Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2014

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of lighthouses in Connecticut

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

The list was promoted by  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC) diff.[reply]


Nominator(s): ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete list of extant light houses in Connecticut and contains fully sourced details for each lighthouse. Each entry is given an image and a link to the article with accurate geographical coordinates. This is my first Featured List nomination. Also note that this work was done in 2013 and is not subject to Wikicup rating. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Favre1fan93

Prose:

Great.

Lead:

Should not start out with "This is a list of". Choose something more engaging, as a reader will most likely already know it is a list, based on the page. End of paragraph 1 information has no source. Same with the end of paragraph 2.

Comprehensiveness:

It seems fully comprehensive of the specified content.

Structure:

Very easy to navigate.

Style:

Not sure what all the super scripts after reference 5 represent. I cannot open reference 11, and reference 20 does not give me the article it intends. All the notes you used do not have sources. All references can possibly use "filling out" with some more information, and the page needs date formatting per WP:MOSNUM.
A) Visuals are fine.
B) Images are fine.

Stability:

Article is stable - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I'll get right on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Agree with comments, above, by Godot13. Also, would be helpful for the reader if there were in-line-citations after the factual info presented in the Notes section, after each one of those individual entries. After that's addressed, I'd be happy to reconsider support. Keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the updates and sorry for the delays, I've been completely overwhelmed with work for a number of weeks now and I've been scrambling to fix up other much demanded things I owed other editors as well. Thanks for the clear information on what is needed Godot13! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes 1 and 6 can be consolidated to one, as they state the same thing. The "skeleton tower" info is not sourced in the lead or the table. References still need expansion to the best of the info available, and date formatting per WP:MOSNUM. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot figure out how to combine the two notes into a single one, could you please assist? I've added the access dates and made all the dates compliant. I added Anderson to the author list from his website and unified all the publisher fields to LighthouseFriends.com as well. I replaced the last reference with the United States Coast Guard source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note issue fixed... is it good? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 07:25, 28 March 2014 [1].

Mack 10 discography

[edit]
Nominator(s): CrowzRSA 03:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am renominating this for featured list because there is no reason why this article should not have been passed as FL. All the comments by TheRamblingMan were addressed and no one else took the time to comment on this discography. I will be pleased to address any concerns with this article. Thanks, CrowzRSA 03:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question I'm not familiar at all with Mack 10, but is "I Want it All" really a cover of the Queen song as you've linked in the Guest appearances section? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it's an original song; I Want It All (Warren G song). It'd sound quite odd converting Queen's music to rap, in my opinion xD. CrowzRSA 17:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So link it correctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, Fixed. CrowzRSA 16:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cambalachero (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment: I don't think that a "see also" is an appropiate article hatnote, that section is for disambiguations. You should move that link to a "See also" section, and/or link it in the lead if appropiate. You should mention in the opening sentences that Mark 10 is a rapper, it is evident that he is a musician, but the detail of his music genre should be mentioned directly, not in a passing by "...being produced by fellow rapper...". "After signing to Priority Records in 1995, Mack 10 released his self-titled debut album that June": I think it may be better to say "in June". I think that "being produced" is the wrong tense, as you don't mean to talk about an ongoing activity in the past, but something that was already finished when the other things of the sentence were taking place. Use just "produced". In "Rhyme & Reason", you shouldn't include the word "soundtrack" as part of the link. "certified Gold in the US by RIAA for its sales" is a bit redundant: when you say or discuss about an album being certified gold, you are talking about its sales, so just end the sentence in "RIAA". "His fourth studio album, The Paper Route (2000), failed to earn the rapper any RIAA certifications; however, the album debuted at number nineteen on the Billboard 200" seems to be in the wrong order. I think it would be more natural to say the Billboard bit first, and then the lack of RIAA certifications. As "Bang or Ball" is the first album in a new label, you should mention the year. And make sure that the list is consistent with the main article on Mack 10: that article mentions a 2013 album "2000-1-0" and a 1997 collaboration "In tha Beginning...There Was Rap", which are not mentioned here. If they are missing here, add them, if they are incorrect there, remove them. Cambalachero (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The two-sentence first paragraph gives the lead quite a fragmented, unfinished feel, IMO.
  • Fixed
  • "The album, produced by fellow rapper Ice Cube, saw considerable commercial success, selling 500,000 copies in the US by 1997" - unsourced
  • Fixed
  • I think a lot of the commentary on album sales in the lead is original research, as there are no sales figures to back this up (only chart positions, which are relative). Also note that RIAA certification are based on shipments, not sales.
  • Are you referring to the fact that it says his album sales decline after his compilation? If so, it is now referenced.
  • Mack 10's fortunes began to fade with The Paper Route (2000), his first album to fall short of either platinum or gold sales status, and his first to not spawn a significant hit. and ...considerable commercial success before his popularity faded toward the end of the decade.. Also While Ghetto, Gutter & Gangster, released independently by Bungalo, sold poorly
  • With the introduction of the Billboard Top R&B Albums and Songs charts, I think it is important to stipulate that the "US R&B" charts you refer to here are R&B and hip-hop; perhaps 'US R&B/HH'?
  • Fixed
  • My bad, fixed now.
  • Fixed Amazon.com, MTV, and iTunes.
  • Also, looking at the US R&B/Hip-Hop chart positions, the peaks for "Only in California", "Money's Just a Touch Away", "From tha Streetz", "Tight to Def", "Connected For Life", "Lights Out" and "So Sharp" are not verified by the refs. Please check that everything is referenced—not only just the article need visible inline citations, all data must be verifiable by said references. Adabow (talk) 09:07, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this is fixed, I accidentally cited the wrong chart and it messed everything up in the table
  • Not fixed, there are still songs unverified by the refs. Also, the #98 for "Hate In Yo Eyes" should be for the R&B/HH not the Hot 100. Please double-check every single chart peak and make sure that they are correct and supported by the refs given. Adabow (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more comments: (I won't oppose over these, but do consider): I think it's more designed for song articles, but per WP:USCHARTS I would discourage using R&B/Hip Hop Airplay and Rap Songs, as they are factors and distillations of the Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs chart. Also, the current sectioning makes it seem as though guest appearances and music videos are not part of the discography (if they aren't, why are they in the article?). Perhaps level 2 sections could be 'Albums', 'Singles', 'Guest appearances' and 'Music videos'. Adabow (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the Hot Rap Songs chart, but not the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay because WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS states: If a song has not charted on Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs you may add any of the following.... Since "Only in California" charted on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Airplay but not the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, I left the chart in. As for the sectioning, that is an excellent idea and has been done. Thank you! CrowzRSA 21:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment: This nomination has been promoted. There may be a delay in the bot closing this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 02:08, 24 March 2014 [3].

John Gielgud, roles and awards

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Gielgud was a prodigious actor whose career ran from 1921 to 2000. He appeared in a huge number of films, stage shows, television dramas and radio plays. As one of the foremost actors of the 20th century awards and honours were heaped upon him (although he was always rather indifferent to such presentations). – SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – A prodigious achievement. I watched with admiration the growth of this page from scratch to its present magnificent fulness. I shall, of course, be supporting its promotion with the utmost enthusiasm, but before I do so I must take a few days to crawl over the page with critical eye. A few things occur to me immediately:

More to come. Looking forward more than I can say to combing through this masterly compilation. Tim riley (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deirdre of the Sorrows, October 1924: I think Naise should be Naoise. See here.
  • The High Constable's Wife, June 1925: Might give Julien de Boys-Bourredon his full forename
  • Gloriana, December 1925: Harrington, not Harringdon, according to Croall (2000, p. 535) and Morley, p. 53 (though not p. 461, I notice).
  • The Seagull, January 1929: Constantin this time, but he was Konstantin in October 1925. I prefer Constantin (but then I prefer Tusenbach to Tuzenbach, so what do I know?)
  • April 1930: Here's a mystery: Croall (2000, p. 536) lists another play and role between The Man with a Flower in his Mouth and Hamlet, namely Mr Hughes in The Rehearsal (by Anouilh). Neither the play nor the role is mentioned in Croall's main text, nor can I find mention of it in the archives of The Times, Manchester Guardian or Observer. Morley doesn't mention it, and neither does Gielgud. It would be injudicious to add it to the main table, but I wonder if a footnote might be in order.
  • Fumed Oak, July 1940: Henry Gow, not Henry Crow. Morley is in error. Croall correctly gives "Gow", which I have also confirmed from the published text of the play.
  • ENSA tour review, December 1942: I think this should read "revue" rather than "review"
  • The Circle, September 1944 and October 1944: Might give Arnold Champion-Cheney his full forename.
  • Richard II, July 1953: The venue was the Royal, Bulawayo, according to Croall (p. 537)
  • The Cherry Orchard, December 1961: Another odd-looking transliteration. I have only ever seen the character's name given as Gaev.
  • Oedipus Rex, January 1967: Two points here. The link should be to Stravinsky's opera, and the Festival Hall performance (conducted by Solti) was on 16 March 1967.(Sadie, Stanley. "Vigorous Stravinsky", The Times, 17 March 1967, p. 12) There was no performance of the work there in January '67.
  • The Best of Friends, January 1988: "Voice only" is miles wide of the mark. JG played Sir Sydney Cockerell and was very much there on the stage before the audience's eyes. The theatre was the Apollo, not the Royalty. Checking in Morley I see what's gone awry here: the neighbouring entries for The Best of Friends and A Tale of Two Cities have got themselves conflated.
  • I have corrected "Lyttleton" to "Lyttelton" (No Man's Land, April 1976). You have incurred a three-match suspension from Mornington Crescent.

That's all from me on the stage roles. I'll be back if I have any comments on the other tables, other than sheer wonderment. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Television
  • A Day by the Sea was shown on ITV on 31 March 1959. JG played the role of Julian Anson, as in the 1953 stage production. ("Concentration of Talents", The Times, 1 April 1959, p. 5)
  • "Play for Today" – Home, was on BBC1. ("Broadcasting", The Times, 6 January 1972, p. 19)
  • Brideshead Revisited – JG as Mr Ryder was only in the first two episodes, so the dates don't tally. Episode 1 went out on 12 October, and Episode 2 eight days later.(Davalle, Peter. "Television: BBC's Borgias v ITV's Waugh", The Times, 9 October 1981, p. XVI)
  • The Tichborne Claimant – something's gone adrift with the date. The BFI says it was made in 1997 and released in 1998.

More to come. Tim riley (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Films
  • Assignment to Kill, 1967 – Curt, not Kurt Valayan, according to Croall and the BFI
  • Galileo (1974 film) – I imagine the lack of piping is a simple oversight
  • 1974 – Croall (p. 541) lists also Frankenstein: The True Story. The BFI confirms this, though gives the year as 1973.
  • Aces High, 1976 – If we're being really pernickety, the scene is set at Eton, where they call the boss man the Head Master (two words). I suppose you have to follow the cast list, though.
  • Murder by Decree, 1978 – not sure we need Salisbury's job title: Disraeli, earlier in the list, manages very well without it.
  • 1983 – Need to add Tony Palmer's Wagner. It has been edited in various versions, including a television mini-series, I believe, but it had a cinema release in December 1983. It is notable as the only film in which Gielgud, Olivier and Richardson played scenes together. They played three courtiers bitching about Ludwig II. JG's character was called Pfistermeister.

And that really is all from me. Superb achievement on your part. I look forward to adding my support on my next visit to this page. Tim riley (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This page wholly meets the Featured List criteria for Prose, Lead, Structure Style and Stability, and as for Comprehensiveness, I can find nothing on the web that comes anywhere near it. It is more accurate and complete than the comparable lists in the authorised biography and other books. An achievement of which the nominator, and Wikipedia, should be very proud. – Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cass

  • "He continued working on stage until 1990. Gielgud was also active as a director, sometimes while also acting in the play." →"He continued working on the stage until 1990 both as a director and actor." My only thinking around this is in its current form is that ending with "while also acting in the play" leaves us asking "what play"?
  • It's a shame that the lead image has the writing at the bottom of it. I find it a little distracting actually.
  • "Gielgud is one of the few who have won all four major annual American entertainment awards" -- One of the few what? Actors? directors? males? persons?
  • Many thanks! 1 and 3 are both done: I'll have a mull over the image question - I'll either swap it with something, or see if I can doctor the text out somehow... - SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you want to tinker with the image, Loeba and Crisco 1492 are the people to go to. They keep a team of image gnomes (in humane, free-range conditions) and can conjure wonderful things out of them. Though I can't say the lettering bothers me. Tim riley (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I went for the cropped version: it shrinks the overall image slightly, making it less of a portrait style, but still just about within the bounds of acceptability. - SchroCat (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The title seems very ungrammatical to me; is there any precedent for that format? I would much prefer something like "Roles and awards of John Gielgud" or "List of John Gielgud roles and awards". Reywas92Talk 02:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that grammatically the title is fine. The two suggestions you have made are not, at least in formal, encyclopaedic English: "Roles and awards of John Gielgud" is missing the definite article and should be "The roles and awards of John Gielgud". As our MoS eschews the use of the definite article in such a format, it makes sure the title fails a basic Engvar hurdle. Your second suggestion: "List of John Gielgud roles and awards" whould at least be "List of John Gielgud's roles and awards" to pass muster: of the two, I think the current form is better. There is precedent for this, not least in Ralph Richardson, roles and awards and Ian McKellen, roles and awards. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Coming late to the party as I am, and not being as conversant as some of the other commenters on the details in the list, I'll only comment on the format and layout. Very well done. Tim riley nailed it on the head. Very well organized, very well laid out, my only negative is you might add a photo or graphic to reduce the white space. I was attempting to look at it as someone who had no knowledge of this performer, and was looking to do a spot of research; as such, very easy to navigate. Onel5969 (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks Onel5969. I'll have a hunt round and see what other images I can drop in to smooth over the white space: with the length of some of the tables it is unavoidable to some extent, but I'll see what I can do. - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a few minor quibbles before I support. The title bothers me as well, but I realize now what the problem is- if it was just awards, it would traditionally be "List of awards received by John Gielgud", and for roles, if he was just a movie star it would traditionally be "John Gielgud filmography", but there isn't an equivalent word for performing arts roles in general (List of performances by?) and it wouldn't fit the "received by" format in any case. Condensed comma wins the day, it seems- "List of awards received, and performances by, John Gielgud" is just awful, no matter how you rearrange it.
  • "Gielgud is one of the few people who have won all four major annual American entertainment awards, being an Oscar[...] an Emmy,[...] a Grammy[...] and Tony Awards" - "being" is a really awkward construction- I'd rather see "namely" or "those being", as otherwise the subject is unclear.
  • "Murder on the Orient Express 1975" - comma
  • "CBS, (USA)" Dupont Show, TV - no comma
  • "The South Bank Show: Laurence Olivier – A Life" - quotes
  • Link Why Didn't They Ask Evans?
  • In awards, you have one row with "for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Miniseries or Movie" (Emmy) and one with "Outstanding Lead Actor in a miniseries or Special" (Emmy) - they should be the same style
  • Notes is cutting off the first note weirdly between columns at several different screen resolutions- can you adjust it to two columns instead?
  • --PresN 21:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done, bar the final one. I think it depends on the size of your viewer. I edit (and view) on an iPad, a laptop and a widescreen (28") monitor. Depending on the width, one of the other looks odd. A two-column section looks bad in the widescreen, while the 30em width looks odd with mid-size screens (but great on iPads and mobiles). I think it's one of those situations where you can't please all the people al the time, really! - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 02:08, 24 March 2014 [4].

70th Academy Awards

[edit]
Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1998 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I read the requirements and criteria. I also followed how the 1929, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2009, 2010, and 2012 Oscars were written. --Birdienest81 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). A few comments and suggestions: (1) Image review: All images check out okay, except for File:70th Academy Awards poster.jpg, please format this one with {{Information}}. (2) A few other portals could be added to See also sect, for example Film and Theatre. (3) In Memoriam - not sure this is encyclopedic title for sect or proper to have it italicized, maybe something like Tributes instead, seems like by using same title for our sect as the show it tilts towards bias or promotion a bit. (4) Maybe a bit more in Critical reviews about performance by Billy Crystal, I'm sure there's more secondary source coverage out there about how he was received. Feel free to keep me posted on addressing above, — Cirt (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done: I have addressed your concerns (except one, see notes below)
  • Added fair use rationale for ceremony poster (akin to movie posters in Featured Articles)
  • Added a few more portals such as theatre, film, and Los Angeles (where the ceremony is held)
  • Changed In Memoriam to Tribute, but I still feel awkward with just that word.
  • Not very sure about reviews. I did mention Billy Crystal reviews. Do you want more positive reviews of Crystal's stint, or what else? I would like more clearer feedback (including maybe an example) because I am not sure what you are asking for.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better. Maybe a few reviews about the singing by Billy Crystal? — Cirt (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done: I have fixed that sentence.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although one is part of the title, "the" doesn't need to be duplicated for Saranden's presentation. There's also an inconsistency between that line and "Oscar's Family Album" later. If it's just an attributed name and not a published title of the segment it shouldn't be in quotation marks; the same goes for the other segments.
  • Just an opinion, you don't have to change if if you don't want to, but "festivities" is a bit of exaggeration for a (singular) awards show.
  • Comma between "host commenting"
  • Whoopi Goldberg is an actress.

Good work Reywas92Talk 03:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done: I have fixed everything listed above.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Reywas92Talk 21:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Quite high quality page. — Cirt (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Excellent work. --Jagarin 19:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have some difficulty with the lead. The first sentence, while grammatically correct, seems overlong and quite wordy. You might consider breaking it into 2 sentences. Also, towards the end, you use "ceremony" quite frequently, making it seem a bit redundant. Might try using words like "event", "show", etc. The first sentence under Winners & Nominees, I'd drop "the" before actress Geena Davis. I really like the rest of that section though, a lot of info in a short amount of space. You might want to delete one of pictures running down the right side; in the multiple awards section there is a lot of white space, but that's simply stylistic. The tables are great. In the Ceremony section, it's press release, not pres. You also might want to run a check on overlinking, the section has a few (Rehme, Hunt, 69th awards). Other than that, the section is well written and organized. The critical review section, of note, is extremely well done and balanced. I didn't do an in-depth check on citations, but the one I did check (footnote 46), did not support the data in the sentence. If I have more time later, I will go back and check other citations. Would support if these items are addressed.Onel5969 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done: I have fixed everything mentioned above with a few notes
  • Moved phrase "films of 1997" to sentence starting with "During the ceremony..."
  • Made variations of ceremony such as event, gala, etc. in the lead paragraphs.
  • Removed "the" before "actress Geena Davis"/
  • Removed one picture
  • Delinked some names
  • All references have no dead links according to Tool Server
  • Replaced ref 46 with a different site containing table displaying all Oscar ceremony ratings and viewership figures (earliest data of total viewership is from 1974 ceremony).
--Birdienest81 (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 02:08, 24 March 2014 [5].

Fyodor Dostoyevsky bibliography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 13:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the list is important and comprehensive, featuring almost all stories, letters and sketches of the writer. Tomcat (7) 13:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(2) The notes about the name of the work or where it is compiled is sourced by the respective footnote right left to it. The last two notes are sourced by the references under the column "Ref" in the Letters section.
(3) It meant that adding all works and drafts is probably impossible and unneeded anyway, as only a few or no sources explain them. I removed the tag.
...--Tomcat (7) 10:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(5) Those footnotes are short in order to decrease the article's size, which is already high. However, if templates are a must, I will do that.--Tomcat (7) 12:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Why does the list have an incomplete tag? If you're not listing all his articles or whatever because there's too many to list them all, then you don't want the list expanded from where it is; if you are legitimately missing things that should be included, then why aren't they included?
  • Removed.
  • You spell it "almanach" throughout the list, despite that being an "archaic" spelling of the term- why not almanac?
  • Now almanac.
  • I'm very confused why the lead of a list of Dostoyevsky works manages to not once mention Crime and Punishment or The Brothers Karamazov, his most famous works.
  • Added a sentence.
  • Why do some of the short stories in the table have redlinks and some not?
  • Because I planned to create the red ones.
  • The publishers in the table, unlike the titles, are sorting by "the" and "a" instead of the first real word.
  • Done.
  • You say in the infobox that he wrote 221+ articles, but don't mention anything about how many he wrote in the articles section. You also dive right into the Diary articles without saying what the Diary is
  • Explained.
  • Almanachs, Poems, Mixed works, Pamphlets, Other sections- why are these items not in quotes/italics?
  • Done, except the mixed works, as I am not sure if I should use quotes and italics together or without any of them, and other works, which are mostly drafts and plans and of unknown form of literature.
  • What is rvb.ru, and why is it a reliable source?
  • The Russian Virtual Library is a free resource for pupils, teachers and others. It issues Russian classics only by reliable academic publisher. Their editors are trustworthy scholars [6].
  • The two Writer's Diary lines in References should be full citations, not just links.
  • Done.
  • Consider archiving your online references with something like webcitation.org or web.archive.org, so that changed or removed webpages don't destroy the sources of the article.
  • Last two comments, then- you should remove the chapter/number columns from the Diaries table, since you don't have any information in those columns. Finally, the publisher for the sources should be the Russian Virtual Library, not rvb.ru, just like how you would put the publisher as The New York Times, not nytimes.com. --PresN 23:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 02:08, 24 March 2014 [7].

List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories

[edit]
Nominators: Hwy43 (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC) and Mattximus (talk)[reply]

This is the sixth of thirteen lists of "municipalities in province/territory" within the Canadian topic for municipalities to go through FLC (and fifth in the past eight months). The intent is to obtain FL status for all thirteen to achieve a featured topic. This is the first territory to be nominated. It meets the same standards as the recently promoted Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan equivalents with lessons learned from each incorporated into this list. Hwy43 (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cirt, this comment is puzzling. FLC reviews involve fixing things on the file pages of utilized images? I haven't seen that previously. It would be wrong for us to speculate the correct date for the missing date field. Hwy43 (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hwy43, from my experience, WP:FAC pages don't pass without successfully going through an image review, yes. I don't see why WP:FLC should have a lesser standard. Again, these issues should be quite easy to address. Keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see that image is tagged for moving to Commons, you can use Wikipedia:Moving_files_to_the_Commons#Transferring_using_CommonsHelper to help assist with that. Hope that's helpful, — Cirt (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Okay, I went ahead and took the liberty of taking care of it for you! :) The image is now on Commons. — Cirt (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cirt. Learned a few new things today. I studied what you just did and now have a better understanding of what was being requested and how to address this on my own should this arise again. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good, I'm glad! Now that image review is done, I'll see about getting to rest of review soon. — Cirt (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 02:08, 24 March 2014 [8].

List of colleges and universities in Washington, D.C.

[edit]
Nominator(s): Caponer (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria of featured list status, as it outlines the colleges and universities of Washington, D.C. in the manner of other featured lists of colleges and universities, to include List of colleges and universities in Michigan. As always, I am open to suggestions on how to improve the quality of this list. Caponer (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few comments...
    • The intro mentions some law schools that aren't obviously members of listed universities. Obviously GWU Law School is part of GWU, but Columbus School of Law is part of Catholic, and there's nothing indicating this. Perhaps a parenthetical should be added.
    • It looks like three of the defunct schools merged into active schools, I feel like this should be noted somewhere. Like a "fate" column.
    • Gallaudet is a noted school focusing on the deaf (to the point of being officially bilingual in English and ASL); this should be mentioned in the intro.
    • The addresses... I'm not sure what they really add to the article. If we're listing colleges in a state, like with the Michigan list, the city is relevant, but that doesn't matter for DC, and the specific address in this list seems to be overkill. Especially since this is just the address of the main office, and ignores the fact that most of these occupy many city blocks.
    • The accreditation for the Paul H. Nitze School and St. Paul's College reads "N/A", or "Not Applicable". Why does accreditation not apply to these? Or is it supposed to read "none" instead?
    • It looks like the Pontifical John Paul II institute should instead link to John Paul II Institute, as this is specifically on the unit in DC. Likewise, maybe its local name ("Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at The Catholic University of America") should be used, with a footnote that it's not actually part of CUA.
    • The table is unnecessarily squished. Please find a way of getting it to full width, though getting rid of the address column would help. I tried adding a {{br}} after the images but it just made a lot of whitespace.
    • There is a 'The' in "The Catholic University of America", but not in "George Washington University", despite GWU branding themselves that way. Should the "The" be dropped? Either way, Catholic needs to sort as C, not T. Same issue with The Institute of World Politics.
    • Accreditation seems useless as an alphabetical sort, and I suggest it be made an unsortable column, unless we sorted based on number of accrediting institutions.
    • Why is the David A. Clark school of law listed separate from UDC? --Golbez (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good, but the intro seems to only concentrate on the Carnegie schools; the four non-Carnegie schools don't seem to be noted at all in the intro. Maybe a small sentence or paragraph explaining their existence? And as for Clarke being listed separately, if it is listed separately by both Carnegie and DOE... I'd like other input on that but that would seem to warrant a separate inclusion, if we were sure we weren't doubling up on enrollment numbers. With a note of course explaining why it's included. --Golbez (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your re-review and suggestions, Golbez! I've added a sentence to the lead regarding the non-Carnegie institutions. As for Clarke, its numbers are not included in the enrollment totals in both the DoE and Carnegie statistics. -- Caponer (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt, as always, thank you for your thoughtful comments and suggestions. I've added internal citations to the explanatory notes. Please take a look at these and let me know if these will work. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 01:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aureez, thank you for taking the time to review this list and comment here--it is much appreciated! While Notes 2 and 3 are utilizing the same source, they are referring to different types of data listed under each respective column. The notes are meant to be tailored for each type of data displayed in the columns below. Please let me know if this will be alright as stands. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So "School control and type is based" wouldn't make it less redundant? Aureez (Talk) 18:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aureez, I reconfigured and reorganized the templates to make it happen. Your suggestion has been implemented! Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the Dr.

[edit]
  • "Washington, D.C.'s oldest post-secondary institution is Georgetown University, founded in 1789.[2][3][4] Georgetown University is also the oldest Jesuit and Catholic university in the United States.[2][3][5] " Citations are a bit excessive, I don't think you really need three on each.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Each sentences now only has two citations. Thanks for the suggestion! -- Caponer (talk) 14:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as of fall 2012." -shouldn't that be "in the fall of 2012"? Sorry, I'm not American so it might be common to word it like that!
Done! I've modified the sentence to read "as of the spring of 2013" as the data was actually from spring of 2013 and not fall of 2012. -- Caponer (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The University of the District of Columbia is Washington, D.C.'s sole land-grant university.[8] Washington, D.C. has two historically black colleges and universities " Washington, D.C. repeats a bit here, perhaps reword as "The city has two historically black"..
Done! -- Caponer (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Washington, D.C. has three medical schools: George Washington University Medical School, Georgetown University School of Medicine, and Howard University College of Medicine. It has six law schools, " -has also repeats on me a bit here too, perhaps change in second instance to "There are" instead of "it has".
Done! Good catch. -- Caponer (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eighteen of Washington, D.C.'s post-secondary institutions are accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (MSA). Most are accredited" -again repetition of accredited, change the second wording.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done! The second use of accredited has been modified to "officially recognized." Thanks! -- Caponer (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excessive citations in Defunct institutions. Two max would suffice in any column, four is staggering hehe.
Done! -- Caponer (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would look better aesthetically if you could blue link those red links with some stubs.
Working on this as we speak. -- Caponer (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done! -- Caponer (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with publishers in references, not sure you really need to link on every occasion. There's enough blue text in the article already!
Lightened the blue links a bit! -- Caponer (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks in good shape!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld, thank you for your thoughtful reviews of this list! I've addressed all your concerns, and appreciate you taking the time to conduct this thorough review! This is always appreciated! -- Caponer (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks for addressing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 11:21, 19 March 2014 [9].

List of songs recorded by Sophie Ellis-Bextor

[edit]
Nominator(s): Prism △ 17:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked a lot on it, which was hard since Ellis-Bextor has a musical career since the 1990's. I also want to promote the most articles related to her as they are of degraded condition. Please comment, it would really mean a lot to me and when you decide to support or oppose, please present your reasons and commentary so I can improve the list. Thank you in advance. Prism △ 17:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor

[edit]
  • Put parentheses around the "pictured" in each image.
    • Done.
  • Maybe instead of "0-9" in the contents key, a number sign would do the trick?
    • It works! (you mean this [#], right?)
  • Drop "the" in the very first sentence of the article.
    • Removed.

And after looking through the rest of the list, I really have nothing else to add. I definitely support the nomination! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! :) Prism △ 21:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WonderBoy1998

[edit]
  • I am going to support this article since it's concise and well-referenced work. However two points→ (1) who had their single "I Know Enough (I Don't Get Enough)" reach the top 25 on the UK Singles Chart - It sounds as if they paid the company to make their single reach the top 25. Why not go for simpler wording, like whose single reached the ..... (2) I'm a little put off by the focus on the charting of the songs and especially the albums in the lead, since they are not really important to the subject of the list. I would appreciate more focus on the sounds and composition of the album and how they tie into her choice of colabs. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking much better now --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Adabow

[edit]
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Captions which are not complete sentences should not end in full stops, per WP:CAPWORD.
    • Removed the full stop from the first caption.
  • Single and promo single releases should be sourced.
  • "pictured" in captions should be enclosed by commas, or (preferably) brackets.
    • They are already. Parentheses are brackets.
  • People should be sorted by surname, using {{sortname}}.
  • Similarly, titles beginning with "The" should be sorted using {{sortname}} (i.e. "The Deer & The Wolf" would be sorted under 'D', not 'T').
    • I have moved those according to the first letter of the second word.
  • I think Theaudience should be written with a capital 'T', since it is a name. This differs from iPod, which has a capitalised second letter (do correct me if I'm wrong here).
    • Done, I just had it as theaudience because it was stylized as that.
  • Perhaps B-sides that don't feature on an album could have a footnote next to "n/a" in their respective album cells.
    • How?
  • Some ambiguous links which need fixing

Adabow (talk) 10:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the table of contents should contain links to Footnotes and References. Numbers come before 'A' per WP:ALPHA. Adabow (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Decodet

[edit]

Other than that, I didn't see any major issues in the article so I'm more than happy to support it. Good job! :) decodet. (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cirt

[edit]

I'd like to see inline-citations to back up the assertions in the Notes sect. I'll mention if there's anything else, but otherwise looks pretty good. — Cirt (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SnapSnap

[edit]
  • In the lead, I think "including collaborations with other artists" sounds better than "some of which were collaborations with other artists"
  • You should probably replace "indie music" with something less ambiguous, like "indie rock"
    • Done and done!

Aside from these minor quibbles, the article covers all significant aspects of the topic. I support your nomination. SnapSnap 18:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Prism △ 18:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

  • The artist column for "Sophia Loren" sorts on Sophie, rather than Ellis
    • Done.
  • FN 54 "August 13, 2001" and "March 3, 2014" are in an inconsistent date format
    • Done.
  • Not sure we need "pictured" in the image text (surely that's obvious?)

- SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more

  • As this is written in BrEng, it should use the definite article when describing people, thus "The English recording artist", "the indie rock band Theaudience", etc
  • "However" shouldn't really start a sentance (and probably shouldn't be in there anyway: it doesn't aid understanding.
  • "On 28 March 2005, a": on this and in a couple of subsequent places, you don't need to post-date comma (a horrible Americanism)
  • "credited as Mademoiselle E.B.—, titled": you need to just check out the punctuation there. Is the comma and space an error, or part of the nom de plume?

- SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have done all. Prism △ 20:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. I've got nothing else to add to this. As an FL delegate I won't add my formal support, but if someone else doesn't close this by the morning, I'll do it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 06:01, 17 March 2014 [10].

Silver certificate (United States)

[edit]

I am nominating this for featured list because it provides a well-referenced overview of United States silver certificates and it contains a table of images presenting a complete set of all designs and denominations issued. In addition, it is part of an effort to improve the encyclopedic content of numismatics (in particular, U.S. banknotes)... :Nominator(s): Godot13 (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT In the last image, you correctly indicate that the bill is a star note, however, can you link that in the image descriptor? Otherwise, Support.Coal town guy (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and thanks for the support!-Godot13 (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT
  • In the first paragraph dates are listed in the international fashion of day/month/year "(for one year – 24 June 1967 to 24 June 1968)" whereas later in the article they are the standard US format of month/day/year.
    • see below.
  • In the second paragraph "(1878 to 1923)" I think should mention that we are referring to those series as they were of course often printed and issued after their series dates.
    • In progress (completely agree, looking for appropriate ref)Fixed and referenced.
  • " In 1928, all United States bank notes were re-designed and the size reduced.[6]" Would it be relevant to list those dimensions?
    • fixed, added note to first line of the second paragraph.
  • Under History here: " Members of congress claimed ignorance that the 1873 law would lead to the demonetization of silver" Congress should be capitalized as we're referring to the U.S. Congress.
    • fixed.
  • In the Large-sized silver certificates section: "Congress used the National Banking Act of 12 July 1882" Here again the date is listed in international standard.
    • see below.
  • In the Small-sized silver certificates section: "Due in part to the outbreak of World War II and the end of his appointed term, any recommendations may have stalled." a simple typo, should be WWI instead of II
    • fixed.
  • Same section: " On 20 August 1925, Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon appointed a similar committee and in May 1927 accepted their recommendations for the size reduction and redesign of U.S. banknotes.[31] On 10 July 1929 the new small-size currency was issued.[32] In response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Hawaii overprint note was ordered from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing on 8 June 1942.[32]" Three more instances of dates in international standard.
    • see below.
  • In the End of silver certifications section: " enacted on 4 June 1963 which repealed the Silver Purchase Act of 1934, and the Acts of 6 July 1939 and 31 July 1946,[38] " Three more instances of dates in international standard.
    • see below.
  • In the series and varieties table: "The Act of 4 August 1886 " One more instance of date in international standard.
    • see below.
  • In the small size table: "1613W – Clark and Snyder (1935D) Wide – blue. 1613N – Clark and Snyder (1935D) Narrow – blue." Should we include a notation mentioning what makes these "wide" or "narrow"?
    • In progressDone

Other than that a great step up with improving this article Support NiceCurrency (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment Crisco 1492. I have fixed the error. If this is fixed correctly here I will go into the Fractional currency (United States) list and make the same correction there for consistency...-Godot13 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). (1) Citation problems: this is a major issue, I see "citation needed tags" that should not be present for an FLC page. (2) Several short paragraphs that are one-sentence-long-paragraphs or two-sentence-long-paragraphs, it'd be nice if these could either be expanded or merged with other paragraphs. (3) The sister link to Wikimedia Commons should not be in the See also section, but instead in an External links section. (4) Per WP:LAYOUT, the formatting of the sects for references should be separate sections of Footnotes, then Notes, then References. (5) Might be nice to add sects Further reading and External links sects. (6) In subsection Issue and other sub-subsections, not sure what is sourcing this material, would look better with either a Refs column and/or cites somewhere at the start of each subsection or somewhere so the reader and other editors can attempt to verify this information. Keep me posted if these issues are addressed, and I'll revisit, — Cirt (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Cirt for the comments. I have made all the suggested changes (except for #4, which you changed, much appreciated). I cited most of the major references so the further reading is not extensive (#5), but I will give it additional thought. If any of changes are not satisfactory please let me know. -Godot13 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looks better, thanks for being so responsive to my above recommendations. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support!-Godot13 (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't what I was referring to, the content in the Signature & seal varieties column was what I was raising a question to. Aureez (Talk) 04:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Aureez-- Okay. The hidden (expandable) content only exists for those type notes with more than 4-5 different varieties. In these cases the cells would become elongated and make the Signature & seal varieties column unnecessarily long and disproportionate to the others. --Godot13 (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not so disproportionate. It could be removed... - Godot13 (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All removed.--Godot13 (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice "inconsistent citations" in 2 of your references. Aureez (Talk) 17:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Aureez, the bot notices have been removed. Two minor corrections were made to two other references as well.--Godot13 (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Godot13 The "United States paper money" Reference needs a retrieval date and Footnotes 14/16 are the exact same footnote. Aureez (Talk) 23:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out Aureez. I believe I've addressed your comments. Please let me know if there is anything else.--Godot13 (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Footnotes 16 is still pretty redundant, anyway to change that? Aureez (Talk) 01:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aureez- Not sure how to combine footnotes like references. Any assistance would be welcome.--Godot13 (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Refn Maybe? Aureez (Talk) 02:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Aureez, worked well. - Godot13 (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks!--Godot13 (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most excellent, Crisco, MA - Godot13 (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 10:40, 13 March 2014 [11].

Popjustice £20 Music Prize

[edit]
Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A novel music award from the UK. I have knocked the article into a shape which matches that of various Grammy-related FLs, let me know what you think. Note that, although I only have the second highest number of edits on the article, the editor with the most seems to have left WP about six months ago....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should add references to the entries in the table. You may skip them in the second table, as those are self-evident from the first, but the first needs references. Cambalachero (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well everything in that table was already referenced by the general ref at the bottom, but what the hell, I've adde dit to each line instead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –

—Bloom6132 (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other than a few minor fixes (replacing | with !), the changes look OK.

Additional comments –

  • Since ref 7 is utilized for every single entry on the list, it might be a good idea to simply split the "References" section into "General" and "Specific" and place it into the former. That way, you can delete that column and won't have to centre every ref 7 in the table. See Tip O'Neill Award FL for more info regarding the formatting.
  • The Guardian source should utilize the "cite news" template and the "newspaper=" parameter should be used instead of "work=".

—Bloom6132 (talk) 16:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments:
  • The "Artists nominated three or more times for the Popjustice £20 Music Prize" table could have "Artist" and "Nomination" as sortable columns.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by SchroCat 10:40, 13 March 2014 [12].

List of Millennium episodes

[edit]
Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 05:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is who were are. Been tinkering with this one on and off for a while; the last few pieces of the puzzle came tonight from a book published nearly fifteen years after the show was canned. I've based the list on a few of the more recent episode list FLs, and while I'm not particularly keen on the transclusion approach it seems to be the norm. I'm happy to subst it all in if that's preferable though. As always, I should be readily available to deal with any issues raised, so if there are any questions to be asked, fire away. GRAPPLE X 05:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm confused, this lists three seasons worth of episodes; Millennium only had two seasons. You must be having a horrible nightmare dreaming up a season that never existed to ruin one of the best shows on TV. Cough, I mean, hm, lemme take a look at this. The obvious point is the X-Files episode. I understand why it's in the summary, because that acts as a table of contents. However, it seems a bit clunky, since it's not included in the total number. Maybe it should be listed separately in that opening table? I dunno. Really, this is the only potential issue I see with the list, but I can't think of a way to resolve it, which is why I say potential. --Golbez (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mean the "Series overview" table? It's in there as a separate entry already, unless you mean slotting it in after the "Complete series" entry. I don't mind either way, though the episode is included on the season 3 (and full series) DVD releases so I figured it should be lumped in before the complete series. I'm happy to put it wherever it works best. GRAPPLE X 18:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant separate from the table itself. Also, there's nothing in the article that states it's included in the Millennium DVDs, which is an important fact. :) Also, it doesn't fit in with the whole "season premiere/season finale" structure, and if it's on DVD then should the release date be for X-Files or Millennium? It seems simpler to split it out of that table altogether and simply have a paragraph explaining it and why it's included in this, and what DVDs its on. --Golbez (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    For the release date, I went with the earliest one, which was the season 7 X-Files set. I could ditch the "premiere/finale" columns and list the seasons as date ranges ("October 25, 1996–May 16, 1997") so there's less inconsistency there. I've added a bit about the episode being on the Millennium DVDs though. GRAPPLE X 22:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    One last thing then - the total of the Complete Series DVD is 67 episodes, yet if the X-Files is included, wouldn't it be 68? Or is this just listing the episodes of the series? --Golbez (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    67 and a "special feature". I could change it to 68 and add a note to explain that the extra one is the X-Files episode? GRAPPLE X 16:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think leaving it at "67", and then adding a footnote saying "Also includes the X-Files episode", would work. --Golbez (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Added a note like you suggest. Thanks for looking at this one. GRAPPLE X 17:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 10:40, 13 March 2014 [13].

List of cricketers who have scored centuries in each innings of a Test match

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Vensatry (Ping) 11:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that how such an important list has not been created before. I believe it meets the criteria and look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry (Ping) 11:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"T2" has two entries in the key. --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)
"Players from teams that are full members of the International Cricket Council (ICC) have scored centuries in each innings with the exception of Bangladesh" => "Players from all teams that are full members of the International Cricket Council (ICC) have scored centuries in each innings with the exception of Bangladesh"
"was entered into the record books as "Most runs scored by a player in a Test match (Male)"" - I don't like the Easter Egg link on "record books", also why the need to refer to "record books" at all? Why not just put "his combined tally [...] set a record for the highest aggregate score achieved by a player in a Test match"......?
"His compatriot Michael Vaughan has the least aggregate" => "His compatriot Michael Vaughan has the lowest aggregate"
"Lawrence Rowe of West Indies and Yasir Hameed of Pakistan are the only debutants to accomplish this feat" => "Lawrence Rowe of West Indies and Yasir Hameed of Pakistan are the only debutants to score centuries in both innings of a Test". As it stands "this feat" sounds like it's referring to the bit in the previous sentence, which it isn't.

Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). (1) Paragraphs in lede look sort of uneven in size. Consider splitting the 2nd paragraph in two. (2) Notes section: notes "c" and "e" could use citations at the end of those sentences to assist the reader to find sources for that info. (3) Image review: All images check out okay. Green tickY. (4) Overall it's pretty good, address those recommendations and I'd feel ready to support at that point in time. Keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Thanks for the polite, prompt, and punctual responses to my comments, above. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

—Zia Khan 15:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahara4u: I think I've addressed your concerns. Let me know if there are any further issues. —Vensatry (Ping) 18:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 10:40, 13 March 2014 [14].

Audie Murphy honors and awards

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the subject matter is of historical significance to both military history and the film industry. It is also one of three articles I would like to take to Featured Topic. The main article of Audie Murphy is being worked on to prepare for submission for FA, and Audie Murphy filmography is currently at FLC has been with drawn from FLC consideration but will be resubmitted at a later date. — Maile (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - the FLC instructions state that Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. As the filmography list has not gained the required level of support as yet, this list should not also have been nominated....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have put a request on the FLC for the filmography to be withdrawn. — Maile (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A great list about a distinguished soldier. Took me a moment to work out which of the 3rd Infantry Division's ten campaigns and four amphibious assaults he missed out on. (For the record, his nine campaign stars were for: Tunisia, Sicily (with arrowhead), Naples-Foggia, Anzio, Rome-Arno, Southern France (with arrowhead), Ardennes-Alsace, Rhineland, Central Europe) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree, and have renamed the column. — Maile (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Extremely well done and quite thorough. I echo the comments by Hawkeye7, above. This is a most encyclopedic page about an educational topic. I think it is more standard to name the References sect "Notes" and the Bibliography sect "References". Good luck with the rest of the Featured Topic quality improvement process, I'd like to hear how that all turns out. Great job overall by Maile66, — Cirt (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comments
  • "most famous" would just stick to facts here, unless you can quote "most famous".
Removed "most famous" altogether. That wording has always bothered me a little as unverifiable.— Maile (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for capital P in post-traumatic.
Uncapped.— Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be better to link World War II than France or Belgium.
Done. — Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a link for "reserve status" so non-experts can understand that?
Linked. — Maile (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Croix de guerre 1940 Palm from Belgium" the previous Croix de guerre was linked to France, is this a different award since it's from Belgium?
Yes, these are two different awards from two different countries. — Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he gave away the originals" why would he do that?
Only he knew for sure. Apparently the story had been circulating, and Hedda Hopper asked him about it on television. He confirmed that he gave them away, but never said why or to whom, just that after he had children he asked the Army to replace them so his children would have them. Documentation exists of his request to the government for the replacements. There are unconfirmed stories and about why and what - that he threw them away in a field; that he gave them to his first wife Wanda Hendrix; that he divided them among his Texas relatives; that he gave them away to little kids. There are now displays of his medals in various military-related/government organizations, each claiming they have his original set of medals. I don't think anybody knows who has the originals. — Maile (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chevalier of the Legion of Honor" or "Légion d'honneur"? Be consistent.
Fixed. — Maile (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "Decoration-award" mean in the table heading?
You probably should make a suggestion here, and I'll go with what you think is correct. All these titles have been a work in progress that started out as a blanket "decorations, awards and badges" and has evolved many times with many editors. Isn't a decoration different than an award? You tell me. Looks like the decorations are what they wear on their uniform. The award would be something like the unit citation. You tell me what is correct for the American military.— Maile (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have taken care of this. In going through the tables I more clearly defined what each is. Thank you for pointing this out.— Maile (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorting makes the colspan headings move, this is highly undesirable. Actually looks best if you don't sort the table.
All tables are now unsortable.— Maile (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any chance of adding date of award to the table as a column?
In theory, I don't mind doing this. In reality, I'm not sure how do-able this is. Because he was away at war, he didn't always get the awards until months or years later. He didn't get his basic training Good Conduct medal until 3 years after the fact, and then he had to request it. That Belgian award was supposedly "conferred" in 1955. I'm not sure he knew about it then, and can't really verify anything except by 1968 he was allowed to wear it after the United States Congress agreed to it. There's a lot of fuzzy timelines in his military awards, and not all of them are that traceable to a date other than the action he received them for. And I think it wasn't just Audie Murphy. I sometimes read news items of families who have petitioned the Pentagon for awards a deceased loved one never received. Comments? — Maile (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you do keep the table sortable, every linked item should be linked every time.
All tables are now unsortable.— Maile (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table needs a little bit of work to comply with MOS:DTT so screen readers can determine when columns start and finish, etc, in particular row and col scopes.
Would you please have a look at the Service ranks section and tell me if I got it right before I go to the other tables? — Maile (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. All tables have been taken care of.— Maile (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have tables which have a single entry sortable?
All tables are now unsortable.— Maile (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest that for consistency and neatness, that award tables have same col widths from table to table.
The awards col widths are the same on my browser, and the style widths are set the same. Not all columns have a set width - is that what you mean? It's only the service ranks that are different.— Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "23,142-square-foot .." not sure that's particularly important.
Removed. — Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check your bullets and double bullets in the Texas (non-military) section, it's a bit "floating"
Fixed. — Maile (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Audie Murphy Middle School, in Killeen" what? It "opens"? Check others.
Removed this listing completely. It was added by an unregistered editor, and I've never been able to find info on it.— Maile (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Le 2 value, " what does that mean? I guess a link is useful here.
Linked. Sierra Leonean leone (Le) is the currency of the country.— Maile (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • " 8-stamp" etc, MOSNUM suggests numbers below 10 should be in words, so "eight-stamp"
Fixed all these in the stamp section.— Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it U.S. Army or U. S. Army?
Fixed. I only found one inconsistent with the others.— Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2 is unreferenced.
Fixed.— Maile (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of France [23][6]" out of order, no punctuation.
Fixed. — Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 34 "pp. 3,7,27,102,105,137,167" spaces please. Check all the others (usually expect a space after a comma).
I'll check on all these. I used to put commas in as a standard, and then someone would come along and take them all out. But I'll go through the whole list and put commas back in.— Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Commas are fine, but they need a space after them. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mis-typed what I meant. I used to put spaces in after the commas in citations and changed it to no spaces after one or more editors came along in articles I'd created and removed spaces. In some cases, I seem to remember this happening on one or more of these Audie Murphy aticles. Anyway, I'll go through it all and put spaces after the commas in the citations.
OK. I got the spaces after commas fixed. — Maile (talk) 23:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go through everything you have mentioned The Rambling Man and post here as they are taken care of. — Maile (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, nice you had two supports before any real serious review had taken place. Noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man, I have now addressed all the issues you mentioned. As discussed above, the col widths on my browser look the same from table to table, except for the service ranks table that has more columns. I did swap out the image on the Tx Medal of Honor, because the one used was huge. And I tweaked the width on one of the Service ranks columns. Perhaps this helps. Maybe you see something I don't? I don't believe the dates of the awards is findable in some cases. As explained above, between Murphy's physical involvement in the war at the time, and the normal government bureaucracy maze over the decades, it is not possible to come up with exact dates of several of the awards. If I make it a separate column, the blanks where dates are uncertain would make it look incomplete. Comments? — Maile (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments -
  • Per WP:DATE All article body text should be in a consistent date format, "..by President Harry Truman on 25 September 1950." "...by Gov Rick Perry Aug 19, 2013".
Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "September, 2008 No comma between month and year.
Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes should also have consistent formats "..Congress, 2 July 1926.."
Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[60][61]In 2012" Space between citation and text.
Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Retrieval date for Ref 29.
Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Texas Legislative Medal of Honor" Notes should have a full stop.
Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aureez (Talk) 11:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed them all now. You have a very good eye. Thanks for catching these. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was asked to revisit my comments here. I took another look through the page and it is high-quality and well-referenced throughout. I reiterate my Support. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


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 21:09, 9 March 2014 [15].

List of songs recorded by Miley Cyrus

[edit]
Nominator(s): WikiRedactor (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After giving this page a full revamping, I believe that it now meets the criteria for featured list status, and will compliment the existing featured list Miley Cyrus discography nicely. It is a fully-comprehensive list with all of Cyrus' published tracks, including those on her studio albums, those on her soundtrack albums, and those in which she is featured. All song credits are sourced with the liner notes of the appropriate album, or when not applicable, reputable external sources. With Cyrus' last full-length record released nearly four months ago, there is a good chance that this list will not be significantly expanded in the near future; when she releases another project, this list will be easy enough to update with the necessary information due to its simple internal formatting. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WonderBoy1998
  • I hink I better picture should be chosen for the lead, focusing more on Cyrus' face since seeing this at first glance one might not recognise her
  • Done
  • Doesn't this list seem to different from other recorded songs list, like Rihanna's. I've seen various lists regarding the subject and they seem radically different from this one. I am going to be needed to be convinced that this format is suitable to move forward with my comments. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at List of songs recorded by Rihanna, it appears that the only major differences are the inclusion of pictures and an expanded introduction, which I will get to improving momentarily. I will also add the color key noting whether or not a track has been released as a single.
  • @WonderBoy1998: I've expanded the introduction, which now mentions Cyrus' chart successes and gives more detail about some of her records. I also added the color coding that distinguishes singles from non-singles, although I felt that the amount of pictures that the Rihanna list had was mildly excessive, considering that the table is already packed with information as it stands. If you would really like some more pictures added, then I will gladly do so!
Indeed it is in much better shape now. Good choice of picture too. Some points though-
  • "performed by Cyrus, which are credited to Hannah Montana" - How about turning "which are" to "who is credited as Hannah Montana" or " eight of its thirteen tracks were performed by Cyrus under the alias/name of Hannah Montana"
  • Done
  • Putting the main emphasis on commercial performance of the singles makes it seem like an XYZ singles disocgraphy. An articles on recorded songs should spotlight writing/production teams, new collaborators etc. Such as "Adopting a more hip-hop oriented musical style in 2013, Cyrus appeared on various XYZ tracks by XYZ rap artists etc" (I may not be factually correct) but you get the point I hope. I don't want to make you continuously change and add but I am very much ready to support this after this change is made :) --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries, I do what I need to do to make sure that the list is in tip-top shape! I added a paragraph at the end of the introduction which gives a summary of her most popular collaborators and musical styles; if you'd like me to add more, I certainly will!
Certainly worthy now, hence I support. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead should only include one picture. For me, I prefer the latest picture of Cyrus (the 2013 People's Choice Awards attending)
  • Done
  • The iTunes sources for single release should include an en-dash, not a normal dash
  • Done
  • Add !scope="row" before the song titles per WP:ACCESS
  • Done

— Simon (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Aaron
Resolved comments by Aaron
Comments from Aaron
  • The following is an alphabetised list → This is superfluous information
  • Done
  • She first established her presence → Awkward phrasing, she's not royalty.
  • Done
  • Done
  • The fourth paragraph is completely irrelevant. This is a list about songs recorded by Cyrus only.
  • My idea was that instead of writing something like "Song X was written by Songwriter X, Song Y was written by Songwriter X" that it might flow better to have a paragraph at the end that summarizes her main collaborators on these tracks, because she worked with a lot of the same people for a while. Do you have any ideas on how to maybe spread this information throughout the other three paragraphs?f
  • I'd do what I've done on my lists and mentioned the writers and/or genre of the songs I mention, not the decisions behind the collaboration or how they came to collaborate, if people want that kind of info then they should look on the single or album article. This list should encompass singles as well as non-singles, as it is just about recorded songs.  — ₳aron 18:36, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you take a look at the revised introduction? I think it's much more balanced now that I've added in more information about songwriters and non-singles, but I just want to make sure that the little bits of information that I did keep about genres and backstories aren't too excessive.
  • The table of songs itself is absolutely huge, as in size of proportion. It's so incredibly wide, mainly due to writers all being on one line.
  • Done
  • The contents table says "2 4 7 #", but it you sort the Song column, "#GETITRIGHT" sorts first.
  • Done
  • You've changed the content table, when the songs table is norma, it still appears as 23, then #GETITRIGHT, then 7 Things. #GETITRIGHT needs to be physically moved to be the first song in the table, the same way as when it sorts when you press the sort button. — ₳aron 18:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe two separate tables, "As Miley Cyrus" and "As Hannah Montana" might be better here.
  • Done
  • I think you need to look at the lists for Katy Perry and Adele for some stylistic help.

 — ₳aron 11:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tried to pull some ideas from the Katy Perry list (adding some pictures, mentioning some record label switches, etc.) Aside from the one point that I have a question for you about, I hope that I've addressed your critiques to your satisfaction. Thanks for stopping by and leaving comments! WikiRedactor (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • This list is very well constructed and following a thorough analysis of the article itself, I have no further issues to address. It certainly deserves FL status for being a comprehensive list. I give my Support. Prism △ 11:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No singles were released under the name of Hannah Montana? I just noticed that the list has been forked into two tables, and while the Cyrus section has the green colour coding to denote singles, the Montana one doesn't. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think using the term "single" for most of the Hannah songs is questionable; most of their articles have unsourced release dates, and most of them that do list a "source" only show that the song was made available with the parent album. None of them were pushed to radio either in the United States, which leaves only "The Best of Both Worlds", "Nobody's Perfect", and (somehow) "Ordinary Girl" as sourced, official Hannah singles. This has now been added to the list, thank you! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is well formatted with good tabular structure. Meticulously sourced throughout. I particularly like the fact that the footnotes are given backed up with inline-citations, and that the intro lede section is so well grounded with background info for the reader and well-cited as well. Excellent quality improvement efforts, — Cirt (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Adabow (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Single cells are missing their daggers, per MOS:COLOUR.
  • Done
  • Single released are unsourced.

*I'm getting a bit pedantic here, but surely Cyrus released songs as Hannah Montana, but didn't record them as HM. Unless she recorded them all on the TV show...

  • Done
  • The lead is quite, quite long. Could some of the less notable/interesting stuff be trimmed off?
  • Done
  • Images are all OK.

Adabow (talk) 09:44, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done
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 21:09, 9 March 2014 [16].

List of Golden Martín Fierro Award winners

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it has a similar quality to other lists of awards recipients, recently approved as featured lists. All the points mentioned in the previous nomination had already been fixed months ago. Cambalachero (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Note: the previous nomination has been archived today simply because of a malfunctioning bot, the nomination had been rejected months ago.[reply]

Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Quick comment: For the photos, there needs to be alt captions describing what each picture looks like. See WP:ALT for more info.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: No other problems found.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from CrowzRSA (talk) 04:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
  • This second award was created in 2009, for works from 2008, but there was no Platinum award for the 2013 ceremony. - There should not be a comma after 2009, as this creates an incorrect comma splice.
  • The actors Facundo Arana, Julio Chávez, Celeste Cid, Nancy Dupláa, Pablo Echarri, Diego Peretti and Gabriela Toscano have been lead actors of different works of fiction that received the award. - redundant use of "actors". You could take out "The actors" or change word choice to something like "performers" or simply "leads". Just sounds like poor english where it stands right now.
  • The ceremonies have no nominees for the Golden award, which is announced at the end, once all the regular awards have been received. no comma needed at "...at the end once all the..."
  • Why are América 2, Canal 9, Radio Mitre, and Radio Rivadavia mentioned in the "Networks with most awards" section? Why is this even a section at all if there are only two networks which have received multiple awards? Seems quite unnecessary, and could be merged into the previous section.
  • Why does the "Networks with most awards" section contain a non-sortable wikitable while all the others have one?
  • Ref names which contain quotes inside quotes should to read: "'Culpables' se quedó con el premio Martín Fierro de Oro" ["Culpables" got the Golden Martín Fierro award] not ""Culpables" se quedó con el premio Martín Fierro de Oro" ["Culpables" got the Golden Martín Fierro award]
  • That's all I have for now, CrowzRSA 17:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done The "Networks with most awards" (or similar) is a standard table at the other featured lists of awards. And it is not sortable because there's only 1 significant column to sort, so why bother? Cambalachero (talk) 03:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 21:09, 9 March 2014 [17].

Marvin Miller Man of the Year Award

[edit]
Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past month and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:09, 9 March 2014 [18].

74th Academy Awards

[edit]
Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2002 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I read the requirements and criteria. I also followed how the 1929, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2009, 2010, and 2012 Oscars were written.--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • Winners and nominees: "the studio had previously released 1999's American Beauty, and 2000's Gladiator." Don't think the comma is needed here.
  • "became the second pair of actress nominated for portraying the same character in the same film." "actress" → "actresses".
  • Presenters and performers: Again: "Annual" shouldn't be capitalized in the first entry's note.
  • Ceremony information: "the" is needed in "since 32nd ceremony took place...".
  • Remove the apostrophe from "In view of the return of the Oscars' to Hollywood"?
  • Box office performance of nominees: Typo in "Moulin Rogue!".
  • Make that two of those in this section.
  • Comma needed after (1st) towards the end of this section. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed: I have fixed everything listed above.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The first two references in the lead are a bit trivial and may be skipped; as they are detailed in the body of the article. References in the lead should be just for statistics, such as the 4 awards (correctly referenced) and the audience (which should be referenced). long comments between brackets should be re-written to avoid the brackets, for example the "the seventh film to achieve this feat" may be reformulated as a second sentence. That Halle Berry "made Oscar history" sounds a bit excessive, considering that she's not the first African-American to win an award (being the first one to win in one specific category is too technical). The "Academy Honorary Award" and "Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award" (two and one entries) seem very short to be standalone sections, and may be merged into a "minor awards", "special awards" or similar name. You shouldn't include "in order of appearance" in the section headings, simply say at the introductory text of the "Presenters and performers" section that tables are ordered by order of appearence. File:74 academy awards poster.jpg Seems fine, but you should complete it with the templates {{Non-free media data}} and {{Non-free media rationale}}. Cambalachero (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed: I have fixed most of everything you mentioned above with some notes:
  • Reformated the 13 nomination sentence into two sentences.
  • Removed "made Oscar history" but still kept Halle Berry fact with mention of first African American WOMAN to win Best Actress. I think this must be mentioned since this was one of the reasons why this ceremony is historic.
  • Changed non competitive awards to format like in 64th Oscars.
  • Updated the rationales for the poster.
  • Relocated in order of appearance to intro sentence.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine, so I Support the nomination. On a related issue, the file is also used at the article Alex Ross, the artist that made that poster, when discussing the awards ceremony; but that has no influence over this nomination. I will leave a comment on the talk page for that. Cambalachero (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Tbhotch
*Comments by Tbhotch.
I found no problems with the text but:
  • Fixed: I fixed the alt captions problem. I also found a new citation source that is in print.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 Hahc21 03:45, 9 March 2014 [19].

List of Chocobo media

[edit]
Nominator(s): PresN 23:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the latest SF award list is done, I'm alternating back to video game lists. With this one, we should be done with Square Enix-related lists for the foreseeable future- and I even had to create this one in the first place, since it was going nowhere as an article. I present to you all List of Chocobo media: the quirky, weird games (and music albums) that Square Enix claims as a distinct series, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with each other beyond having the Chocobo mascot character from the Final Fantasy series as their protagonist. Anyway... There's not much discussion in RSs about the series as a whole, rather than on the individual games (and little of that, which is why the article had to be converted to a list in the first place) but what there is, I have, and the dates and facts for the games and albums are referenced, even the ridiculously obscure tie-in Japanese cell phone games. Thanks for reviewing, all! After this, I'll be back to whatever mysterious award list I dredge up (hint: it's World Fantasy Award for Best Short Story, just like you'd think it would be.) --PresN 23:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Hahc21 03:45, 9 March 2014 [20].

Jake Gyllenhaal filmography

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Tomíca(T2ME) 20:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... although I created and worked for it pretty much fast, according to me the list satisfies the criteria to be a FLC. Jake Gyllenhaal's impressive roles and appearances make this list shine even more. I think that the lead covers the most important content from the table, which is sortable and people can see how much the film budget was and its theater gross. For all the users who oppose I would like to post their comments so I can improve the article. Thank You — Tomíca(T2ME) 20:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor
  • In the sortable tables, you might want to consider putting the column for years before the column with the film titles. It appears to be a standard for filmography tables from what I've seen.
  • I believe you can drop the 's' in 'music videos' in the heading "Music videos appearances".

This list really looks to be in good shape, and I don't have any further issues; I trust that you will make these minor corrections, and I am confident in giving my support for the nomination. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiRedactor: Thank you very much. I hope you are satisfied with my responses:). — Tomíca(T2ME) 16:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm happy with the revisions! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments from jimknut
  • Infobox: This is the first filmography I have seen with an infobox. It looks similar to the infoboxes for discographies and bibliographies. I have no problem with it but since it is one that you created without a previously existing template I think a vote might be needed from other reviewers as to whether or not it is needed.
  • Introduction: "Jake Gyllenhaal is an American actor who has appeared in many motion pictures and several television programs, commercials and music videos." — "Many" and "several" are too vague and arbitrary. Christopher Lee and John Carradine both appeared in over 200 films each, so Gyllenhaal's 28 motion pictures do not seem like "many" in comparison. If you are going to keep the discography/bibliography-like infobox then I suggest starting the introduction similar to a discography or bibliography; i.e. "Jake Gyllenhaal is an American actor who has appeared in 28 motion pictures, 5 television programs, 1 commercial, and 2 music videos."
  • In the introduction you state that he appeared in "motion pictures" whereas in the infobox and table you have "Films". I think you should change it to one or the other. (I would go with "Motion pictures".)
  • Introduction: "In 2005, he co-starred opposite Heath Ledger as Jack Twist in the romance drama Brokeback Mountain." — I suggest changing this to: "In 2005, he co-starred as Jack Twist opposite Heath Ledger in the romance drama Brokeback Mountain." Otherwise it makes it seem as if Ledger played Twist and not Gyllenhaal.
  • Films: The Day After Tomorrow and The Man Who Walked Between the Towers do not sort properly.
  • Commercials and Music video appearances: What did Gyllenhaal do in these? Can you list his roles in them?
  • Year before or after title: As with WikiRedactor I prefer the year column listed before the title but listing the year after the title is exceptable. However, if you're going to do this then you should do it with all of the tables so that there is a uniformity throughout the article. At present time the Music video appearances table puts the year column in fifth place. Jimknut (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments @Jimknut:. I agree this is the first FLC containing the discography-look-alike filmography box (although I did not make it by myself and other filmographies have it too). If a voting is needed where it should happen? As for the other comments (issues) I believe I resolved them. Also added the roles column with the respective roles his is playing in the music videos and the commercial. Cheers! — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the IMDb listing for Nailed [21] the name of Gyllenhaal's character is "Howard Birdwell". THe IMDb is sometimes inaccurate but, still, putting the name in might be better than "unknown". Jimknut (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I agree that putting the name is better than unknown, but what should I cite as a source for it? I've been told that IMDb is unreliable source and I can't find other third party reliable source mentioning his role in the movie... — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starting comments – by IndianBio. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 17:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Born to the Gyllenhaal family --- This should be Born in the Gyllenhaal family per nomen, like Born in the USA
  • I think somewhere you need to establish that Stephen is his father,without people having to read Gyllenhaal family.
  • although the film was received warmly from critics,[1] Gyllenhaal's portrayal of the NASA engineer Homer Hickam was praised --> This is not correct, the sentence should begin as a fresh one. Also received warmly and praise are not contrasts, they are complementary. So the although usage is also wrong.
  • alongside his sister Maggie and Drew Barrymore --> This makes it sound as if Drew is also his sister, suggest a comma after Maggie.
  • Gyllenhaal starred in the 2004 disaster film The Day After Tomorrow;[3] despite receiving mixed reviews from critics,[6] the film was a commercial success at the box office --> Another instance where a splitting would benefit the construction or a tweak like this: "Gyllenhaal starred in the 2004 disaster film The Day After Tomorrow, which, despite receiving mixed reviews from critics, emerged a commercial success at the box office".
    Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the thing, why don't you end the Lead with something concise, like oneor two sentences from critics which talk about Jake as an actor or his acting methods? At present it has a bit of proseline effect with sentences going in a particular structure "In XXXX, he starrted in film YYYY, received a/b/c reaction"
  • Well, that basically happens with every filmography (I explain facts about how the film is going/went). However, if you see there are some facts about his most important roles and acclaim and awards he gained. Also, I reduced the use of "In XXXX" etc. I think it's okay as it is. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • USD$ the $ symbol isnot necessary when you write USD.
  • Some of the reference titles need an en-dash.
  • The magazine articles needs issn and the album booklet references needs catalogue ID.
    Done for the magazine reference, changed the booklet refs with an iTunes ones since I was not sure about the ID. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main infobox image. I think it works perfectly fine without the upright parameter and it is defaulting itself to screen size as well. I checked it in my laptop lowering the resolution.

Here are my key scrutiny on this list. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 16:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Hahc21 03:45, 9 March 2014 [22].

The Pretty Reckless discography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Decodet (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that after doing some hard work on it, this list finally meets the criteria. I have nominated (and successfully promoted) other discographies before so I'm aware of the criteria and the way a featured list should be. It is all organized, everything is well sourced and the references are properly formatted. Let me know if there is anything wrong that needs to be changed so I can resolve it. Thank you in advance. Decodet (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prism

+ The lead section is rather short. Isn't there any information you could gather to describe the process of being signed to Interscope, or who discovered them? It would add a lot to the page. Try searching on Google Books for the band, if you're lucky, you may find some noteworthy Billboard magazines. Also, why were they dropped from Interscope?

I've added some information. Thanks for the tip! About being dropped from Insterscope, we don't have any clue. Probably poor sales, but it's not covered by any reliable source. decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ I'd recommend you to add the parameters '|people=(add director)' and '|format=Music video' to the references that link to a video page (music videos section).

Done! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ FN9 has website Lescharts italicized.

Fixed! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ If US Alternative is shortened to US Alt. (with the dot) why is there not a dot on US Main(stream)? If you know what I mean.~

Fixed! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ I reccomend you to change FN14 to Peak positions for singles as main artists and then the cite web template.

Done! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ FN15 should have title changed to The Pretty Reckless — Kill Me - Single.

Done! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ "Heaven Knows" needs reference to prove it's a single.

There was no source because it has charted. But I've added a reference anyways! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ On the extended plays section, "List of albums, with selected chart positions and certifications" should have albums changed to extended plays.

Fixed! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ Lead needs references for singles (on the last paragraph).

Done! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ In the Going to Hell part of the wikitable (Albums section), Release should be changed to Released. (typo)

It is not a typo, actually. I put "Release" instead of "Released" because, well, the album has not been released yet. So putting "released" would be incorrect. March, 2014 is a future date as of now. Therefore, I choose to change it to "Release". ~~

+ FN11 has AllMusic italicized.

Fixed! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ FN12 and 13 should not have Billboard and respective publisher wikilinked.

Fixed! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ FN19 has VEVO italicized.

Fixed! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I oppose this nomination, but I will support it as soon as you fix the issues I pointed out. :) prism △ 20:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment! I've worked on the issues you've pointed out. Do I have your support now? decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you do. I Support this nomination now. :) prism △ 13:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support! decodet. (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • "Interscope Records signed the band for a record deal." is iffy. How about 'Interscope Records signed a record deal with the band.'?
  • Music videos table could be made to be sortable.

Other than those two points, and I few minor tweaks I made, I see nothing wrong with this article, so I am happy to support. Adabow (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have fixed that. Thanks for your support! decodet. (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 Hahc21 03:45, 9 March 2014 [23].

List of colleges and universities in West Virginia

[edit]
Nominator(s): Caponer (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list of colleges and universities operating in the U.S. state of West Virginia, based upon the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. -- Caponer (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the situational awareness of the FL reviewers, this article was reviewed and featured in DYK. The DYK review may be referenced here: Template:Did you know nominations/List of colleges and universities in West Virginia. -- Caponer (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent listCoal town guy (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just placing a note that I haven't forgotten about this nomination! Will be hopefully adding some comments soon. :) Ruby 2010/2013 14:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to this nomination, Ruby! I look forward to reviewing your comments! -- Caponer (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Great looking list; just leaving a few thoughts behind (sorry for the delay in commenting!):

Thanks for the suggestion! I've found three images of West Virginia university buildings of similar size and scope. There aren't too many images available on Wikimedia Commons to work with. Let me know what you think! -- Caponer (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition, there are two institutions classified as special-focus institutions."
Thanks for the catch! I've corrected this sentence. -- Caponer (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the data you are using is more recent than 2012 ([24])
Thanks for the catch! I've corrected his one as well. -- Caponer (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like there are a lot more defunct institutions than you included ([25])
I chose to only include Mountain State University and Storer College, as they were the only two defunct institutions with existing Wikipedia articles. I wanted to avoid a list of red-links at the bottom of the article. Would this be a deal breaker to just include these two, and add additional defunct colleges as their respective articles become available in the future? I could also create stubs for each institute if this is a deal breaker. -- Caponer (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, your explanation makes sense to me (I'd just add them as they're created). Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done! I've moved the portals to the See also section. -- Caponer (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ruby, thank you so incredibly much for taking the time to review this article. I'll be piece-mealing my response as I address each of your concerns. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes look great. I am now happy to support the promotion of this list. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 Hahc21 03:45, 9 March 2014 [26].

List of Minnesota state symbols

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 04:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, well, I believe it meets the criteria. I've modeled this largely after the featured Oregon list. It is a rather short one (with only 18 entries), so hopefully it won't take long to review. I see a large backlog on this page and will be happy to help clear some of it by jumping into reviewing tomorrow. Any comments here are much appreciated. Ruby 2010/2013 04:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments mainly minor technical issues...
  • " the Minnesota State Legislature" the article doesn't have "State" in its official name.
  • "Minnesota did not select " a touch anthropomorphic, the State itself doesn't select anything.
  • You have "State Seal" capitalised and "state song" uncapitalised, why the difference?
  • Not sure "Morel" needs to be capitalised.
  • Similarly "Blueberry", "Ice", "White" etc etc.
  • Consider linking poet laureate, probably more in need of a wikilink than, say, "muffin".
  • "Rep." what's that?
  • "Honeycrisp apple" or "Honeycrisp Apple"? Probably the former. Be consistent.
  • "Sen." again, no need for such abbreviations.
  • Last part of the last para in the lead is virtually the same as the second para of "Nicknames and unsuccessful proposals".
  • I've added a bit more to the lead and tweaked it. I tried to summarize the Nicknames and unsuccessful proposals section in just a few sentences, which was difficult to do without boring readers. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 02:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing! I have addressed most of your concerns -- will see what I can do about your last point when I get a chance, probably tomorrow. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 04:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Have to say I'm surprised ice hockey, and not professional wresting, is the state sport. Jesse Ventura missed a trick here.
  • Don't sound too ashamed—as I see it he's the only politician in history to be honest about his intention to "win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat". GRAPPLE X 12:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • With no article to explain it, it might be worth adding a little bit about lester soil. With the image being so tall you could add a line in the description without the table growing any. Just something along the lines of "Lester is a [dense/loose] [loamy/sandy/silty] soil present in approximately sixteen Minnesota counties", or however it actually is.
  • " the "Gopher State", which is inspired from an early political cartoon" -> inspired by. You take inspiration from, but are inspired by.
  • "the most northern state excepting Alaska" -> might flow better as "the most northern of the contiguous United States" (I find that "the most within a defined scope" reads better "the most overall, bar X")
  • The unsuccessful proposals—some of these seem a bit frivolous (not that official soils and muffins aren't...), if there's any particular quirk behind the proposals it might be worth noting (I imagine the Tilt-a-Whirl one may have been a promotional stunt, for example). It's not major but it would help address Rambler's last point about helping the lead and text differ a little more strongly.
  • Yes, many do seem rather frivolous! I've sought to explain wherever possible the significance of particular proposals (unsuccessful and successful), but see that I failed to do so for the vaunted Tilt-a-Whirl. I have now added some more information on it to clarify why it was proposed. If I did the same for the animals, it would make the section rather bloated. Ruby 2010/2013 02:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a similar note; given the state motto and sport, maybe a mention of the North Stars hockey team taking their name would help too.
  • Not sure I'm keen on centred text in the description cells; totally an aesthetic opinion.
  • "as a signal to the state's dairy industry that Minnesota cares about them" -> wouldn't an industry be an "it"? Could be phrased as "workers in the state's dairy industry" instead to keep the plural.
  • "In 1904 and 1905, Minnesota's state song was written" -> Written in two stages, or should this be phrased as a range?
  • I think this is usually up to editor preference. IMO, it would look a bit odd to only include one link to State of MN but link all mentions of the Star Trib. I've always sought to link all my citations in my articles for consistency's sake (especially if the references list is rather long). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 20:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Dana boomer (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments -
  • Muffin, link blueberry?
  • Muffin, "where they grow in bogs, hillsides, and forests." One of these things is not like the other... Bogs and forests are habitats - hillsides can be found in either or neither.
  • Soil, link soybeans and corn?
  • Song, "From 1904 to 1905" -> "In 1904 and 1905"?
  • That was the old wording before an above reviewer suggested it be changed. I agreed, since "From 1904 to 1905" seems to indicate that it was written in a range (which it was). Ruby 2010/2013 19:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Song, " it served as the school's official song until 1945," Is it still the university's official song?
  • Tree, "It can grow between 60 and 100 feet tall." Please add a conversion for metric readers.

Just a few minor comments; otherwise, it looks to be in great shape. Dana boomer (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - tried to find something to nitpick about, but I got nothing. Consider archiving your online references with a site like webcitation.org or web.archive.org so that if the referenced websites change or go down, the list isn't affected. --PresN 06:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks very much for the support. I've archived the two State of MN links that I use the most; most of the others are from Highbeam, which I imagines takes enough care of their links. Ruby 2010/2013 03:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 Hahc21 03:45, 9 March 2014 [27].

List of National Natural Landmarks in Colorado

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list, which covers some of the most beautiful and unsullied areas in Colorado, closely follows the format I used in the Michigan and Alaska lists, both now FLs. I look forward to your comments! Dana boomer (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- this list is looking good, but after reading the Michigan list, I would like to see a little more information on some of the more notable landmarks in Colorado. Is there any content you can add? I'm not suggesting you expand the lead that significantly, only to add a sentence or two about some of the sites' significance (culturally, militarily etc.). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 00:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the corresponding list is actually List of National Natural Landmarks in Michigan, not the National Historic Landmarks list you linked above. The NHL list is summarizing almost 40 sites, while this NNL list is summarizing 14, in a different program. I'll look at the Colorado list tomorrow, and see if there are any little bits and pieces I can add in, but wanted to make sure you were comparing to the right list :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, you are correct. That's what happens when you're reading late at night, I suppose! :) Sorry about that. Now looking at the correct Michigan list, could you specify in the lead the first two designations you are referring to (and the latest one)? Ruby 2010/2013 00:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "13 fully within Colorado and one shared" MOSNUM says use either numbers or words to describe similar things, so "Thirteen" or "1".
  • " two Natural Landmarks, while two Landmarks" various varying description of the landmarks, you abbreviated them to NNLs in the lead, why not just use that each time?
  • Over doing the accuracy of the conversion, we don't need square miles to the nearest 0.001.
  • "Owners include private individuals and several municipal, state and federal agencies" vs "Both public and privately owned properties can be designated as NNLs." isn't this effectively saying the same thing twice?
  • No, not the same thing. The second says that both public and private properties can be designated as NNLs, the first says that NNLs owned by the various groups listed have been designated as NNLs in Colorado. For example, Colorado has NNLs owned by municipalities, while Alaska doesn't. In Michigan, a public university owns at least one NNL. I think there's at least one state where there are no NNLs on private land. So, the first is what is done in that state, the second is what could be done in nation-wide. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may object to" why would they do this with all the benefits thereafter described?
  • They don't want the guv'mint on their land? Honestly, I'm not really sure, but I would guess it would boil down to the distrust/dislike that some people in very rural areas (which are where the vast majority of the NNLs are) have for the federal government. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Top North American" do you mean the best when you say "top"?
  • "5.000 sq mi" see above.
  • General ref and specific ref 1 appear to be the same.
  • They are. The general ref covers everything in the table that isn't specifically referenced to other sources, while the first specific ref covers the information in the lead that precedes it. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A major example of" any need for "major"? Is it backed up by reliable sources?
  • National Park Service is linked in ref 1, not in the general ref which comes before it.
  • "species- and plant-..." are plants species?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I think I have replied to everything above. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:The Rambling Man, I think I have addressed everything above. Any further thoughts? Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with a comment- you're mixing date types in your references; pick one (yyyy-mm-dd or Month dd, yyyy). You also have a few redirecting links in the descriptions that don't seem intentional, if you care to fix those. --PresN 22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support. The dates are standardized, as far as I can tell - publication dates are month day year, access dates are yyy-mm-dd. This is a completely legit way of styling references, and is the style I generally use in everything I write. Not sure which redirect links you're speaking of, or why they're a problem? Dana boomer (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Perfectly happy with 99.9% of the list; my only minor quibble is that the image used in the lead, of Hanging Lake, makes the lake look quite... dinky. The image used in the table seems much more impressive, and I'm wondering if it might be better to swap those two around, because at present the initial impression is that you're leading in with an ol' swimming hole. (The fact that this is such a petty gripe should indicate there's plenty right with the rest of it. :P). GRAPPLE X 01:02, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 Hahc21 10:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC) [28].[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Megadeth

[edit]
Nominator(s): Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List about Megadeth's awards. All I managed to found since the band hasn't received much accolades through out their career. I believe I've re-arranged the sections correctly and re-builded the prose.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed that issue. Thanks for the comment.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). A nice page, but I've got a few comments of things that could improve it further: (1) Remove "Grammy Award-nominated" from first sentence in lede, not sure that's encyclopedic or NPOV. (2) 3rd paragraph in lede is a two-sentence-long-paragraph, suggest merging it or expanding it. (3) Other recognitions - this sect seems oddly located and strangely named, perhaps rename it to simply Reception and change it to prose format and expand it to a couple paragraphs in length. (4) Move cites in table to new column for Notes and place them there, for uniformity with other list pages. (5) You might think about adding at least a couple free-use images. — Cirt (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comment. I copied that "Grammy-nominated band" from Metallica awards, while that paragraph about "Other recognitions" was inspired by List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I looked it over again and still stand by my above comments. Keep me posted if you wish to address them, — Cirt (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but placing the notes is separate column is unfeasible because Template:Awards table doesn't feature such an option. Anyway, I wanted to ask is it better to merge the third paragraph with the first or second? And are the images available on Wiki Commons suitable for here or should I update a new one?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no worries about the refs column. I'd say merge the 3rd para with the 2nd, but I'll leave that editorial judgment up to you. I'll defer to your judgment about which images from Wikimedia Commons you wish to use that are relevant, but then they would need an image review after being added to the page. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cambalachero (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The numbers of the table do not seem right in comparison with the tables below. Have in mind that usually we only count as "nominations" the unsuccessful ones; when Megadeth wins an award it goes to "wins", not to both "wins" and "nominations". In Genesis Awards you said "Megadeth has" and in the following one you said "Megadeth have"; decide if the name of a band counts as a "he" or a "they", and use an uniform style. To say that Megadeth "have yet to win" seems to imply that they should do so, which is an opinion; just say that they have not won so far. You should also reference that they are one of the most nominated artists without a Grammy win, as that isn't something self-evident from the tables in this list (as it involves other artists and their own Grammy performances). The loudwire entry should have the song between " ", as in the other tables. You should also link Megadeth and Dave Mustaine at the last tables, overlinking does not count in table entries (specially when they are different tables). And does Guitar World have a tie between Mustaine and Friedman at the 19º, or do they have a joint entry as a guitar duo at their table? Cambalachero (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. The awards won also fall under nominations. Take a look at Metallica awards or Thirty Seconds to Mars. Mustaine and Friedman ara ranked as a guitar duo, or share the nomination. The other notes are proper and I will address them as soon as I can.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Cambalachero: user L1A1 FAL addressed some of your concerns, while the rest of them are explained above. Anything else that needs to be done?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's still the use of "has"/"have", and the last sentence of the grammy is still unreferenced Cambalachero (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected the first note. I couldn't find a source that says Megadeth were one of the bands with many nominations who hasn't won, so I omitted that sentence.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from CrowzRSA (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Comments
  • ...is ranked as one of the "Big Four" of thrash metal, whose commercial success led to popularization of the thrash metal sub-genre. redundant use of "thrash metal," perhaps change to "...led to popularization of the genre."
  • Megadeth is considered as one of the most successful... → "considered to be one of the most..."
  • Thrash metal needs to be linked only the first time it is mentioned in the lead, then once again in the body.
  • Dave Mustaine, Megadeth's frontman has been nominated twice, reword to: "Megadeth frontman Dave Mustaine has been nominated twice,"
  • What makes rockonthenet.com a reliable source?
  • Since Blabbermouth.net is part of Roadrunner Records, Blabbermouth should be listed under "
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 Hahc21 10:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC) [29].[reply]

Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I trust it conforms to FL criteria. The list passed an A-class review of the WP Military History Project, it has been copyedited since by a GOCE volunteer and received other improvements. Tomobe03 (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). I see great improvements from the A-class review by WP:MILHIST. Minor quibbles: (1) The Footnotes sect should be just called Notes; as Footnotes are for comments at the end of the article, and Notes is for citations. (2) I actually like the breakdown by type of sources in the References sect, but in academia these would all be arranged purely alphabetically, totally fine either way, I'll leave that up to Tomobe03. (3) Image review: Three images used in article, all appropriately licensed at Wikimedia Commons, no issues there. Great job overall, — Cirt (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for having a look at the candidate. I have now retitled the section heading.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments This is looking good and my points are fairly minor.
  • "an open revolt of the Croatian Serbs in August 1990. It further developed with the increasing involvement of the Yugoslav People's Army in the conflict". I think some clarification would be helpful. Presumably the Serbs revolted against the Croatian regional government and the YPA intervened on the Serbs' side?
    • Indeed. Clarification added.
  • "following the electoral defeat of the government of the Socialist Republic of Croatia". Similarly to above, revising something like "defeat of the socialists by Croat nationalists in the election of a Croatian government" (or whatever is correct) would make clear why the defeat provoked a Serb revolt.
    • Since the issue is secondary (in my opinion) to the article subject, I have added this clarification to article body only but left the lead as-is. Would you agree with this or do you think the info warrants inclusion in the opening paragraph?
  • I would link Zagreb.
    • Linked.
  • "special forces unit of the Ministry of the Interior that exited before the 1990s" I would add Croatian before Ministry and what did they exit from?
    • Added "Croatian" as suggested. "Exited" is a typo - fixed now, should be "existed".
  • Vinkovci. "20 troops killed" would be better than "20 killed troops". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. A good list.
  • One further suggestion. "following the electoral defeat of the socialist government of the Socialist Republic of Croatia by the Croatian Democratic Union representing a nationalist programme" looks rather clumsy. How about something like "following the electoral defeat of the socialist government by the nationalist Croatian Democratic Union". The link to the Socialist Republic of Croatia could then replace the one to the Government of Croatia in the lead, where it would be more accurate referring to 1990. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 Hahc21 10:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC) [30].[reply]

Bibliography of Sax Rohmer

[edit]
Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sax Rohmer was a prodigious writer between his first book in 1910 and his death in 1959. He started his career writing songs and sketches for music hall stars George Robey and Little Tich, and ghost wrote Tich's autobiography. He is probably best remembered for his creation of the villainous Fu Manchu, who appeared in 15 of Rohmer's books, before finding a further life in the cinema. – SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I am familiar with this subject thanks largely to my work on the Tich FA and my FAC intended work on Robey. As such, this is a very accurate account of the information given on them. I have made the couple of small fixes myself as they were really small and more effort would have been needed for me to post them here rather than to just get on with it; I see no further issues whatsoever. Great stuff! CassiantoTalk 10:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments typically good stuff, some minor technical points.

  • Blank publisher for "Aboo Tabah", probably worth a note.
  • "Other works of Sax Rohmer" shouldn't that really be "Non-fction works..."?
  • "by M. Retford." vs "and T. W. Thurban" in Notes. The consistency of the use of full stops is the issue here.
  • "The books of Rohmer" previous captions have used his full name. And this appears to be more specific than "books", "novels and story collections"...
  • New York or NY? Unless one means the city, the other the state I suppose...?

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many thanks Cirt: much appreciated! There are a couple of different formats for bibliographies and I've plumped for this, largely because I find the format of "Sax Rohmer bibliography" gramatically lumpy! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with a few comments
  • "was a British song and sketch writer, and author" - that comma just seems awkward, maybe "was a British author and song and sketch writer"
  • Notes shouldn't be sortable in the Non-fiction table
  • Given that the first table's heading is "Songs and musical monologues written by Rohmer", the others should be in the same style (i.e. Plays written by Rohmer, not "The plays of Rohmer")
  • Comments:
  • No image of the man?
  • "Born" twice in two sentences
  • His formal education finished in 1901 with the death of his alcoholic mother - probably not intended, but could be interpreted as his education led to her death, or that she was teaching him
  • ghost written - I think this should either be one word or hyphenated

Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 03:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC) [31].[reply]

Dan Savage bibliography

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cirt and The Rambling Man. — Cirt (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was inspired to create this page after seeing George Orwell bibliography which was brought to FL quality by koavf. Prior to this nomination, the most recent quality improvement step for this page was a Peer Review with helpful participation from Joe Decker and koavf. Before that, it had survived an attempt at deletion with unanimous "Keep" participation aside from the nominator, and a prior peer review.

My thanks to The Rambling Man who helped mentor me through the quality improvement process for Dan Savage bibliography. — Cirt (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User talk:Cirt, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bibliographies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Talk:Dan Savage bibliography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books. — Cirt (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]
Yes, thank you, Crisco 1492, ArbCom passed that motion linked above, which specifically allows me to perform a quality improvement project to attempt to bring this page to WP:FL quality. Thanks Crisco 1492 for that link, — Cirt (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DragonZero

[edit]
Resolved comments from DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Uncertain about this but "The Washington Post reported that according to Nielsen BookScan approximately ", there should be a comma between BookScan and approximately.
  • Ref 2 redirects, needs an updated link (http://www.altweeklies.com/aan/dan-savage-takes-editorial-reins-at-the-stranger/Article?oid=1151 is the current one)
  • Still not updated.
  • Ref 7 needs an updated link
  • Ref 29 is dead?
  • Ref 40 needs an updated link
  • Ref 83 needs an updated link
  • Ref 86 needs an updated link
  • Ref 88 is dead
  • Ref 101 needs an updated link
  • Ref 102 needs an updated link
  • Ref 104 needs an updated link
  • Ref 105 needs an updated link
  • Third to last bibliography needs an updated link
Thanks very much for the Support. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bencherlite

[edit]

Lead

  • Not a great fan of the opening line: "The bibliography of Dan Savage includes six books and an edited compilation book, chapter contributions to eleven books, op-ed pieces in The New York Times, and an advice column on sexual issues in The Stranger written by the American author Dan Savage (b. 1964)." Which basically boils down to "The bibliography of Dan Savage includes stuff written by Dan Savage", which is circular and doesn't tell us what The Stranger is. Don't worry about having to have something there in bold. How about this as the first paragraph: "The American author Dan Savage (born 1964) has written six books, op-ed pieces in the New York Times, and an advice column on sexual issues in The Stranger (an alternative newspaper from Seattle, Washington). He began contributing a column, Savage Love, to The Stranger [etc]..."
  • Third paragraph of the lead: "Savage's 2005 book The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family recounting his personal experience deciding to marry his partner Terry Miller and analyzing same-sex marriage, reached The New York Times Best Seller list." needs a comma before "recounting".

Background:

  • overlinking (Catholic, bachelor's degree, theater)
  • Perhaps mention where The Stranger is based here
  • The Kid: What Happened after [etc]" does not use the same capitals as our article about it (I think you need a capital "A" in "After" to avoid the redirect"

Works

  • The Kid - as before, check capitals
  • Overlinking galore throughout the rest of the lists(s). The NYT and The NYT Company are each linked over 15 times; repeated links for Dutton; Seattle; MTV; YouTube; Savage Love; etc etc etc etc. Useful links are just drowned in a sea of blue. If the lists were sortable, then there would be a reason for repeating the links, but I can't see why every article he's written for the NYT, for example, needs repeated bluelinks. Nor do I think we need "Savage, Dan" at the front of every one. Other featured bibliographies manage without this.
  • Low value links e.g. three different links in the six words "Master of Communications in Digital Media", none of which are very useful.
  • Watch for unnecessary repetition - in the "books edited" section, for instance, we read a lot of stuff for the third time (lead; background; books edited). That's one too many, I think - either in the background, or the books edited section, but not both.
  • Television - what's referencing these appearances? Is there anything to be said about them?
  • Plays - you sometimes link the original work, sometimes not.
  • "was credited as: Keenan Hollahan" - why the colon?

Further reading

  • Why so many other sources here? If they belong in his article, then fine, but this is a bibliography not a proxy-biography.

This is not a full review but I think there's still a lot to be done. BencherliteTalk 00:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you, Bencherlite, I will get on addressing above soon, and respond back here when done. — Cirt (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comments from Bencherlite
  1. Done. Lede = changed to suggestion from Bencherlite, I like the new version, thank you!
  2. Done. Added a comma.
  3. Done. Removed overlinking.
  4. Done. Mentioned here where the Stranger is based.
  5. Done. Fixed link to avoid redirect.
  6. Done. Again, fixed link to avoid redirect.
  7. Done. Went through the entire page subsection-by-subsection. Removed overlinking. Removed "Savage, Dan", where it is unambiguous. Looks better this way, thank you!
  8. Done. Removed low value links, as suggested.
  9. Done. Removed unnecessary repetition. Preserved info in Background sect. Trimmed info from books edited sect.
  10. Done. Added referenced info about material, to the Television sect.
  11. Done. Linked original works.
  12. Done. Removed colon.
  13. Done. Trimmed amount of entries in this sect.

Thank you for these recommendations, Bencherlite, the page looks much better for them! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've gone through and removed a great deal more wikilinking, per above recommendations by Bencherlite. The page is more focused because of these helpful ideas. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prism

[edit]
  • Support: after a thorough read of the lead section and analysis of references and list itself, I think this is suitable for FL as it is well referenced and structured. Keep up the good work. Prism △ 12:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Prism, for the Support and the kind words about the quality of the list page, most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HĐ

[edit]
Thanks very much for your Support, HĐ, and your nice thoughts on the list, I really appreciate it. — Cirt (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PresN

[edit]
Comments from PresN (addressed)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Comments
  • "was published in 1998 by Plume" - maybe link to Plume (publisher), since it's not obvious that it's a company rather than a person, due to the name. You're also not consistent about mentioning the publisher in the lead (You only do so for 2 of 5 books), so either mention it all the time, or none of the time. I'd say none of the time, since you turn around and mention them in the next section
  • You mention 4 of his written books in the lead, and the one he edited, but not the two newest ones?
  • "The book features contributors including Barack Obama" - if you just look at the main phrase, all you say is "The book features contributors". You need an adjective- numerous? notable?
  • If it was worth linking Uni of Ill and The Stranger in the lead, it's worth doing it the first time you mention them in the body.
  • Link the publishers in the tables the first time they're used; I see above that you were asked not to do it every time since the tables aren't sortable, but now they're not linked at all
  • You have the headings "author", "contributor"... and "books edited". Why not "editor"?
  • The "Advice Column" section has a floating "Savage Love" above the actual savage love entry
  • The formatting on the Internet section is just strange- you flip Savage's name (but not Miller's) and put in a retrieval date, as if it were a citation. I'd rather see, instead of
Savage, Dan; Terry Miller (September 21, 2010). "It Gets Better". It Gets Better Project (YouTube). Retrieved December 13, 2012.
have
"It Gets Better", part of the It Gets Better Project (YouTube), with Terry Miller (September 21, 2010)
It just makes more sense to have it as a list item, rather than a pseudo-citation. If you want citations, then have a citation.
  • Same thing with the This American Life Live! line under Television - flipped names, citation styling, ugh.
  • "including Lily Tomlin, and LeAnn Rimes" - no need for a comma
  • In Articles, I think you mean those to be subsection headers, but they're just floating bits a text, since there's not a lot of separation between them and the line above. And again, I don't see the point of retrieval dates.
  • If you're going to specify the second column of Awards as the main column, why not just put it as the first column?
  • Saint Joan and The Best Man are both links to disambiguation pages
  • The media portal link way at the bottom is just a redirect to the Journalism portal, which you already have linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PresN (talk • contribs)
Thanks very much, PresN, for these detailed and helpful comments, I shall get to addressing them now, and then note back here when done. — Cirt (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Response to comments from PresN
  1. Done. Removed mention of publishers from lead.
  2. Done. Added two newest books to lead.
  3. Done. Added word "notable", as suggested, thank you, looks better this way!
  4. Done. Linked these two terms in first instance of appearance in body.
  5. Done. Linked first instance of publishers in the tables.
  6. Done. Changed heading to "Editor".
  7. Done. Removed floating term above entry in this section.
  8. Done. Adjusted formatting in Internet section, as suggested.
  9. Done. Modified formatting of This American Life! entry in Television section, as recommended.
  10. Done. Removed comma.
  11. Done. Changed to subsection headers.
  12. Done. Switched "Awards" to be first column.
  13. Done. Fixed links to disambiguation pages to more specific links.
  14. Done. Removed link to Media portal.

Thank you, PresN, for these helpful recommendations -- I agreed with all of them so I've implemented the changes directly to the list page. The list looks much better for them! Thank you for your comments, — Cirt (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problems with the tweaks, and thank you for the Support ! — Cirt (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor

[edit]

This list looks to be in very good shape! My only suggestions would be to organize the references in three columns instead of two as they currently are, and also to make the pictures a little bit large to see more of their detail. But these are just small ideas, of course, and I have no problem giving my Support to the nomination! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've changed the references sect to three columns, and adjusted the size of the images, per above suggestions. Thanks very much for your Support, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

[edit]

Question - What is the point of the background section? It doesn't have much, if any, information that is not in the lede. Other bibliographies / lists of works that I am familiar with do not have such a section. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the interest, Crisco 1492, per WP:LEAD, lede intro sects should be summaries of information presented later in the page, and should be able to function as a standalone summary of the entire page's contents. That's how I constructed the lede intro sect, in order to conform to WP:LEAD. Hope that's helpful, — Cirt (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's also similar to how I structured the sourced info and lede intro sect for a prior successful WP:FL I worked on, at 29th Golden Raspberry Awards. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the reasoning but I followed the prior experience I had at 29th Golden Raspberry Awards and the approved guideline page at WP:LEAD. This FLC page currently has five (5) Supports for the current format for the Background section. I'd rather not make such a drastic change to the page at this point in time after this amount of unanimous Support for the current format. Thank you for your understanding, — Cirt (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite sure I understand, Crisco 1492. I've addressed all issues from above comments, leading to multiple users to change their prior positions to Support. This FLC currently has five (5) Support comments. Is it not yet ready for promotion? — Cirt (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, Crisco 1492, the Background sect has more info than in the lede, as the lede per WP:LEAD is a summary of more detailed info that follows later in the page. I'd rather not have to gut sourced info from the page, and the lede/intro sect is already sufficiently sized and I'd rather not add more info to the lede in order to then remove the entire Background sect. — Cirt (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) It is, more or less. However, I am not comfortable with promoting the article as it stands owing to its marked difference from similar articles. As I may be (perhaps even likely am being) overly cautious, I think it best if either SchroCat, Giants2008, or Hahc21 to seek a third opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Crisco 1492, this FLC has been open for one month. It has five (5) Supports. I don't want to have to remove sourced info, and I don't know how to change the page to satisfy your complaints. What would you have me do? What do you suggest? — Cirt (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am just asking for a second opinion from another delegate. I am not saying this is a bad list, or that it does not deserve to pass (the lede is solid, and it looks reasonably complete). I am just saying that I am uncomfortable with the background section, and asking that another delegate provide further input. If the delegate who responds agrees with you, I certainly have no issue with this article being promoted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Please bear with me. I am now in the process of transitioning the lead to function as the Background info to help ground the reader and introduce the reader to the topic, as per the list pages you cited, above. Hopefully this will be helpful. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would work too, but don't force yourself to do something you disagree with. Consensus may be against me, and there's no deadline; Schro or Giants or Hahc could have a very different opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's fine. :) I'll update back here when done. I want to be collaborative and follow the model from the prior lists you cited that are approved as Featured Quality. — Cirt (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I've transitioned info to the lede section, per above recommendations by Crisco 1492. I think the page looks quite good this way, actually. And if it's the standard of prior FLs for Bibliographies, perhaps that's okay that it doesn't conform with WP:LEAD, as maybe that's intended more for articles. Hopefully this is now satisfactory, Crisco 1492 ? — Cirt (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! :) — Cirt (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Status

[edit]
  • The colouring of the row headings in the tables are somehow conflicting with the arrows (I'm not exactly sure how to call them), causing one to believe that the tables are not sortable. I was going to comment to advise you to add sorbability, and then saw that they already were.
  • When there's multiple references referencing the same thing, such as an award in the awards table, I think it would be best to combine them into one reference, instead of having a big line of different references.

— Status (talk · contribs) 18:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Status, for these comments, I will look to addressing them to help further improve the page, but this particular page has already been promoted to Featured List quality status. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, my bad! For what it's worth, I would have supported. — Status (talk · contribs) 18:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 Hahc21 10:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC) [32].[reply]

List of songs recorded by Natalia Kills

[edit]
Nominator(s): prism △ 19:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think, after working a lot on it on my sandbox, it meets the Featured list criteria. Also, as I have said in my previous nomination for Natalia Kills discography I want to turn more Natalia Kills articles into certified, quality pages. As you comment this nomination, please do not only write Support or Oppose, but also include your reasons as to why you're reluctant or you approve the passing of the page, don't limit yourself to only writing random words that will not help the outcome of this nomination. Thank you! prism △ 19:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Decodet

[edit]
Resolved comments from Decodet
  • URL is missing in ref 6.
Added URL plus ISBN.
  • Link "Billboard" and "Prometheus Global Media" in ref 6 and unlink it in ref 10.
Done.
  • "iTunes" and "Apple Inc." are overlinked in the ref section.
Removed linking in second reference to iTunes

Other than that, everything looks good to me. Good job :) decodet. (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's an overlinking in albums' titles in the list.
Removed the wikilinks.
@Decodet: Thank you! Do you approve or oppose this nomination now? prism △ 20:01, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has changed in here for me, maybe Wikipedia is bugged? decodet. (talk) 20:09, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Decodet: Check again please. prism △ 20:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's still an overlinking. The same album is linked several times in the table, as well as the writters. Kills, for instance, is linked in every single song. decodet. (talk) 02:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Decodet: Hope everything's good now! prism △ 20:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For me, everything looks good! I'm more than happy to support this nomination. Good job! :) decodet. (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor

[edit]
Resolved comments from WikiRedactor
Comments from WikiRedactor
  • Studio albums should be wikilinked in the introduction (same with songs and other important content with an article.)
Wikilinked some stuff; not everything as I don't want to be overlinking.
  • "Another artists" should read "other artists".
Fixed.
  • Clarify that Perfectionist is her debut record.
Clarified.
  • Instead of using the phrase "single release only", I would suggest putting in the {{N/a}} template in its place.
Fixed.
  • When listing songwriters, can you use the {{plainlist}} template instead of using <br />?
If you really insist on it, I'll replace it, but I question the need to do it, as it is solely a personal preference and it doesn't center the writers' names.
  • (On a side note, since this list provides a fair amount of songs with standalone articles, you might want to create a Natalia Kills template and throw it at the end of the page.)
Added!

Just some small fixes, and I'm happy to give my support for the nomination! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiRedactor: Thank you, and please check if my edits comply with your reccomendations. :) prism △ 20:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Prism: Exactly what I was looking for! WikiRedactor (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Cirt

[edit]
Resolved comments from Cirt

NOTE: Please respond, below entire image review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

  1. File:M. Pokora NRJ Music Awards 2013 3.jpg = Image hosed on Commons with WP:OTRS confirmation, checks out okay. Green tickY
  2. File:Natalia Kills Wireless Festival 2011.jpg = image hosted on Commons by one-off-single-contribution-only contributor which raises redflags about permission, would prefer to see OTRS confirmation for this. Also, image is 63 kilobytes and could have simply been grabbed from elsewhere online. Best not to use this image.  Not done.
  3. File:Fernando Garibay Wikipedia 1.jpg = image hosted on Commons by one-off-single-contribution-only contributor which raises redflags about permission, would prefer to see OTRS confirmation for this. Best not to use this image. Author name in author field is different from user contributed, therefore this one needs OTRS confirmation.  Not done.
  4. File:Theron Neff u Feemster.JPG = image hosted on Commons by one-off-single-contribution-only contributor which raises redflags about permission, would prefer to see OTRS confirmation for this. Best not to use this image. Also, same uploader seems to have multiple problem issues here at en.wikipedia.  Not done.
  5. File:Redfoo & Sky Blu.jpg = image hosted on Commons by one-off-single-contribution-only contributor which raises redflags about permission, would prefer to see OTRS confirmation for this. However, willing to make an exception for this particular image. It's of a relatively higher resolution at 463 kilobytes. It gives a date of photograph as different from upload date. It gives good deal of information with the image upload by original uploader. For all these reasons, this particular image is okay. Green tickY

NOTE: Please respond, below entire image review, and not interspersed throughout, thanks! — Cirt (talk) 11:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response
    • Natalia Kills image was substituted, as was LMFAO's.
    • Fernando Garibay was removed and substituted with an image of Kid Cudi.

@Cirt: Do I have your support now? prism △ 20:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: All other images currently now check out okay. Green tickY — Cirt (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

====Comments from Crisco 1492====

  • Per the instructions, I don't think this should have been nominated just yet. This was nominated a mere week after the discography, at which time the minimum of ten days before a nomination could even be closed had not passed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll defer to the judgment of Crisco 1492 here, before doing additional review myself. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]
@Cirt: I have talked to Crisco 1492 and he is not closing the nomination. So, do you support the nomination now? Prism △ 11:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Simon

[edit]

Comments from SnapSnap

[edit]
  • In order to avoid using too many commas, "...by releasing a single with UK-based record label All Around the World Productions, entitled "Don't Play Nice", under the name Verbalicious, in 2005." → "by releasing the single "Don't Play Nice" on UK-based record label All Around the World Productions in 2005, under the name Verbalicious."  Done
  • "Kills started songwriting for other artists" → "Kills started writing songs for other artists", as "songwriting" is not a verb.  Done
  • I think words like "record" and "LP" are a little vague, so I'd personally replace both with "album" anyway.  Done
  • The symbols in the table should be placed after the song titles so it doesn't mess with the table's sortability.  Done

SnapSnap 19:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SnapSnap: Do I have your support now? Prism △ 19:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. SnapSnap 20:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Featured_log/March_2014&oldid=601925011"