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - The list is well sourced, well written and informative. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2017 (UTC) [10].

---

List of Cardiff City F.C. players

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have tidied up the original version that I created years ago to bring it up to scratch, using the various other featured player lists from other teams for pointers in improving the layout. Kosack (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments to get you started... Refs 4, 6, 7, 8, 21, 45 should be pp. Table needs rowscopes, per MOS:DTT. Images could do with WP:ALT Make sure shortened footnotes link to the citations, for instance, when I click 'Shepherd 2002' it doesn't direct me anywhere. "Statistics are correct as of match played on 17 December 2016," but I see further down "As of 12 May 2016," which one is it? Lemonade51 (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC) @Lemonade51: Thanks very much for the review, I've fixed all of the issues you raised now. Kosack (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Surely the lead caption "Robert Earnshaw, the club's third highest scorer of all time and the most recent player to pass 100 goals" needs a full stop? One dead link, no dabs. Images all seem to be appropriately licensed. Lemonade51 (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC) @Lemonade51: Thanks, I've fixed those two issues now. Kosack (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support – on style, satisfies the criteria. Lemonade51 (talk) 20:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from –Grondemar 15:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Grondemar Reluctant oppose for now due to one issue that definitely needs correction prior to any promotion: The key and main list don't align with use of color and dagger / double-dagger. The key shows lavender aligned with the double-dagger and light blue aligned with the single dagger, while usage in the main list is the opposite. Are meanings aligned with the symbol, or the color? I have a couple of other, more minor, concerns: Check use of alt text per current version of WP:ALT. Alt text should be more functional rather than an attempt to describe the contents of an image in text. Why are some players in the list referenced while some aren't? Forgive my unfamiliarity, but what makes Soccerbase a reliable source? Thanks for your attention. –Grondemar 20:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC) @Grondemar: Hi, thanks for reviewing the page. I've fixed the issue with the key now. In regards to the other points I used examples of descriptions taken from other featured lists of players from other clubs. What sort of other things should be included in ALT text? The main book sources go up to their year of publication in 2002 and 2006. Any players who played after that date use their Soccerbase profile to complete their entries. Soccerbase is pretty much the go to website for footballer's stats in the English Football League, nearly every player page in those divisions uses the site to reference statistics. Kosack (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC) @Kosack: I struck the addressed concerns above. Regarding the remaining two: Regarding WP:ALT, this page has shifted its recommendations significantly over the years. As I understand it currently, in cases like this where you are including the picture mostly to identify particular list subjects and not to confirm any aspect of their appearance, it is sufficient to put either alt=[Name of subject] or alt=Refer to caption. Regarding the references, for the subjects sourced to the general references might I suggest using {{genref}}? I created this template a while ago for this kind of situation, where a statement is referenced by a general reference but the absence of an inline citation marker, especially next to other entries that have inline citations, makes it look like the entry is unreferenced? –Grondemar 23:34, 15 January 2017 (UTC) @Grondemar: I've changed the ALT text to refer to the captions with the image. For the second point, it seems rather messy to fill the end column with around 50 links leading to the same place. I've added a note at the top of the appearance column regarding the sourcing of the statistics and a [General] link to the bottom of the page. Do you think that would be acceptable? Kosack (talk) 12:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Support—all concerns resolved. In my opinion this list meets the criteria. –Grondemar 15:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments Shouldn't the article title include the fact it's 100+ appearances? " the FA Cup in 1927," etc, should avoid the easter egg links on these years. The lead is more focused on the "club than the players, I'd expect to see a little more on the individuals in the list than the history of the club here. "Statistics are correct as of the match played on 8 January 2017" needs a full stop. Notes col doesn't need to be sortable. Accessdates for statistics of current players look a little suspect if they haven't been used since August last year... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the comments. In reply to a couple: The naming seems to be the standard for these types of lists. A number of lists in the English club category are featured and do not include the number of appearances in the title. I wasn't aware that the accessdate would need updating everytime the table is. Is that how the accessdate works? I've fixed the other points apart from the opening which I'll try and get sorted soon. Kosack (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Made some changes to the opening now to hopefully put more of a spotlight on the players rather than the club. Kosack (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support happy now. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• All looks good; I'd prefer if the soccerbase references were archived, but it's not a requirement. Formatting is fine, spotchecks revealed no issues. Not a fan of leaving most of the table cited to "general" rather than specific cites, but given that it's still clear which work is referencing what, and while page numbers wouldn't be present it's still easy enough to find the information if you have the reference books, I'm not going to oppose over it. --PresN 17:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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