Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria.

Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and at peer review at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and The Rambling Man, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least ten days (though most last at least a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

After a reasonable time has passed, the director or delegates will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

  1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
  3. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.

Supporting and objecting

Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write * '''Object''' or * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature, rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews

The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:

The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:


List of Hallmark Channel Original Movies[edit]

Nominator(s): History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 17:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a massive, comprehensive, well-written, fully-sourced and up-to-date list of all the original, high-end production, television films and movie series from Hallmark Channel (HC) and its sister channel Hallmark Movies & Mysteries (HMM). I would also like to add that this list has been continuously edited and built for 10 years now, and has had almost 100,000 page views in just the past month. Thank you for your consideration. Cordially, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 17:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comment
  • There's a heck of a lot of references, but what is sourcing all the "by year" data from 2000 to 2011? None of that has any refs at all..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment Chris. If you take a closer look you'll see that the 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 seasons DO have references in their sections (plus other sections). 2001 and 2004's are in the intro (corresponding to each channel's launch year respectively), 2003's in the 'Franchise series' section. 2005's in the 'Umbrella series' and 'Franchise series' sections. 2010's in the 'Seasonal programming' section. The list is only missing references for 2000, 2002 and 2011, which should be easy to find. Also, a reminder that the 2000-2014 period produced far less titles than the 2015-2020. No list is perfect, but this one is pretty good. And of course, improvements and polishing are always needed in this list as in all lists. Cheers, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 22:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
You say "2001[...]'s are in the intro (corresponding to each channel's launch year respectively)", and that part is certainly true, but what ref covers the fact that "Snow White: The Fairiest Them All" (which, by the way, seems to be spelt incorrectly) was broadcast on October 28, 2001, for example? And given that you've mentioned there that the channel launched in 2001, how can there be nine films listed for 2000 if the channel hadn't started broadcasting? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you again for your input Chris :) I have addressed your above concerns as best as possible, plus I added refs to all the years/seasons that had none (see my changes here). I certainly agree that the 2000-2011 period could include more sources, but all its sub-sections now have at least one or two refs, and again, this is the earlier period that had much fewer movies in it than the latter period when they flourished. Cheers, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 19:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but saying that all sections "have at least one or two refs" isn't really going to cut it at FLC. An FLC is expected to have everything reliably sourced. As it stands, the section on 2005, for example, only cites the existence of one out of 32 films, so regretfully I'm going to have to oppose due to lack of sourcing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
With almost 600 unique references, I hardly think there is "a lack of sourcing" in this massive list. You seem to be asking for a perfect list, and that is unreasonable. I also don't understand why you are so quick to oppose, when you could offer more guidance, solutions, and specifics. If you care about the FLC project I kindly ask you to withhold your vote and allow more time to address its imperfections. The rules/guidelines even indicate that nominations can have up to 1 month to resolve issues. Are you seriously going to deny this nomination the time that everybody else here is getting? Please take into consideration that this list includes almost 1,000 unique film titles. The editors involved in the making of this list did great work and I support them 100%. Thanks, History DMZ (talk)+(ping) 21:43, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I will be more than happy to withdraw my oppose !vote if the issues with the article are resolved (and many nominations stay open for a lot longer than a month, so there's plenty of time). In the case of this list, though, there's just so much uncited content that I think it will be a huge task to bring it up to FL standard within a reasonable timeframe....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

AIFF Player of the Year[edit]

Nominator(s): Drat8sub (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've improved the article significantly with all required information, citations and structure and from previous experiences of nominations I've taken care of small details carefully. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria per WP:WIAFL and has a scope of getting FL status. I welcome to all comments and suggestions regarding this nomination. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

  • There's some inconsistent formatting between websites: vs Indian Super League (why not
Consistency should be between same website, not different, i.e, if once put, then another one should not be AIFF. But it can be IndianSuperLeague and it should be consistent for all IndianSuperLeague citations.
No, not every time, once is enough.
  • date missing for ref 4
  • ref 5 missing website and author
  • date for ref 7
  • refs 6 and 10 have website/publisher formatted differently when they're the same
  • ref 12 missing date and author
  • why is the Times Now Network in ref 13 but not ref 3?
because agencies are different, one is PTI, another is TNN
  • ref 16 missing date
  • Reliability is good. Glanced through for some brief spot checks. Aza24 (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Aza24, fixed. Other points are addressed above. Drat8sub (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ryan Reynolds filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ryan Reynolds is a Canadian actor known for his work in television shows such as Two Guys and a Girl, romantic comedies such as The Proposal and his title role in the Deadpool film franchise. As always I welcome all constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Should the dash be centered for his role in Murder in Manhattan?

Spotless — really admirable work. ~ HAL333 04:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Pomona College people[edit]

Nominator(s): {{u|Sdkb}}talk 10:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello all! I've been working on this page quite a lot, and following a recent peer review, I believe it's ready to face the FLC gauntlet here. A few notes:

  • Since college people lists are necessarily dynamic, the big challenge was ensuring comprehensive enough coverage. I took a ground-up approach, starting with using FindLink to add missing links to Pomona College. From there, I made a PetScan query of biography pages that linked to Pomona but were not categorized with an affiliation. I was able to categorize 95 alumni, 49 faculty members, and three trustees through this method. Once I had the categories in better shape, I was able to peruse them for particularly prominent or Pomona-connected individuals to list. The current list still isn't perfect, but due to the above, I'm reasonably sure I'm not missing some major entry like a U.S. Senator or similar.
  • I used List of Dartmouth College alumni and other WikiProject Higher Ed FLs as starting inspiration, although I hope I've been able to exceed them in a number of ways.
  • I intentionally tried to keep the lead fairly concise (similar to the Dartmouth list, sans the notation key, which is unneeded for an all-undergraduate college), since my editing philosophy is that lists with an associated page (in this case, Pomona's main page) should stick to being lists and leave the more detailed description for the associated page.
  • For the redlinked entries, I included additional citations to demonstrate notability.
  • I was able to find the graduation year or tenure for almost every entry; the remaining instances in which the exact year is listed as unknown each reflect quite a bit of searching to ensure that it is truly not publicly available.

Feel free to let me know any questions, and looking forward to your feedback! Non-mandatory QPQ done at List of Broadway Theatres. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 10:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

List of stupas in Nepal[edit]

Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 08:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Stupas are used as a place of meditation. This list shows notable stupas in Nepal. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 08:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

  • You say "This list shows notable stupas in Nepal" - are there others? If the ones listed are the notable ones, what makes them notable and the rest not notable?
  • "Stupas in Nepal date back to the Licchavi period," - that comma should be a semi-colon
  • "Swayambhunath is one of the oldest known building in the country that was likely built in the 5th century CE" => "Swayambhunath is one of the oldest known buildings in the country and was likely built in the 5th century CE"
  • "Ashoka's daughter Charumati who married a Nepali prince; built" => "Ashoka's daughter Charumati, who married a Nepali prince, built"
  • "which badly damaged and completely destroyed the top part" - well if it was completely destroyed then clearly it was badly damaged, so the first part is redundant
  • "Near Thamel, Kaathe Swayambhu, a replica of the Swayambhunath is located that was built in 1650" => "Kaathe Swayambhu, a replica of the Swayambhunath that was built in 1650, is located near Thamel"
  • "there are few stupas" => "there are several stupas"
  • "The World Peace Pagoda was built by Japanese Buddhist" => "The World Peace Pagoda was built by Japanese Buddhists" (unless it was genuinely built by just one guy :-))
  • "near the stupa, there is a gravestone of a monk who murdered" => "near the stupa is the gravestone of a monk who was murdered"
  • No co-ordinates for The Great Drigung Kagyud Lotus Stupa - surely its location is known?
  • The "established" column does not sort correctly
  • Stupas which are heritage sites do not have the dagger symbol against them which the key suggests they should
  • In the table you use BC and AD, but in the lead you used BCE and CE
  • Where there is more than one ref on a row, they should be in correct numerical order
  • Think that's it from me. Thanks for an interesting read about a subject I knew nothing about....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude, All done. To become notable to be in this list, it must receive basic coverage via books, news etc. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, although if all of these are considered notable then it would be nice to see articles created on the three that are currently redlinks..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Hot C&W Sides number ones of 1960[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is the latest in the seemingly never-ending run of country number one song lists - 1944, 1959, and all 50 years from 1962 to 2011 inclusive are at FL and 1961 currently has four supports, a completed source review, and no outstanding issues, so should be good to go. So here's the last remaining one for the 1960s...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the table seems fine.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:42, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

List of accolades received by 1917 (2019 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

1917 is a 2019 war film directed and co-written by Sam Mendes. Inspired by stories told to the director by his grandfather, it chronicles the story of two young British soldiers (played by George MacKay and Dean-Charles Chapman) in the spring of 1917 during World War I, who are given a mission to deliver a message warning of an ambush, soon after the German retreat to the Hindenburg Line during Operation Alberich. This is my first second film accolades list I am attempting to promote, and I largely based the format off of List of accolades received by The Artist (film) which was promoted in October 2015. I will gladly accept your comments to improve this list. Birdienest81 (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

  • "Universal Pictures initially gave the film a limited release in eleven theaters" - it's a British film, so "theatres" should be spelt correctly the British way ;-)
    • (updated to add) Actually in Britain we don't refer to cinemas as theatres, so it might be best just to put "cinemas"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • You should also use British date formats, so 10 January 2020, not January 10, 2020
  • Random aside: gosh, did this film only come out this January? I saw it at the cinema and it seems a lot longer ago, but I guess that's down to the crazy year we've all had.......
  • None of the notes are complete sentences, so they don't need full stops
  • Sorting order on the result column goes Won > Runner-up > Pending > Nominated > 21st > 11th, which seems very odd........?
  • Think that's genuinely all I could find to pick up on - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
That La La Land one is a complete mess. It goes Won > Runner-up > Nominated > 10th > 9th > 8th > 7th > 6th > 5th > 4th > 3rd > 2nd, so 2nd ranks lower than 3rd. That doesn't seem to make any sense to me. In the case of the 1917 list, can you use a sorting template so that 11th at least ranks better than 21st? And "pending" should probably go at the bottom. That would fix this one...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Asin filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 13:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating a fully-sourced and well-written listing of Asin's film. As usual, look forward to lots of constructive comments... 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 13:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Comments from Ab207[edit]

  • Per 3 (b) of Featured list criteria. There seems to be a lack of inline citations, including but not limited to the following:
  • "first commercial success with the Telugu film Amma Nanna O Tamila Ammayi"
  • "Lakshmi Narasimha (2004) and Gharshana (2004), both of which were successful ventures."
The source does not seem to mention them. You may leave out the "successful ventures" part if that is easier--Ab207 (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I have added 2 new sources with modified sentence. Let me know if it's fine.
Yeah, They'll do.--Ab207 (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "M. Kumaran Son of Mahalakshmi, a critical and commercial success."
Critical success part is not supported. --Ab207 (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "She then played the lead female roles in many commercially successful films," (Here "lead female role" can be replaced with just "lead role", never seen someone using "lead male role" for instance)
  • "established herself as the leading actress of Tamil cinema."
Not sure if you have noticed but this is a case of WP:CIRCULAR. Content seems to be copied from Wikipedia itself. We would need a different source.--Ab207 (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
After working on several Tamil films she was casted as lead actress in movies. Could not this be a case of "her establishment of leading actress"?
The claim that those four films are commercially successful, must be sourced. As East Cost Daily is a circular reference, it should be replaced. You may use this this HTimes source.--Ab207 (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "Though it received mixed reviews"
Must be cited inline. --Ab207 (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "first Bollywood film to collect more than ₹1 billion at the domestic box office, subsequently collecting ₹1.9 billion (US$27 million) worldwide."
  • "London Dreams (2011), an ensemble cast film which proved to be financially unsuccessful and received mixed reviews from critics."
"financially unsuccessful" has to be sourced. Avoid WP:SYNTH for critical response, the source must directly support that the film has received mixed reviews overall, as opposed to one or two critics.--Ab207 (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Source has to directly say that the film has "received mixed reviews." For example, in Tamannaah filmography, Himmatwala's negative reception is sourced by this IBT report, which explicitly reports as such. You may also remove the review part if it's difficult to source it. There's not much value addition anyway, because most unsuccessful receive mixed or negative reviews. --Ab207 (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I am not able to find one, so have removed. Will add if I get a source in future.
  • "Asin found further success in romantic comedy Ready (2011)"
  • " Housefull 2, which collected more than ₹1 billion."
  • "Bol Bachchan (2012) and Khiladi 786 (2012), which were also commercially successful with both grossing over ₹1 billion"
Collecting 1 billion and commercial success are different things. BOI is okay for raw data per ICTF, but for the "success" part, we'd need a different source. --Ab207 (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
To my knowledge commercially successful is derived by how much money a movie has earned. Nevertheless, have added.
If you don't mind. I suggest you use this Republic source for the commercial success of three films, and remove HT, DNA, and Indiaglitz (to comply with WP:CITEKILL). You can use this for London dreams' failure as well. --Ab207 (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks for this source. Added.
  • Dual roles and roles with more than one name may be clarified using a note. Trisha filmography can be used as a reference.
Its a dual role in Dasavathaaram IIRC. --Ab207 (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Fixed Please confirm if it's done.
Yeah, nicely done. Was it a dual role in Ready? It wasn't in the Telugu version. --Ab207 (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I have not seen the movie. Actually article claims so.
  • The term "Queen of Kollywood" should preferably be attributed. Also, Filmibeat is not considered reliable per WP:ICTFSOURCES.
Attributed, can you please elaborate?
Yeah, says "by online portals," I guess that's fine. --Ab207 (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Image caption: Year and location are more significant than attire, IMO.
  • I'll follow up with the comments if I find anything else. Best wishes --Ab207 (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Look forward.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 11:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I have tried to solve issues raised. Please let me know If I have missed to solve something.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 14:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash29792[edit]

  • Asin is a former Indian actress who is known for her work in Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam and Hindi language films" - "language" may be removed since it is understood. Also, why did ChrisTheDude suggest "Indian former actress" and revert to "former Indian actress", even though he said it's because Asin is still Indian?
    • "Former Indian actress" makes it sound like she's a former Indian, which obviously isn't the case -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Asin made her debut in the Tamil film industry in the 2004 action sports drama film M. Kumaran Son of Mahalakshmi, a critical and commercial success. - change to Asin made her debut in Tamil cinema in the 2004 sports drama film M. Kumaran Son of Mahalakshmi, a critical and commercial success.
  • She then played the lead female roles in many commercially successful films, the most notable being the action film Sivakasi (2005), the dramatic thriller Varalaru (2006), the action thriller Pokkiri (2007), the romantic drama Vel (2008) and Dasavathaaram (2008), which established herself as the leading actress of Tamil cinema. you can simply say "the female lead in many commercially successful films". Also, Vel was in the action genre rather than romance (or maybe masala, which mixes various genres, but romance was certainly not the main one). Conclude this sentence with "a leading actress of Tamil cinema".
Made changes to Vel genre. We need to check a or the with @ChrisTheDude:.
I'm sure she was not the leading actress at the time. That's why I suggested a instead of the. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Though it received mixed reviews, her role as a Brahmin girl from Chidambaram in Dasavathaaram earned her a Vijay Award for Best Actress [a] nomination. change to Though Dasavathaaram received mixed reviews, her role as a Brahmin girl from Chidambaram earned her a Vijay Award for Best Actress nomination. I don't think you need a footnote describing what a Vijay Award is.
A person from USA/ Europe wouldn't know about Vijay Award, so just thought I should put a note.
We have wikilinks for that part. Tbh, they wouldn't know about Filmfare either.--Ab207 (talk) 15:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • She later played the female lead in musical drama film London Dreams (2011), an ensemble cast film which proved to be financially unsuccessful and received mixed reviews from critics. Change to She later played the female lead in the musical drama London Dreams (2011), which proved to be financially unsuccessful and received mixed reviews from critics. Since it has only three leads (Salman Khan, Ajay Devgn and Asin), I don't think ensemble applies here.
  • Asin found further success in romantic comedy Ready (2011), in which she co-starred alongside Salman Khan. The film was a major hit at the box office, collecting ₹1.84 billion (US$26 million) worldwide. Change to "box office success". Also, when Salman is not mentioned for London Dreams, why is he mentioned here?
Asin played lead role for opposite Salman inReady. For London Dream she played leading lady opposite Ajay Devgan.
  • In 2012, Asin first starred in multistarrer comedy Housefull 2, which collected more than ₹1 billion. She then featured in comedies Bol Bachchan (2012) and Khiladi 786 (2012), which were also commercially successful with both grossing over ₹1 billion. Try merging both sentences into one since all three films were released in 2012, were action comedies, and grossed over ₹1 billion each. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Will be glad if you suggest a sentence please.
How about this? In 2012, Asin starred in the action comedies Housefull 2, Bol Bachchan and Khiladi 786, all of which were commercially successful, grossing over ₹1 billion each. Place the refs at the end of the sentence. Also seeking input from others in this FLC about this sentence. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Fixed Thanks.
Thank you for solving all these comments. Also, please do NOT use the publisher field for websites. Use website or work instead. All the Times of India refs must have The Times of India under work, and The Times Group under publisher. Because the publisher field is for the work's parent company. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
I have added ref in manner you have advised here but some of them have been done by Economic Times, Entertainment Times etc. As a result I had to mention it in other way round. Please provide a suggestion what to include under work, publisher and agency in such case.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 14:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing them. Just a few more comments left: find a better source than IndiaGlitz (remove if it is redundant), and remove the awards mentioned in the table (this is because we already have List of awards and nominations received by Asin). Instead, mention any notable award in the lead section with source(s). After that this will have my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:13, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Filmfare nominations are not that significant to mention, in my view.--Ab207 (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I have actually referred Deepika Padukone filmography, Shilpa Shetty filmography, Kareena Kapoor filmography, Vidya Balan filmography. Actually it won't be bad if we mention awards as it could give a reader quick idea that actress had been nominated or won so and so awards. Thoughts @Kailash29792: @Ab207: ?

Comments from TamilMirchi[edit]

  • "earned her a Vijay Award for Best Actress nomination" is unsourced.
Not able to find one so have replaced the sentence.
  • "Her only release of 2015 was the romantic comedy All Is Well." is unsourced
 Done mentioned in table already. Adding source to each and every sentence seems strange. Anyway have added one.
  • Replace all Bollywood Hungama and Filmibeat sources with reliable sources.
Yes, Filmibeat must be replaced. However, Bollywood Hungama passes WP:RS. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Yup. I have tried to fix it all. Let me know if something is missing.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ☣✅ 14:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Carlos Kleiber discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Aza24 (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Well this has certainly been some process. Kleiber has always been one of my favorite conductors but I only recently learned of his legendary, yet mysterious reputation in the Western Classical Music world. This list would not be possible without the use of Toru Hirasawa's website, which at first glance may seem unreliable but my rationale for reliability is the following: In Charles Barber's biography on Kleiber he offers a partial discography (which has been thoroughly used) and recommends Hirasawa's list for a complete list, saying: "For accuracy and completeness it stands above all others". Ap news also says that Hirasawa "has researched a comprehensive performance history". This being said, if the reviewers still do not find the source agreeable, this list will likely be impossible to make at FL status, as no other comprehensive databases for such information (nor references that discuss many of the minor recordings) exist. Other than this I think the list meets the criteria, but am open to any suggestions or criticism! Aza24 (talk) 05:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments on live recordings table
  • Official is spelt incorrectly in the heading
  • In some cases where there are multiple refs in a cell, they are not in numerical order
  • The words "Released as a DVD in 2003" are wikilinked but don't seem to go anywhere.....?
  • In one place you use "Released: ?" but in another you use "Released: Unknown" (the latter looks more professional IMO)
  • Why are a handful of refs in the first column (eg 51 and 56) whereas all others are in the dedicated refs column
  • Think that's it on that one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: The "Released as a DVD in 2003" goes to the first row of the DVD table (which has the recording in question), due to the formatting it may appear that it is going to that table as a whole, but I'm not sure if there's much to do about that. The refs you're referring to in the first column were there as sources for the order of the concerts/recordings, but looking closer they seem unnecessary so I removed them. Everything else is fixed! Aza24 (talk) 02:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

The "released in 2003" link works for me now - how weird. Anyway.......
Comments on remaining tables
  • Video recordings
    • My only query here is that I don't understand how some of these recordings are "not commercially available". If they were not released on video, how are they video recordings? Does it just mean that a performance he conducted was broadcast on TV? To my mind that doesn't make it a "video recording". The BBC televise dozens of performances at Glastonbury each year but I wouldn't expect to see them included as "recordings" in the discographies of the relevant bands.......
  • Posthumous Documentaries
    • No need for capital D in the headings
  • That's it on the tables
Comments on notes
  • Notes b, l and p need full stops
  • Conversely notes f and g are not full sentences so don't need full stops
  • In notes q and r, "Since the concert begins" should be "Since the concert began", because we are talking about events in the past
  • Think that's the lot from me, great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:26, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: All fixed. My thoughts with the video recordings that aren't commercially available is that they do exist in the Stanford archives (and are available to see there in person), I've added a note to each of them to explain that. The other thing is that since there's such a limited amount in the first place, in my mind there's no reason for them not to be included. Aza24 (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I still think it's bizarre to include recordings which have never been made available commercially in a discography. Let's see what other reviewers think. By the way, notes s and t say exactly the same thing so could be combined...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Ali Daei[edit]

Nominator(s): Mojtaba2361 (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because of it has covers Wp:Featured list criteria. Ali Daei is all-time men's top goalscorer with 109 goals and one of the Legend of AFC in all-time.this is one of the best list in this area.I've featured this list in fa wiki too. it has additional tables and informations from similar lists and i have improved it from this version to current version.i have noticed the details for all sections of this list too.thanks. Mojtaba2361 (talk) 03:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

this is my first nomination and i've searched many references and read very lists to do my best.i spent much times for improving this list.please help me to solve the problems.thanks all of you--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 03:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review – oppose[edit]

  • What makes a reliable source?
  • What makes a reliable source?
  • The references need to be tidied: for example, if is reliable, then refs #86 to #93 need to be expanded to give more detail, while some other references need to be made consistent.
  • Is the "Record of Iran, When Daei scored" table original research based on the RSSSF list?
  • The "Stadiums that Daei scored in them" table is unreferenced.
  • The "Goals by year" table is unreferenced.
  • The "Goals by competition" table is unreferenced.
  • The "Goals by confederation" table is unreferenced.
  • The "Goals by opposition" table is unreferenced.

That's it on a quick first pass. Harrias talk 06:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

thanks for your comment.first thing i must say that i checked all the same lists and get note from each for improving this list. both site are reliable,i asked before from an admin and they are used in many articles include some featured list.for 1st ref you can see Category:Iran national football team results and for second ref, we have this {{NFT player}} so they are reliable.86 to 93 are additional refs and i improve them as you say.the record of iran becomes from the main table.add green column for example for winning and so..i solved them--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Mojtaba2361: Sorry, let me be clearer in my wording. Please demonstrate what makes "" and "" reliable, based upon WP:RS. Saying that "an admin" says it is okay is not sufficient. All references must be filled out to include all relevant information in a consistent fashion to meet FL criteria. To avoid further confusion, I currently oppose the promotion of this list due to the sourcing concerns. Harrias talk 17:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Harrias: a few sites have ali daei's statistic because he was older footballer.many refs are from as you can see List of international goals scored by Alfredo Di Stéfano (other candidates of fl) that use this. please see List of top international men's football goal scorers by country, many refs are from National Football Teams.95% of refs in my list are from above site.A few of them from teammelli or national football (for auxiliary links).if team wasn't reliable it couldn't be used in many articles.the template i pointed above is for national football team site. if it doesn't reliable it can't have template. i'll solve your concern about ref.wait please..--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Harrias: i Resolved your worries about refs Harrias, are you satisfied with it?--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@Harrias: how is it now?--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
Just a note that I can see a lot of work has gone into this, and that I will return to review my concerns as soon as possible: tomorrow if I can. Harrias talk 21:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Further comments

  • I am still unconvinced that meets our criteria for a reliable source, please demonstrate why you think it does.
  • Ref #4 appears to be dead.
  • Ref #7 is missing the author details "armband", apparently, and the title of the website is "Sports Nova".
  • For refs #91 and #93, reformat the website as, per their site, and add "Sports-Reference" as the publisher. Harrias talk 09:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
@Harrias: i don't know how can i exactly prove that site is reliable but i know that that site has articles in two wiki and footnote template {{NFT player}}. In addition, many articles in Wikipedia use it as a source like: List of top international men's football goal scorers by country, List of Lebanon international footballers, Benjamin Mendy, List of Republic of Ireland international footballers and Leslie Notši . Benjamin Strack-Zimmermann the writer of the site is famous writer in this area and my search showed his name existed in 5241 articles of wiki. Only 8 of 94 Refs is from this site(about 8%) because 11v11 doesn't cover those matches so we can be a little flexible for using it.thanks.--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
ref 4 replaced with 2 other refs. other refs you said amended. Best regards--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- Editor7798 (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • On a very cursory read, I'm spotting issues. "Iranian football player" seems like an WP:EGG. "Tehran times" is incorrect capitalization. There's a missing space at the end of a sentence in the introduction. Alt text is missing. I assume that for every error I spotted, there's likely quite a few I didn't. This needs some more work. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Sdkb: thanks for your cm. I amended them. I done many works for this article. Every featured nomination can have particall problems for solving. I have a few FL in Fawiki and a little experience here but i'll learn more and more--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Support – I have made two minor changes to the prose in the lead. MWright96 (talk) 19:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

many thanks--Mojtaba2361 (talk) 21:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

List of avisos of Germany[edit]

This list comprises all of the avisos built by the German fleets, beginning with the Prussian in the 1840s and ending with one such vessel for the Nazis in the 1930s. The list is the capstone to this topic. The list passed a Milhist A-class review earlier this year, so hopefully it shouldn't need much work. Thanks to all who take the time to help me iron out any remaining issues. Parsecboy (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

  • Good to see you at FLC again, Nate.
  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the tables seems fine.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review).
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support and well done. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Your edits look good to me, thanks Dan! Parsecboy (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Some small things:

  • Reliability looks good, academic sources mostly.
  • ISBN for volume 8?
    • For some reason, the books don't have ISBNs printed in them and Worldcat stopped putting entries in after volume 7.
  • link Matti Friedman
    • I always forget to look for these
  • translated title for Bilzer? (and, I'm guessing, an "in german" as well?)
    • Added
  • Everything else looks good Aza24 (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks! Parsecboy (talk) 09:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Odd about the ISBN, I looked around a little and couldn't find it or OCLC either, are you using an online or physical version? Maybe it would be available inside the book itself. Aza24 (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
        • I have hard copies - they don't have ISBNs printed in them, for some reason. They're obviously not so old as to predate ISBNs. I will say that Worldcat is often very spotty in what they do and don't have entries for, particularly foreign works. It can be frustrating. Parsecboy (talk) 09:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
          • Indeed... no worries though, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Wales national football team results 1900–1914[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Hot on the heels of the first list comes the next page. I've incorporated the comments from the previous FLC to hopefully make this one more streamlined. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 09:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  • "recording two second place finishes" - I would say there should be a hyphen in "second-place"
  • "However, this was followed" - don't think a sentence should start with "however", so redo as "This was followed, however"
  • "A second place finish in the 1908–09 championship was the highest placed finish" - I think both "second-place" and "highest-placed" need hyphens
  • "In the remaining 33 fixtures, Wales drew 11 and lost 23" 11 + 23 !=33
  • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review, I've amended all of the points above. Kosack (talk) 11:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Minimal sources: No issues in formatting or reliability. I changed the "Bibliography" header to "General" since "Bibliography" would be an umbrella term used for the section heading (in place of "References" for example). Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Hot C&W Sides number ones of 1961[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Here is the latest in the seemingly never-ending run of country number one song lists - 1944, 1959, and all the years from 1962 to 2011 inclusive are at FL. Fun fact: one of this year's biggest hits was by Faron Young, who was on the bill at the very first live concert I ever went to (not in 1961, though, I'm not that old!!!)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Reliability and formatting looks good, especially per previous FLCs source reviews which use the same formatting and similar sources. Btw Chris, are you planning to do all of the Billboard country lists? (if so, that's awesome!) Aza24 (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  • @Aza24: - I have already got every country singles and albums number ones list (about 130 articles) up to what I think is pretty much FL standard, it's just a case of nominating them :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I only found one mistake: the must successful → the most successful; I support this nomination once it been fixed. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I fixed that typo - well spotted! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I did some minor copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the table seems fine.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support - Dank (push to talk) 15:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Support I can't find a fault --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 03:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Spick and span, as usual. ~ HAL333 01:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Belarus[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 18:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Belarus has four sites on the list and five tentative sites. The article follows the standard style for WHS. The sources for last site are messy, apparently the UNESCO site needs some cleaning, but it is possible to figure out what it is about. The lists for Sweden and the Netherlands are still running at the moment but they have decent support at this point so I am adding a new nom. Tone 18:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Support: Great work! ----Wright Streetdeck 10:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "This is also the only natural site in Belarus" => "This is the only natural site in Belarus"
  • " the Struve Geodetic Arc is also transnational site" => " the Struve Geodetic Arc is also a transnational site"
  • "were inviting artists, craftsmen, and architects" => "invited artists, craftsmen, and architects"
  • "These interactions helped transmitting" => "These interactions helped transmit"
  • The first sentence under the Augustow Canal is incredibly long and confusing - can you break it up?
  • "This nomination is considering" - this should really be "considers" rather than "in considering", but I actually think that "covers" would be a more appropriate verb
  • "In 17th and 18th centuries" => "In the 17th and 18th centuries"
  • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Pass – reliability and formatting is good. Mostly reliant on UNESCO sources as is standard for UNESCO lists. Aza24 (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of What Would You Do? episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): Horacio Vara (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets FL criteria. It shows all the episodes in the series, shows valuable information that could be valuable to the reader, and has a graph/ratings section that adds to its notability. Horacio Vara (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  • One more query - you say that the anniversary special "featur[ed] scenarios from Primetime: What Would You Do? and season one", but earlier you said it was known as P:WWYD for its first five seasons, so the sentence as written doesn't really make sense. I presume that by "Primetime: What Would You Do?" you mean segments which originally aired as part of Primetime? Might need a re-word to make that clear..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    • When appearing as segments for Primetime, the segments were called Primetime: What Would You Do?. When the show became its own show, the series was still called Primetime: What Would You Do?. Horacio Vara (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I understand that, but saying "P:WWYD and season one" doesn't work, because the first five seasons (including season one) were all called P:WWYD. You probably need to change it to "featuring scenarios originally aired on Primetime and in season one" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

I will get to this eventually (so many sources!) but for now you should add a project(s) banner to the talk page of the article. Probably Wikiproject lists and the American Television task force (they're used in this page if that helps) Aza24 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Sorry about the wait. Comments:

  • A lot of missing retrieval dates. You can see which ones are missing by doing command/control f "Retrieved"
    • Retrieval dates aren't that necessary as the only ones missing them have an "archived from the original on" date. Horacio Vara (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • refs 8 and 10 should not be in all caps per MOS (even if the original titles are)
  • "Your Entertainment Now" does not look like a reliable source at first glance but it looks like it sources reliable statistical information itself, so I think it's admissible.
  • Some of the TV by the Numbers refs are missing archive links, and because of this are not linking to the appropriate page, by extension not sourcing the appropriate information. Refs 78 and 77 for example, though there is probably more
    • Not much you can do about that. The site was deleted and some of the pages were never archived. Horacio Vara (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
      • I sympathize with your predicament, but if the link does not provide the information it sources, that is the equivalent to not having a ref at all. You're going to have to look for another source, or double check for archive links. Aza24 (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
        • @Aza24: Every non-archived page that I could find a replacement for has been replaced. These replacements include links to websites such as The Futon Critic and TV Series Finale, which they themselves can't be archived but can be used. The only page I couldn't find a replacement for was the season 10 episode that aired on July 10, 2015. I will continue looking for a replacement for that one, but once again, I have replaced the rest. Horacio Vara (talk) 23:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
          • I appreciate your diligence! Sorry if my points were tedious, that's just the nature of source reviews. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure if there is much of a point in linking "Showbuzz Daily" since it goes to the same place as the author, but it's not a huge deal

Your Entertainment Now[edit]

  • So as it turns out, Your Entertainment Now refs (10-34) posted days after the WWYD? episode aired are actually listing "Fast Nationals", which are estimates. I am currently swaping them for the actual SD+ ratings that are posted on the same website, one week after. Horacio Vara (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Louis Schwitzer Award[edit]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The Louis Schwitzer Award is presented by the Indiana Section of SAE International to recognize innovative concepts used in racing cars entered for the Indianapolis 500. It is named after the inventor Louis H. Schwitzer and the winners of the award have their names added to a trophy on permanent display in the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Museum. I believe this list meets the criteria to be at a featured level and look forward to all comments and concerns. Should the list pass this review, it would be the first FL for American open-wheel racing. MWright96 (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

  • "Accolade sponsor BorgWarner and the Indiana Section of SAE International provides" => "Accolade sponsor BorgWarner and the Indiana Section of SAE International provide" (the subject is plural)
  • "The award has been shared just once in its history: in 1977" - I think you need to re-word this. I know what you mean, but in 2002, for example, it was technically shared by six individuals
  • "Firestone tire engineer Cara Adams became the first women recipient" - "women recipient" isn't correct. She isn't a "women". I think "female recipient" would work better.
  • In the infobox there's an amusing typo in "Reward(s): Plague"
  • Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: still don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • A {{short description}} would be helpful ... something simple like "engineering award for racing vehicle improvements" would work.
  • Personally, I have no problem at all with the sort order in the "Concept" column; I think sorting in columns like this one is mainly used to group similar items. But some reviewers prefer to sort "Beadall" under B (instead of sorting by quote marks) and to sort "2015 Chevrolet" under C (using "data-sort-value" or {{sort}}). Otherwise, I'm not seeing any problems with the table coding.
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. I'd move "complying with IndyCar Series technical regulations" from the first to the second sentence. I don't get "engineer by". Otherwise, the prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the table seems fine. There's an argument that several links are Easter eggs; "March 84C chassis", for instance, links to a company rather than a product. But I'm actually okay with the way you do it, I think.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. You make excellent use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 05:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I linked some publishers/websites to make the linking consistent.
  • Reliability is fine, formatting is good – easy pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Quick comments

  • "who receive a plague and have their names added to a permanent trophy on display at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway Museum." I would hope that they receive a plaque instead of a plague, and this is before considering that way too many of us have received a plague this year. unfortunately.
  • Minor point, but the first two words of the List of recipients section are superfluous and the title could be shortened to Recipients without losing anything in translation. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Giants2008: Both points have been addressed. MWright96 (talk) 05:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Support – My pair of minor issues has been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Britney Spears[edit]

Nominator(s): Saiff Naqiuddin (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Once Again, I am nominating this for a featured list along with Javila200084898 because I believed that this page already meets FL Criteria and guidelines, Javila200084898 and I are the most contributed to this page. First, as you can see in the previous version which is the table, date, sources, font, and else is a reallu mess so I've made my contributed to clean all the mess until it meets the criteria. In terms of reference, the reference of the previous version is very incomplete and I've resolved this problem. The Lead, Prose, Comprehensiveness is created by Javila200084898 and I believed that the sentence doesn't need the copyediting also in that section I only solved the problem of the date to make all of the dates are consistent. Saiff Naqiuddin (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comment
  • The lead is too long and needs trimming. This could be accomplished by removing stuff which isn't really about her songs e.g. "Unlike all of Spears' previous albums, Blackout was not heavily promoted through magazine interviews, talk-show appearances or televised performances besides a performance at the 2007 MTV Video Music Awards and was not accompanied by a tour either" - none of that is really relevant to a list of her songs. I'm not convinced that most of the final paragraph is relevant either. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

List of hill stations in Malaysia[edit]

Nominator(s): WPSamson (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for the featured list as this list and lead introduction has been recently edited to meet the FL criteria and were properly referenced for each statements and this is my first nomination for the list which is also the list I am heavily edited along with several copyeditors who fixed several grammatical in some of the sentences. Hill station in Malaysia is unique due to not only the colonial era hill station has been properly maintained that makes it’s hill station authentic like during the British colonial era, but also the Genting Highlands which constructed since post-independence era that makes this hill station popular among tourists due to modernity, the only casino in Malaysia, and the place for entertainment for families. I am looking forward for the improvement for this list that I am nominated. Thank you. WPSamson (talk) 02:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Refs would look better centred
Question: What does it mean with the references is look better when centered?
It would look better if the refs were aligned in the centre of the column, rather than to the left -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done @ChrisTheDude: Just got more clear that centering the references is on column section instead. WPSamson (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • That's it for a first pass...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @ChrisTheDude:, I had addressed the first issue based on the first comment. Can have a look at the improved article and check if there are necessary changes needed for the latest changes. WPSamson (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

  • A "format=PDF" for ref 1 would be nice
  • Given that the location is only in ref 2, I would either add locations to the other refs or delete it here
minus Removed
  • Refs 3 and 14 shouldn't be in all caps per MOS
  • Ref 6 missing author
  • I'm unsure if ref 14 is reliable, it's self published but written by an Academic. Can the @WP:FLC director and delegates: weigh in here?
  • "format=PDF" for ref 19
  • The further reading section to be changed to "Sources" or "Bibliography" – further reading means that the sources in the section are not used in the article, this is not the case here. Aza24 (talk) 08:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I think ref 14 is fine, Harun's field of study is "Science, Technology and Asian Society", so not unrelated, and the founding details of a Malaysian colonial town are not particularly controversial. That said: --PresN 15:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    • If he's an expert in the field, I think the reference will be okay. However, it does need the all caps removed as Pres said, and if the content comes from a particular chapter of the book, it would be helpful to include that for verifiability (I'm not seeing any page numbers in the version I looked at). Under the publisher= parameter of the cite template, I'd put Self-published in the field, as I noticed the missing publisher in the reference. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 Done -  Comment. I had placed the chapter name on the references and replace URL with chapter-url parameter for easy finding on where the content pages comes from. WPSamson (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

@Aza24: The source part are done per recommendation. Thanks. WPSamson (talk) 04:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Good work, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks @ChrisTheDude: & @Aza24: WPSamson (talk) 03:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Some thoughts

  • I gave it a copyedit, but the prose probably needs some more tuning
 Done modify the prose a bit for better understanding
  • The dates need a consistent format and order
  • What citation style is Aiken, S. Robert, October 1987. p. 426 in?
Fixed using Harvard citation style
  • You probably don't need to cite Aiken's bio
  • GGR Asia is a blog
Resolved replaced with more reliable newspaper site for citation purpose

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: I had resolved the list page based on your thoughts. Can have a review on the updated page. Thanks. WPSamson (talk) 11:05, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support I might tinker with a better map at some point --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:39, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@Guerillero: I do not have experience in making interactive maps in Wikipedia, so I created static map instead. Anyway thanks for review and support. WPSamson (talk) 09:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

Might claim WikiCup points for this. Hog Farm Bacon 19:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

  • "There are ten hill stations that in Malaysia's mountainous area" - There's a word missing in here somewhere
Fixed add "built" word into the sentence.
  • Is there a way to bold essentially the title in the first sentence, per WP:BOLDLEAD?
 Done rewrite the whole sentence and bold the title in that sentence.
  • "The British were not used to the environment in Malaysia, especially the hot tropical weather, the illness," - I feel like the illness part should be reworded slightly. Maybe "the endemic illnesses" instead?
  • " prevented any people in tropical countries from returning to their homeland on a regular basis" - I think this ought to be rephrased. "Any people" is a bit awkward here. Maybe "British nationals" or something like that; a lot of the people in tropical countries were native to those areas, while the context is clearly referring to the Brits.
Fixed rewrite as "...prevented any British people settled in tropical countries from returning..."
  • " several colonial governments built these hill stations in Malaysia" - What governments these were never seems to be specified anywhere. I'm only seeing references to the British.
Fixed rewrite as "...the British government built these hill stations in Malaysia."
  • " including the renovation and uplifting of the colonial-era hill station" - It's very unclear what you're referring to by "the colonial-era hill station"
Fixed rewrite as "hill station built by British government"
  • Do geography and professor really need linked, per MOS:OVERLINK? Particularly the latter seems to fall under the common occupations bullet point of that link
minus Removed
  • "Following the independence of Malaysia, another three hill stations were built" - Go ahead and give the year the independence of Malaysia occurred in, so readers don't have to follow the link.
  • Why is Mount Angsi not mentioned in the lead, when all of the others are?
 Comment. Initially was not added due to built or established year not available. Now added to the lead, not sure if it's fit or not.

That's it for a first pass. Hog Farm Bacon 19:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: I had fixed all the issues based on your comments. Feel free to review the updated list page. Thanks. WPSamson (talk) 08:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Supporting. Sorry for the delayed response. Hog Farm Bacon 03:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Hog Farm. WPSamson (talk) 05:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Chaubisi Rajya[edit]

Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Chaubisi Rajya were sovereign and intermittently allied petty kingdoms on the Indian subcontinent, ruled by Khas from medieval India ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Drive-by comment - what does the number column mean/signify? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Nothing really except for counting the 24 principalities. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 10:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I would remove it. It makes it look like they were officially numbered in some way -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Further comments
  • Why is the article title in italics?
  • "that Khas people ruled" => "that the Khas people ruled"
  • "then he proceeded to the unification process of present day country of Nepal" => "he subsequently began the unification process of the present day country of Nepal"
  • "Palpa was one of the biggest kingdoms and powerful" => "Palpa was one of the biggest and most powerful kingdoms"
  • "they were able to create independent kingdoms" - who's "they"?
  • "then he went to win a battle against Belkot" => "then went on to win a battle against Belkot"
  • "these kingdoms played a pivotal role" - in what?
  • "The unified Kingdom of Nepal continued to be ruled by Shah dynasty; with Rana dynasty de facto ruling the country" => "The unified Kingdom of Nepal continued to be ruled by the Shah dynasty, with the Rana dynasty de facto ruling the country"
  • "and transited to the Federal Democratic Republic" => "and transitioned to the Federal Democratic Republic"
  • Is there a more interesting heading than just "list"?
  • "Map of current day provinces" => "Map of present day provinces"
  • Refs should be centred
  • Are there any additional pieces of data about the kingdoms that could be added to the table? It just seems a bit "thin" with just two columns......
  • Regards -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude, I believe I have addressed your comments except for expanding the list because there isn't anything available to add into the list. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Some random comments first:

  • That RFC that passed a couple weeks ago requires a table name on the table regardless of context I believe
  • With that said perhaps rather than one long column for the tables refs, that might look better next to the name (like here) or with a "sources: ... " like at the bottom of the table at List of presidents of the United States
  • Source comments:
  • Page number/s for ref 2? and 3, 5, 8 13 and 14 as well
  • isbn for ref 3? (see here – I believe this is the correct publication)
  • Reliability seems fine Aza24 (talk) 23:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Can we get page numbers for refs 1 and 3...? having 200 and 450 page documents without a page number to confirm the information kind of defeats the point of a reference :) Aza24 (talk) 23:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Awesome, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)


  • I would remove the maps because they don't really tell you where the kingdoms were
  • Not sortable
  • The sources column isn't really MOS compliant

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Not knowing the standards at FLCR, I had left my concerns at the article talk page but it seems to have escaped notice, so here it is. I have one other question: Do the sources cited support the matching of these old kingdoms with the modern day provinces of Nepal? Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 02:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @WP:FLC director and delegates: I wish to withdraw this nomination. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 15:36, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

List of descriptive plant epithets (A–H)[edit]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC) Johnboddie (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Co-nomination with John, who did most of the work for A to D. Sorry for putting up two complicated lists; the payoff is that these lists will make our other plant lists easier to write (and review, I hope). You may find answers to your burning questions at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of descriptive plant epithets (I–Z)/archive1. All comments are welcome, as always. Reviewers, please do me a favor and check to see if all the images load for you ... sometimes they don't for some readers on long lists, and I need to know if that's happening with this list (it was for Chris with the other list). - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Given that the sources are virtually the same as the other half of the list my comments apply to both lists. Aza24 (talk) 08:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Done, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 13:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Pass per the same changes made on the other list. Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 01:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Heh, thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 19:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks much. - Dank (push to talk) 19:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Fine work. ~ HAL333 20:54, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks much. Maybe we'll take the record for fewest bytes in an FLC? Works for me! - Dank (push to talk) 20:59, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Alicia Vikander[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Alicia Vikander is a Swedish actress who has won numerous accolades including the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her role in The Danish Girl. As always I welcome constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - I got nothing, sorry ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Comments by HAL333
@HAL333: Thanks for the review. I've made the above amendment. Cowlibob (talk) 21:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ~ HAL333 21:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Comments by RunningTiger123

Overall, it looks really good; there are just two quick fixes to consider.

  • From what I can tell, while most of the sources are archived, four aren't. Is there a reason for that, or can they be archived as well?
  • I think that Template:Runner-up would be better than changing the text for Template:Nom for categories in which she was a runner-up or received a specific place. It helps to distinguish between more specific recognition and a regular nomination.

RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Thanks for your comments. I have run the IABot again and I think it has picked up the missing sources that needed archiving. Also added the runner-up template (wasn't aware of its existence till now). Cowlibob (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Support – Looks good! One final edit to consider (this isn't enough to change my support, but it's something to consider): now that you know about Template:Runner-up, you could use that on the awards for which she received 2nd or 4th place. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Source review – The reliability of the references looks fine throughout the list, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. Overall, the source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by The West Wing[edit]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

The political drama The West Wing was acclaimed throughout its run, becoming one of the most award-winning shows of its time (including four Emmy wins for Outstanding Drama Series, which ties the record). It also remains a fairly popular show today given that it aired its last episode almost 15 years ago. This list has existed for a while, but I recently overhauled the page's formatting and added valid sources – the page had relied heavily on IMDb up to this point, which was really unsatisfying for such a well-known show. I modeled the page after the similar list for Community, which was recently promoted to FL status, so hopefully the formatting looks good. Any and all comments are appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing.
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The coding in the table seems fine.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems other than the usual warnings about IMDB (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. The one image is fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • That's all I've got for now. - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I made one change to your copyediting from point 1, since it seemed to imply the actors in the preceding sentence were not main cast members (at least to me). RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Support. - Dank (push to talk) 13:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC) P.S. Agreed with Guerillero about IMDB, and I should have been clearer that IMDB failed the UPSD test, and that knowing what IMDB can or can't be used for is outside my skill set. - Dank (push to talk) 04:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "The original cast starred" - this seems like odd wording. "The original cast included" or "The show originally starred" would work, but I don't think the current wording is right.
  • I would say the episode title "18th and Potomac" should sort under "eighteenth"
  • Similarly, the category "60 Minute Category" should sort under "Sixty"
  • Think that's it from me - great work, overall -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
The changes you suggested should now be in place. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

I will get to this sometime soon, a lot of sources! Aza24 (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Well that did not take as long as I thought it would. Since everything is archived I didn't have to check for broken links and there are so many Emmy links that checking for consistent formatting for those was easy. Great work here, I don't think I've ever reviewed an article with this many sources and found no inconsistencies with formatting, linking, information or reliability. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


  • Please don't roll your own infobox. The fonts are all off
  • IMDB isn't an RS
  • E Pluribus Unum Award, Family Television Awards, and Publicists Guild of America Awards seems non notable

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the infobox and removed references to IMDb (though the external link at the end is still there). In regard to the three awards you mentioned, here are why I included them:
  • The E Pluribus Unum Awards and the American Cinema Foundation have little to no external coverage, so I'd understand if we removed those – I simply carried them over from earlier versions of the article.
  • I think that the Family Television Awards are notable because they aired on a major network (CBS) and have coverage in external sources (see this and this).
  • The Publicists Guild of America Awards are presented by an accredited guild with external recognition in Variety (as shown in the list's references).
RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Burnley F.C. seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Another list I'm nominating about association football club Burnley F.C.. Every season the club has played is presented in a statistical manner, including division, cup competitions, other competitions, top scorers and avg. attendance. Other similar FL were used as a benchmark. I'm looking forward to all feedback/reviews. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Ref 37 missing retrieval date
  • That's all I got, pass for source review since this isn't enough to not warrant one. Do add a retrieval date for that one when you get a chance though. Aza24 (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Aza24 Thank you for again taking up the source review, it's much appreciated! I added an access date to ref 37. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ray Bradbury Award[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 02:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Way back in 2012, I took the then-five categories of the Nebula Awards through FLC, following the 15+ lists on scifi/fantasy awards I'd already done. At the time, I thought I was done, but now not only has the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America SFWA started a new category for game writing, which I was waiting to get to a decent length before nominating, they've gone and retroactively made their two "not an official category" categories into official categories. So, I've got some lists to polish up, and here's the first: the Ray Bradbury Nebula Award for Outstanding Dramatic Presentation, now with "Nebula" stuck into the name to make it extra-official. It's a bit of an odd award- unlike the other categories that got voted on, the president of SFWA just gave it out to whatever 4 times in 17 years, and when SFWA retired the Best Script category they converted it to the "normal" process but left it as a separate thing form the regular categories. They also give it to the "primary" "director and writer(s)", which don't always match the screen credits (and the past couple of years they've just said "writer" even if the person also directed). Until this year, like I said, when they decided it was official (not with anything so crass as a public announcement, but just by changing the rules to say it was official and telling former winners that they counted). Anyway, here it is- it's modeled heavily on the existing 5 Nebula FLs, as well as the other 20+ SFF award lists I did between 2010 and 2016, so hopefully the format is still solid. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 02:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


  • Consider noting that "short miniseries of no more than three connected episodes" may be nominated per reference 1
  • added
  • Reference 6 is not great for this specific award (applies more directly to the Andre Norton Award) – if possible, find a better source
  • Frustratingly, I can't- they never made an announcement, even on their own blog. They just... renamed the award, and updated the rules.
  • While the listed sources indicate that the award was not originally a Nebula Award, they do not directly indicate that the name was changed from "Ray Bradbury Award…" to "Ray Bradbury Nebula Award…"; consider finding a source for this
  • See above; I've added a source to the archived rules page from June 2019 where the old name was used
  • Added
  • Rules in second paragraph are from 2011 and do not align with the current Nebula website
Oh for stars' sake, would it kill them to actually announce these changes outside of their internal mailing list? Fixed, and now I have to go fix all the other lists too; apparently they tweaked rules for the nominations dates in 2017.
  • Reference 7 seems moot, as the award was only regularly awarded after the rules change, but I'm torn as to whether or not you should remove it. A second opinion here would be nice.
  • I left it (and the pre-2009 rules text it supports) there specifically because of the 3 "selected" winners that would have been before the rules change; assuming we count Babylon 5 from the main series air date (Jan 26, 1994) and not the test pilot airing (Feb 22, 1993) it didn't apply to any of them so I'm easily persuaded to drop it.
  • Sources used for awards do not appear to be entirely accurate – for instance, reference 14 omits Orci and Kurtzman as nominees for Star Trek and Doctor and McCarthy for Up, while reference 21 includes Rich Moore and Jared Bush as nominees. Find better sources or use the SFWA's website (i.e. for 2010, consider using this link for the source).
  • I can't replace Locus because I need to cite something that's not SFWA itself to justify that the subject matters; I used SFWA's site to actually get the names/positions and so missed the discrepancies. Added SFWA's pages as secondary sources, as I believe them to be more authoritative, although this is the first time I've ever seen a data issue with Locus so I don't know what caused it.
    • Follow-up: After rereading the document, I noticed reference 11, which seems to be more accurate. However, because of its position, it doesn't seem like the source for the entire table. Is this what you're using for your source? If so, I don't know why you've included the other references that contradict it.
  • Reference 12 does not mention the Ray Bradbury Award at all
  • Dropped in favor of citing SFWA directly
  • 2010 nominees should include Moon
  • Fixed
  • Fixed
  • Alphabetize 2010 and 2019 nominees to align with other years' entries
  • Done
  • SFWA's website lists Paramount as publisher for How to Train Your Dragon, not DreamWorks
  • Fixed
  • Remove teleplay note for "AKA Smile"
  • Fixed
  • Drew Goddard wrote The Martian, not Lawrence Kasdan
  • Fixed
  • James Gilroy is not a writer for Logan; James Mangold should be credited as director and writer
  • Fixed
  • Italicize Good Omens in infobox
  • Fixed
  • Consider adding sort function to Creators and Publishers columns
  • Done for publishers; I've not done this for creators in this and similar lists because a) it gives the weight to the director (that's listed first) over the other creators and b) it gets weird when SFWA only lists writers- the sorting, as a result, is not predictable by readers in the same way sorting by title or year is.

Overall, the formatting and lead seem solid, but the referencing is shaky and needs to be seriously overhauled. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: Finally got to this; my sincere apologies for taking so long (covid+work+homeschooling wiped out my energy for big tasks on wiki). Apologies also for the amount of work- this was an incredibly thorough review, and I'm frankly embarrassed that you found some of these fairly severe problems with the list. Thank you so much for doing so and finding these flaws. I've responded inline, but hopefully everything is fixed now. --PresN 03:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Support — The edits look good and are well integrated into the article; thank you for addressing them! RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Additional note: I'm not changing my decision to support; this is just something to consider. If you need non-SFWA sources, there are options from other websites for recent years (for instance: 2020, 2019, 2018, another 2018, and 2017). These sources could replace Lotus, as they seem to be more accurate. Even if you can't find sources going all the way back to the earliest awards, I would be okay with some years using secondary sources and the rest using SFWA sources. This would establish that the award is meaningful while ensuring the citations are valid. Again, this is just something to consider; the call here is yours. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:15, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing.
  • I'm confused by the lack of an asterisk in the 2001 row.
  • Fixed
  • FLC criteria:
    • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The prose looks good.
    • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
    • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
    • 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present. For this review, I'm not taking a position on the points raised above.
    • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
    • 4. It is navigable.
    • 5. It meets style requirements. It doesn't use images, but I'm weak in that area so I don't have an opinion.
    • 6. It is stable.
    • The table coding looks good. Some people prefer to avoid redirects for names of people and companies (for instance, Warner Bros. Domestic Television redirects to Warner Bros. Television Studios). I'll be happy to go through the table avoiding such redirects if you like.
  • Support, with the caveat that I'm not taking a position on things the previous reviewer said. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Reliability is good, based on the reliance on a few sources. Formatting good as well – Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Grammy Award for Best Mexican/Mexican-American Album[edit]

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is fact checked and part of a project for the Grammy Award list; is been a while since I have started working on it, and now thanks to the assistance of @Another Believer and Magiciandude: I finally present it for nomination. I will be following closely all your comments. Thank you. Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Ref for all the name changes in the category's history?
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • "most awarded performer" => "most-awarded performer"
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • It seems like for much of the award's history it could be given to either an individual song or an album - maybe clarify/mention this?
The first years of the award they did that, but there is no reference to explain this other than the nominations list, that would be enough?. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • For English-language awards, we would expect any title that starts with "The" to sort based on the next word, so I would say that the same should apply here to any title or band name starting with La/Los/etc.
Fixed.Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Think that's it from me - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:58, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
@Jaespinoza: - let me know when you get a chance to make the other changes and I will re-visit..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:40, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I did some of the changes, I will wait for your re-visit. Thank you. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

I'll be back to do a source review but some drive by issues:

Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • There are no refs for the entire second paragraph of the lead and it's not covered anywhere else... Aza24 (talk) 08:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I would remove the locations from refs 10 and 11, or you have to add locations to the rest
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. Javier Espinoza (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Everything else is good but the two points at the top still remain extant Aza24 (talk) 08:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Courtesy ping @Jaespinoza: Aza24 (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Aza24:. Thank you. I am working on your comments. Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    Looks much better now. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – Didn't spot any issues with this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:24, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Xevious media[edit]

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

One of the most-beloved arcade games and most important titles in the scrolling shooter genre, Namco's Xevious become a cultural phenomenon since its debut in January 1983. In addition to laying the foundations for most other shooters since, Xevious was followed by merchandise, soundtrack albums, home conversions, and a series of sequels and re-imaginings that built on mechanics established in the original. While the series has yet to see a new installment since Xevious Resurrection in 2009, the game still remains an important and influential franchise in Namco's back catalog of properties.

This article is a comprehensive list of all Xevious sequels, spin-offs, and other related forms of media (such as soundtracks and films); all information here is cited from reliable sources. I had created this article way back in September of 2017, and to be blunt it was a poorly-created wreck of a page. Only now have I decided to get this article into shape and hopefully make it a Featured List. This is part of my goal in getting the entire Xevious series up to Good Topic status, which I hope to achieve some day. Thank you for reviewing! Namcokid47 (Contribs) 18:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Link pachinko in the lead for those (including me) who have no idea what it is
  • Notes which are complete sentences (eg the third and fourth against the original game) need full stops
  • Link rail-shooter to explain that term
  • Also, is it possible to clarify what a "flight yolk controller" is?
  • "which was corrected" - as the subject of this clause is "issues", the "was" should be "were"
  • "A 75-minute "gaiden" film" - link/explanation for "gaiden"?
  • Think that's it from me. Great work overall :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Issues addressed. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 02:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
      • Think you may have got a bit over-zealous with the full stop removal :-) "The Sharp X68000 version was produced by Dempa" for example, is a complete sentence and needs one...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I tidied up the full stops and made a couple of other minor tweaks and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

For FAC coordinators, I have chosen to retire from the site. Please close this nomination as soon as possible. Thanks. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 19:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Really sad to see Namcokid47 go... I have no idea how I missed the source review for this one, I'll do it in later today. Aza24 (talk) 19:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Ref 7 and 10 should be an ISBN 13 (use the converter)
  • Would take out "United Kingdom" in ref 15 as it is the only location provided in all of the refs – otherwise all of the refs should have locations
  • Translated title needed for ref 18
  • ref 27 shouldn't be all caps per MOOS
  • Wired link in 31
  • translated title needed for ref 67
  • GamePro link in 72
  • Tokyo Broadcasting System
  • That's all I got. Reliability looks fine. Aza24 (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Courtesy ping for @TheJoebro64: Aza24 (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Aza24: I'll get through this later tonight. I'll send you a ping when it's done. JOEBRO64 22:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Aza24: all sorted out. JOEBRO64 01:07, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Looks good, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in the Netherlands[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 15:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

With the successful promotion of Lithuania and the nomination of Sweden going well, it's time we move to the new region. The Netherlands has quite some sites, and some are overseas. I'm not sure if the layout of the two maps it optimal but we can play with that. The rest of the list follows the standard style. Tone 15:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Surely the Netherlands and Curacao should be linked in the lead?
  • Could do with an explanation in the lead of Curacao's status
  • "The first site added to the list was Schokland and Surroundings, in 1995" - no reason for that comma
  • There's an unnecessary gap before ref 2
  • "It was an inhabited peninsula since pre-historic times" => "It is a peninsula which had been inhabited since prehistoric times"
  • "It is the only fortification....." - in the Netherlands? The whole world?
  • "draininig the water from the polders" - first word is spelt wrong
  • "Construction of hydraulic began" - hydraulic what? There's at least one word missing here
  • "Willemstad was established as a trading settlement by the people" => "Willemstad was established as a trading settlement by people". Is there a more specific word than "people"? Were they merchants?
  • "which reflect the mix of Dutch cultural influences with those of Spanish and Portuguese" => "which reflect the mix of Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese cultural influences"
  • " large sections of the population of Low Countries" => " large sections of the population of the Low Countries"
  • "and, under the supervision of Johannes van den Bosch constructed" - need a comma after Bosch to close off the clause
  • "combination of education, healthcare and (forced) labour" - earlier you used US English spelling "-ize", so you should change the spelling of the last word to match this
  • "to ensure the self-sufficiecy" - spelt wrong
  • "They were run on slave labour" - same note re: US spelling
  • "Curaçao is a constitute country" - penultimate word is spelt wrong
  • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: I'm through, sorry it took a while. All fixed. I got rid of the footnotes (from some previous versions) as I could get everything to the lead. --Tone 20:06, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 05:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Given that all of the sources, other than 3, are UNESCO sources everything looks good. The other 3 are reliable and formatted correctly, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - sorry I forgot to revisit this one for so long...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Nice work. ~ HAL333 04:38, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Andriy Shevchenko[edit]

Nominator(s): KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the third international goals list that I am looking to become featured. Although I do not support any of the clubs he played at, Shevchenko is one of my favorite players to watch from the 2000s. I have expanded the sources and the prose, and I am looking for whatever details I need for it to become featured considering it already passes WP:FL?. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Kosack

  • I'm not sure association footballer really works, it should either be association football player or just professional footballer.
  • The lead is a bit light on info, and there is only 1074b of prose. With 48 goals to his name, there must be some notable goals worthy of inclusion?
  • I don't know if it's perhaps a mobile issue, but the date column doesn't sort correctly for me.
  • Why aren't the score columns sortable?
  • has been called into question in previous FLCs, so I'd prepare a backup source if possible for those.
  • AFS Enterprises is the publisher of

A rough pass over to pick out the most obvious issues I could see to get started. Kosack (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

A few more points from the new additions and a couple I didn't spot the first time

  • "He is the Ukraine national team's all-time top goalscorer with 48 goals in 111 appearances, also making him the second most capped Ukrainian international behind Anatoliy Tymoshchuk (144)", source for any of this?
  • "against Slovenia, Shevchenko scored", the subject hasn't changed from the first sentence so I would use he rather than Shevchenko again here.
  • "leaving Ukraine to lose on aggregate 2–3", I'm not overly convinced of the wording here. Perhaps, "with Ukraine losing 3-2 on aggregate"?
  • Link aggregate to Aggregate score.
  • "captained the side to a second place finish behind Poland", source?
  • "During 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification, Ukraine topped their qualifying group stage", can drop the second mention of qualifying here as it's already implied by the opening, same in the previous sentence also. Also stage is unnecessary I would say, they topped their group, not the stage.
  • "automatically advancing them directly to the main competition in Germany and their first World Cup in history as an independent nation", this sentence seems a bit long winded.
  • "Shevchenko captained the side to a penalty shoot-out victory against Switzerland", source?
  • "but losing to eventual champions Italy in the quarter-finals", this run on doesn't really work grammatically
  • "He decided to retire from international football after the final match in the group stage against England", source doesn't really support his decision to retire.
  • Generally, digits below ten should be written as words rather than digits, so 7th > seventh, scored 9 goals > scored nine goals etc.
  • There seems to be an unusual mix of scoreline formatting here, for example you have "in a 1–2 loss" and "with a 1–0 loss for Ukraine". It's generally accepted to say "in a 2-1" loss, irregardless of home and away status in European football.
  • I would say the actual countries don't need linking in the table, per WP:OVERLINK.
  • There are three BBC refs listed, one uses BBC Sport and the other two just BBC. Try to maintain one style for consistency. Kosack (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    • There still appears to be no ref for Tymoshchuk's inclusion. The goals by year table needs scope rows also. Kosack (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: I finally finished the prose. What do you think? If there are minor edits which can be done, you can do them and just pass it. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Refs 3 and 4 missing authors
  • Ref 5 missing author and date (scroll to the bottom)
  • Refs 1–5 missing retrieval dates
  • If you're going to link RSSSF the you should link BBC sport and UEFA – doesn't look like the rest of publishers/works/websites have WP pages
  • Reliability is fine, statistical information from statistical websites. Aza24 (talk) 02:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Courtesy ping for @KingSkyLord: in case they have missed these comments. Aza24 (talk) 07:37, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Hi Aza24, I think I fixed your concerns. Please take another look. Thanks! Cheetah (talk) 05:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Looks good, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 08:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I gave the lead a copy edit and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ~ HAL333 19:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Sweden[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 19:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

So, this is the last from the set of UNESCO lists from Northern Europe, and it is also the longest (probably this is the reason this came last...) Style is consistent with other lists, text usually gets some polishing during the nomination. Thank you in advance for comments. Tone 19:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support – I made two minor tweaks and everything now checks out fine. Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Further comments
  • The listing for the Royal Domain still uses the word "ensemble" without explaining it. I have literally no idea what the word means in this context.
  • Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


  • Wow, huuuuge whitespace in the lead. Not a good start. Any way of addressing that?
  • "As of 2016" why 2016? That's really "as of 2020". Especially curious as that source has an accessdate of 2011!
  • "has one property" strange wording, why not "one site"?
  • " still-functioning Theatre, a" we've had this before, in this context Theatre shouldn't be capitalised. Fine to capitalise it if you're using its full formal title, but not here, looks odd.
  • "The architecture of the ensemble can be viewed as the legacy of the influences of the Palace of Versailles" according to whom?
  • " Saint Ansgar" put Saint inside the link.
  • "the central function" what's that?
  • "They reveal the life and beliefs of people who made them," again, according to whom? Reads a little like a travel guide rather than an encyclopedic treatment of the topic.
  • 1917–20 -> 1917–1920 per MOS.
  • " in the Baltic from" region?
  • "resulted in unique adaptations." such as?
  • Kvarken has two dates per the official site, 2000 and 2006, why isn't that reflected here?
  • I would expect some reference to the trans-national nature of Kvarken in its notes section.
  • "The most striking feature" guidebook.
  • "antenna" is a dab.
  • " Biology *" previous trans-national sites didn't have a space between their name and the asterisk.
  • Refs 3 and 15 have spaced hyphens, should be en-dashes.
  • "World Heritage Sites in Sweden" template, several redirects which shouldn't really be in a navigational template.

That's about all I have, this is a WikiCup review by the way. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I'm through! Thanks for the comments. The white space at the intro is due to the vertical geography of Sweden. I could omit the break but that would mess with the table setting on some screens. Regarding Kvarken, the expansion is mentioned in the description, the year in the table is when the Swedish property was listed (for Finland article, I used 2006). A bunch of "guidebook" wording is from the source, but I changed to more neutral nevertheless. Sometimes the UNESCO descriptions are over-hyped. Thanks for spotting some issues that I missed earlier. --Tone 14:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm still not comfortable with that huge whitespace and very short lead. The other issues are satisfactorily resolved. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I know. The lead is about the length of other lists that were promoted, but the image makes it look short. I don't have a good solution here, without repeating the content of the list. --Tone 09:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Doing now. I'll try to come back later for additional comments on the prose to get this nomination moving. Aza24 (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Ref 9 could do with some kind of identifier. Url, doi, JSTOR number, oclc or ISSN (although I'm not sure journals have these two)
  • Ref 10 needs ISBN 13 (use the converter)
  • OUP really should be spelled out as Oxford University Press
  • Given that so many sources are Unesco, reliability is fine. The other 3 are good as well. Aza24 (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @Aza24: done! @The Rambling Man: could you check my fixes from the previous round? --Tone 15:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Good work, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:53, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

List of medieval churches on Gotland[edit]

Nominator(s): Yakikaki (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria and would be an interesting addition; there are some featured lists about churches, but mostly in the UK. I should also briefly explain the background to the article. I started a List of churches on Gotland back in 2014. Recently, I put in a lot of efforts on my sandbox2 to increase the quality. Noting how the medieval churches are almost always treated apart from the other churches on Gotland I figured it would sense to put them in their own, clearly defined list. Hence the list looks completely new. Yakikaki (talk) 09:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Support All of my comments were addressed - nice work. If you have the time, I would really appreciate if you could check one of my FLCs (here or there). Thanks! ~ HAL333 22:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Comment from Shearonink
  • Found a small typo - The church was pillaged by Russian tropps in 1717. should be The church was pillaged by Russian troops in 1717. Shearonink (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you, fixed it! Yakikaki (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
Yakikaki Just an aside to the FLC...these ancient churches look very similar to Lutheran churches that I've seen in Minnesota and North was eerie to me to see these ca1300-1500 churches looking like close architectural cousins to churches built 1870-1920 in the US. Shearonink (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Shearonink That's interesting, I think a lot of Swedish people emigrated at least to Minnesota, and many people emigrated from Gotland. Perhaps they brought with them some memories, who knows? Thank you for letting me know. This kind of things always fascinate me. Yakikaki (talk) 07:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 22:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Looking at the article from an overview, I think I will come back to this separately for some comments on the prose and such
  • Ref 1 needs a "|language=Swedish"
  • Ref 39 should be ISBN 13 (use the converter)
  • ref 116 missing "Church of Sweden" link

works cited

  • Andersson need an ISBN or OCLC (looking it up on Worldcat might help)
  • Augustsson, Jacobsson, Jonsson, Karlsson, Lagerlöf should all be ISBN 13s Aza24 (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The further reading entry could also do with an OCLC Aza24 (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello and thanks for these comments! I have fixed what I could so far, but I would need some guidance regarding the ISBN-question (which certainly isn't my area of expertise). With ISBN 13s, I assume you mean ISBN-numbers beginning with 13? I could not find any such numbers for any of the books you mentioned, neither in WorldCat nor the catalogue of the Swedish national library, and could not produce them by using the converter you linked to. Could you please point me in the direction where I should go with this, what am I missing or doing wrong here? Many thanks, Yakikaki (talk) 12:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
Yakikaki, ISBN 13s are the "newer" ISBNS as opposed to the "older" ISBN 10s which some of your ISBNs are at the moment. If the ISBN number begins with 978 it is an ISBN 13, otherwise it's an ISBN 10 – Wikipedia requires all ISBNs to be ISBN 13 (The number 13 itself has nothing to do with the actual ISBN) All you have to do is take any ISBNs that don't begin with 978 (since that would mean they are not ISBN 13s) and put them in the converter and then replace the ISBN 10 with what you get. Let me know if you have further questions on this. BTW I plan to come back to read through the prose. Aza24 (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you Aza24 for taking the time to explain this to me, I've learned something new and useful and will change the ISBN:s accordingly, and keep this in mind for the future as well. I'll try to fix this during the day and get back here when I'm done. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Fixed it! Yakikaki (talk) 11:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
Good work, pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)


  • Not doing a full review; wanted to comment first to import the discussion here confirming that there is no issue with how much prose is in this list in regards to FLC. In addition to that, however, I wanted to briefly comment on the table being split up into chunks- it should not be, as that breaks sortability (not to mention the breaks are arbitrary beyond how many churches start with a given letter). They should be combined into one table. --PresN 19:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you PesN for the comment and also for the point about the list being split into chunks. I've changed it into a single, long list. Kind regards, Yakikaki (talk) 18:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by RuPaul[edit]

Nominator(s): --Leo Mercury (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria and I did all the corrections necessary. --Leo Mercury (talk) 10:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Wikilink drag queen - I don't think we can assume that every reader will know what this means
  • "RuPaul's Drag Race and its various spin-off" - missing S on the end
  • "The series was met with critical acclaim" - which series? The last sentence mentioned four different (albeit related) series
  • "(becoming the person with the most wins in the category of Outstanding Host for a Competition Program)" => I would say "making him the person with the most wins in the category of Outstanding Host for a Competition Program" (and lose the brackets)
  • "He was nominated for a BAFTA TV Award for the first season of Drag Race UK." - was he nominated, or was the show nominated?
  • "the release of his debut single, "Supermodel (You Better Work)"" - it was not his debut single according to the song's article
  • Many of the awards in the table were presented to shows rather then to RuPaul himself. In some cases the award was to one or more named people, including him (eg the Producers Guild Award was given jointly to RuPaul, Fenton Bailey, Randy Barbato, Tom Campbell, Mandy Salangsang, and Steven Corfe). When RuPaul was named a joint winner with other people, that should be noted. When an award was made simply to the show and RuPaul was not specifically named as a winner, I think it's debatable whether it should be listed here at all. I'll see what other editors think on this point.
  • Refs look OK, but the title of the Logo TV one should not be shown in all caps.
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Done. I think we can leave all the awards received by the show on his page because as a creator, host and producer of the series I think it is safe to assume that he is the main recipient of most of them, but I would like to know what the other editors think about this matter. --Leo Mercury (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm cool with seeking a wider view. I'll check back here later but in the meantime I will sashay away :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
        • It's a fair point, and not dissimilar to one I made at the Brad Pitt awards FLC on this page where a film he was in won an Oscar and the list claimed Pitt himself had won two Oscars, that one, and one for his personal achievement. I'll take a look at this list in due course, but I'm tending to side with Chris on this... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 10:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ~ HAL333 02:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Refs missing authors: 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 20, 21, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33
  • Ref 25 missing author and date
  • Would link to see all the publishers linked rather than just some. I went ahead and linked most, double check that I got them all
  • Why is 21 MTV news instead of just MTV?
  • Why is Entertainment Weekly cited as a maganazene in refs 12 and 14 but not in 15?
  • reliability looks fine Aza24 (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Done. --Leo Mercury (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
      • Good work, pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Comments from GagaNutella
  • Put all awards on infobox
  • Wikilink everything you can on the Category column
  • I recommend put work and then category (I see most articles are like this)
  • Compact ToC isn't working
  • All notes are missing "."
  • Ref: 6: delete 16, 17, 19: Change to Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (as publisher). 28: change to Emmy Awards.

I will run AutoEd to clean up the article. GagaNutellatalk 19:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks, I've corrected everything. The only thing I did not edit is the compact ToC, because it seems to be working for me. --Leo Mercury (talk) 10:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Broadway theaters[edit]

Nominator(s): Found5dollar (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because "Broadway Theater" is a well known term without a historically well-defined meaning. Over time what has defined a Broadway Theater has changed and marking out the fluidity of the category is not something easily found elsewhere on the internet. I passed this list through Peer Review and was encourage to directly nominate it here. I look forward to everyone's feedback.Found5dollar (talk) 15:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Chidgk1[edit]

  • Add an article description
  • added a short description template.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "Early variety, burlesque, and minstrelsy halls were built along Broadway below Houston Street, and as the city expanded north new theaters were constructed along the thoroughfare with family friendly vaudeville, developed by Tony Pastor, clustering around Union Square in the 1860s and 1870s, larger opera houses, hippodromes, and theaters populating Broadway between Union Square and Times Square later in the century, and Times Square itself becoming the epicenter for large scale theater productions between 1900 and the Great Depression." is confusing. Maybe it should be two sentences.
  • re-worded it as: "Early variety, burlesque, and minstrelsy halls were built along Broadway below Houston Street. As the city expanded north new theaters were constructed along the thoroughfare with family friendly vaudeville, developed by Tony Pastor, clustering around Union Square in the 1860s and 1870s, and larger opera houses, hippodromes, and theaters populating Broadway between Union Square and Times Square later in the century. Times Square became the epicenter for large scale theater productions between 1900 and the Great Depression."--Found5dollar (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • If possible add a pic of Circle in the Square Theatre
  • there isn't one on commons and I did all my normal searching for a freely licensed one but couldn't find any. I normally would just go take a picture but with COVID I can't make it to mid town right now...--Found5dollar (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • No need for image and refs columns to be sortable.
  • I am not familiar with US addresses so not sure if that column sort is useful. Belasco Theatre address looks odd.
  • it is all address in Manhattan that are odd. Belasco's address of "111 W. 44th St." breaks down to Building Number (111), side of Manhattan (East or West, here it is "W" for West), then the street or avenue (44th St.). Lots of numbers and abbreviations, I know but that is how it is laid out here.Found5dollar (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • "The following lists organize all demolished venues which hosted legitimate theater that appear on the Database based on when their last theatrical production was compared to the three moments that can be considered the begging of Broadway theatre." is confusing even if "begging" is a typo for "beginning".
  • re-worded it to "The following lists organize all demolished venues which hosted legitimate theater and appear on the Database. The theaters are organized into 4 lists based on when their last theatrical production opened compared to the three moments that may be considered the begining of Broadway theatre."Found5dollar (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Use of "still" in "Before the advent of the musical there were still multiple theaters in New York that claimed the moniker of "Broadway", including an 1847 theater named the Broadway Theatre." reads odd to me but perhaps it is normal in US English?
  • 1841 is when Barnum acquired the building, not when the theater opened. I have not been able to find that information anywhere. changing the column to "opened" would sold this because we know the Chinese rooms opened in 1850 per the source. Changed all "Built" headers to "opened" and filled in Barnum's cell.Found5dollar (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Do you think "buildings" would be better than "structures"?
  • I went with the word "structures" in the lead because not all of the theaters through history were encloses. A handfull were open air roof top spaces and 1 was an outdoor amphitheater. Because of this "building" doest cover all of the theaters through history, while "structure" does.Found5dollar (talk) 17:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

If you have time could you take a quick look at List of active coal-fired power stations in Turkey and comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1. Assuming you know nothing about the subject it will be valuable if you could point out anything which is difficult to understand for a first time reader. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Guerillero
  • Map nerd comment: It might be worth thinking about using Template:Maplink or a closer view of southern Manhattan than the giant static map --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I think my comment was unfair {{maplink|frame=yes|frame-width=600|frame-height=600|frame-align=center|}} will display the map. I am working on moving everything to commons here --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Guerillero, THANK YOU! The map was a tough sticking point for me, I know we need it, but I tried both Location map and OSM Location map but neither seemd to be the right answer. I have never used Maplink before. Thank you for creating this and I'm going to read up on how this style of map works.Found5dollar (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Guerillero and Found5dollar: I converted the whole thing to Maplink without reading this first. Feel free to modify/change it, or revert it if you don't like the appearance. epicgenius (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Think that's it. Great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude, thank you for such a through review and pointing out that I have absolutely no idea when a hyphen is necessary ;-P. The only note that I think needs discussion is the addition of dates for the former names of demolished theaters. As i stated above this information is available, but i chose not to include it. I figured in these demolished sections the dates were not important as the building no longer stands. When a demolished building changed names seem moot to me. I'd be happy to add in this info if it seems valuable and like it won't muddy the table. Please let me know if it seem pertinent to you or not. Thanks again for the review!Found5dollar (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it would be worth putting the dates in, personally..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude, It took a while but I got all the past names dated in the demolished theater sections. the only issue is with "Princess Theatre" where there are 3 previous names but no dates attached in the reference. please let me know if there are anyother issues you see and thank you for all the suggestions so far!Found5dollar (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Juset one (hopefully final) comment - based on the source I believe the entry for the Bijou Theatre should list its second spell of being known by that name as 1965-1982, not just 1965 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude, Oh weird. I ran into that a few other times where the listed names for the same year were inverted in the source and I just apparently missed this one. Thanks for catching it. fixed.Found5dollar (talk) 18:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 06:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Nielsen Holdings is Nielsen Business Media, not sure if it should be linked though
  • added the link just to be safe.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Ref 4 Feb 08 should be February 8
  • Refs 2, 3, 6, 8 and 63 should have a space after the "p." (e.g. "p. 40")
  • Ref 6 should be "pp. 6–7" (note the em – dash)
  • What is "Jefferson, London." in ref 63?
  • It looks like I made a mistake. That should read "Jefferson, N.C." as the location of the publisher. Fixed and added an ISBN for it.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "Kaiser, DJ," in refs in 2 and 6 should be "Kaiser, DJ." (with a period) I'm assuming? Aza24 (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes! thanks for catching that. Fixed.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Aza24 Thank you for taking the time to review these refs! Please let me know if there are any other issues you see.--Found5dollar (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Found5dollar: Everything looks good now, tweaked a couple of things. Nice to see this list getting so much attention, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments from TRM[edit]

WikiCup entry

  • removed the word from the article completely.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Broadway is overlinked twice in the lead.
  • reduced the links to the street, Broadway, to just once in the lead.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Image caption is a fragment, doesn't need a period.
  • I toyed with this for a little bit, but Off-Off has no true relationship to Broadway theaters as structures. Off-Off was realy created as a response to Off-Broadway becoming too commercial, not Broadway which always was. If this was a list of Off-Broadway theaters I would 100% talk about Off-Off as it is the next tier of theater in NYC, but it has very little bearing historically to the theater buildings that make up Broadway.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Most of the second paragraph isn't referenced, like those at geographical extremities.
  • It is my understanding that summarizing what the chart says does not need to be cited. These items including geographic extremities, youngest and oldest, largest and smallest, etc. are fully cited and explained in the chart and derive from it. I'd be happy to cite them here as well if my understanding is incorrect, but I am unsure how to cite that.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Actor's Equity (Association) is overlinked.
  • reduced to once in the lead and once in the "Demolished" section--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • In the "Active..." section, Actor's Equity (Association) is linked on its second mention.
  • The Broadway League is overlinked.
  • Reduced to once in the lead, and once in the "Active" section--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "organizations currently use" avoid "currently" again.
  • No. of seats in that source appears to be "approximate" so that needs to be reflected in the list somehow.
  • Just as an interesting aside, capacity for venues in America are almost always approximate due to the Americans with Disabilities Act. One wheelchair takes up two "seats" so capacity and seat numbers will fluctuate based upon the amount of wheelchair uses at each performance. I have added a note referencing that all capacity numbers are approximate, and now since there are 2 notes in the article i started a new "Notes" section.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • As a non-expert, can you explain how the "address" column sorts please?
  • The address column sorts by the number of the street the theater is on, then the building number. It sorts theaters on 41st street first, then 42nd, then 43rd, etc. with the theaters on Broadway sorted last.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "are 9 theaters" nine.
  • "W Hotel"->"W Hotels"
  • Why isn't Central Theatre referred to as Movieland, per the ref? Suddenly now using the original names?
  • Picking which name to use for each theater was a challenge as some have gone through so many names. My general rule is to list theaters under the name they went by when they last hosted a legitimate theatrical production. Central Theater is a special case though because it did have legitimate theater from 1951-1956 under the "Holiday Theatre" name, but the wiki page, and one of the sources still called it the "Central Theater." I made an exception here because it seems "Central Theater" is the popular name for it, but understand if people disagree and feel that it should be listed as "Holiday Theater" for sake of consistency. It shoudlt be listed under "Movieland" because no theatrical productions took place under that moniker.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "Theater" v "Theatre"... interesting issues (e.g. Ed Sullivan Theater reference calls it Ed Sullivan Theatre...)
  • "Theater" v "Theatre" is incredibly hard to parse out and is often contridicted by sources for the same places. We even have a disclaimer on the main Broadway theatre page which states: "Although theater is the generally preferred spelling in the United States (see American and British English spelling differences), many Broadway venues, performers and trade groups for live dramatic presentations use the spelling theatre." I tended to base how to spell each buildings name here based first off what the IBDB source says, but then if the article for the theater has a different spelling of "theater" I went with it instead. I figured that the editors working on the individual theater spent more time with varied sources for that specific building so deferred to it.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • No need to link common terms like "hotel" or "storefront"...
  • Actors' Equity is overlinked several times.
  • Internet Broadway Database is overlinked.
  • it is only linked twice int eh article, should I remove it from all of the cites?--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Why isn't "President Theatre" referred to as "Erwin Piscator's Dramatic Workshop" per its source? There seem to be a few discrepancies of this nature.
  • My general rule is to list theaters under the name they went by when they last hosted a legitimate theatrical production. The Dramatic Workshop was a school in multiple locations, had no public performances from what I can tell, and has no productions listed on the IBDB source. The last legitimate theatrical production in the space was under the "President Theatre" moniker. These discrepancies you may be findings are likey similiar issues to this one. Often a theater space is turned into another kind of theater before it is knocked down.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Tynan caption is fragment, no period.
  • " variety, burlesque, and minstrel " all overlinked.
  • Reduced to once in the lead, and once in the "Demolished" section--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "Whether or not it is truly the first musical, The Black Crook marks a turning point where Broadway became less about the variety, burlesque, and minstrel shows of the past, and began to be known more for the large-scale book musical which still reigns today. T" claims like this need reference and attribution.
  • you are totally right, i just completely missed adding in that cite. thank you for catching it. Original cite added.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Nibio's Garden caption is a frag, no period.
  • Ref 7 title is missing an apostrophe.
Fixed--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Park Theatre caption, same again, no period.

That's a first pass. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:51, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

  • The Rambling Man, Thank you for taking the time to review this list! Please let me know if you find any additional issues or if any of my answers to your questions need further clarification.--Found5dollar (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sdkb[edit]

I haven't done a featured list review before, so take my comments with a grain of salt, but I've been reviewing some nominations in preparation for submitting a candidate page I've been working on, and wanted to leave a few thoughts about this page. Overall, it looks quite good — the images are quite nice, and the map is a very useful addition. The main source, IBDB, looks reliable.

There are a few tweaks that could be made to improve the formatting of the tables. When abbreviations are used for headers, they should be accompanied by {{abbr}}, as I demonstrated here. Some columns for things like years might also benefit from being centered rather than left-justified.

  • I have updated all the abbreviations in the headers to say what the abbr stands for. I previously considered centering the date columns, but it began to look weird in my opinion in the demolished theater sections because you had a centered year, a not centered year and title of of play, then a centered year again. I felt if years are centered in one table they should be in all of them. I'm happy to do this if other people think it would make legibility of the tables better but i just felt it looked awkward.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Per criterion 5's expectation that minimal proportion of items are redlinked, I do notice that there are quite a few redlinked items, mostly historical plays. I'm not sure why that's a criterion, since I don't think it'd be fair to force the creation of a gazillion small stubs in order for this page to be listed. The thing that does matter for redlinks, though, is making sure that all redlinked pages are notable. It looks like we don't have a specific notability guideline for plays, so I'd be curious to hear your thoughts regarding whether we're safe assuming that any play that has been on Broadway is sure to meet the General Notability Guideline, and if we're not, which redlinks we might want to unlink.

  • IMHO a play or musical that has had a Broadway run is inherently notable. Unfortunately theater coverage in Wikipedia is not as good as it could be so many notable pieces are still missing articles. I agree there is an above average number of redlinks in some columns (namely the playas in the theaters), but I do not feel like they overwhelm. Of the actual items the list is about, theater buildings, only 16 out of almost 150 entries are redlinked which feels minimal to me. I'm happy to unlink the plays that are relinked if it is distracting but also hope that by them being redlinked it may open the doors for another editior to create the pages.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Once the above things are addressed, I will be happy to offer my support, although again with the caveat that I am not the most experienced reviewer. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Sdkb, sorry for the delayed response to your questions, and thank you for taking the time to review this list. Please let me knwo if any of my answers are not satisfactory to you or if you see any additional issues.--Found5dollar (talk) 17:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
    I asked for clarification at MOS about the column alignments, but I won't hold up my !vote over that. Support. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 20:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Lecrae discography[edit]

Nominator(s): 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it satisfies the criteria for featured lists. For a long time it had issues with citations and referencing, I believe that these issues have long been addressed. The article has already undergone peer review and the recommendations implemented.3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  • In the singles as a lead artist table, the first two rows have the album title cell shaded and differently aligned. I think something is up with the scope on those rows.
  • Some of the refs for singles/songs are against the release date or the album title rather than the title - better to be consistent in their placement
  • A few of the music videos have no source
  • Think that's it on the tables...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    All of this should be fixed now--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • You may want to consider using semi-colons in the first sentence (e.g., "eighty singles, including forty-one as a featured performer, forty-five music videos..." → "eighty singles, including forty-one as a featured performer; forty-five music videos..."
  • No. 1 → number-one
  • No. 3 → number-three (or "in the top five")
  • "It received RIAA Gold certification" → "It was certified Gold by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)"
Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "—" denotes a recording that did not chart or was not released in that territory. Beginning in 2015, Billboard rendered most hip hop/rap albums ineligible for the Gospel charts → this note is usually indicated at the bottom of the table (see here for an example).
    This was separated from the tables by Izno and myself due to concerns about accessibility.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Chart column titles' font size is reduced to 90%; those with more than one word take up two lines with <br> as well.
I'm not sure what you're requesting here.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't list notes at the bottom of the table, use {{efn}} and create a "Notes" section at the bottom of the article followed by {{notelist}}.
This was done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • You may want to consider adding more archive links to the sources as many are older web links, and perhaps to Billboard links as well because they have changed their chart URLs many times in recent years.
I did a bit of this today, I'll go through and check to make sure that they all are live.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Non-album single → {{n/a|non-album single}}; rowspan="x" {{n/a|non-album singles}}
  • "Get Back Right" (with/featuring x) → "Get Back Right"<br>(with/featuring x) (applies to all)
    Use of small text in for this is a violation of the Manual of Style guidelines for accessibility, much more clearly than the notes at the bottom of tables is.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    From what I've read at MOS:SMALLTEXT, small font is prohibited in "infoboxes, navboxes, and reference sections." I'm pretty sure this isn't a violation (tables don't automatically reduce font size), otherwise small text would be banned from every article, and that certainly isn't the case. You should be okay here. Heartfox (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    Why do these need small text, though? I might pose a query on the talk page for MOS:ACCESS.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    Indeed, there is and should be a high bar for the use of abnormally-sized text. The line in question you are reading is there because adding small text to elements in the listed kinds of templates/sections takes us below the absolute threshold for small size text, not because it shouldn't say more strongly that small text elsewhere does not also need to have strong justification. --Izno (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you, Izno, for your feedback here and elsewhere.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I would strongly suggest removing the day and month from the date column in the singles tables... it is difficult to source and not the standard format. (You can still show release order by listing them chronologically)
    I looked at the guidelines, and there's nothing that says you shouldn't do this, just that it's not necessary. In this case, all the exact dates are supported by the citations, or else just the year is given.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not 100% on the citations for the dates at this point. For example, ref 73 links to an article that was posted on May 5, 2008, but the release day in the table is listed as March 4, 2008. Also, the article just gave news about a music video being filmed, which proves nothing about the release of the single. You can choose to keep the days and months, but I'm not too sure if another reviewer would approve. Heartfox (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    Okay, I might just stick to year, then.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • use "rowspan=x" for the album names; you don't have to repeat them each row.
    Not using rowspan was another thing implemented in the changes by User:Izno and myself to comply with MOS:ACCESS, because some screen-readers have difficulty with the rowspan.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    That's tough. Do you know of a discussion about this somewhere? (Perhaps this may affect many articles). The "good example" tables in MOS:DTT happen to use rowspan. Heartfox (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    Okay, so it looks like using rowspan for year is okay. It might just be an issue with the right-most column. This edit and the talk page discussion set the precedent, the issue was brought up at the discography Wikiproject but no discussion resulted--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC).
    There are multiple factors here. One: The header/first cell for each row should be the main topic of the row (which is the song I think for most of these tables). This is because screen readers read left to right (normal humans do as well). Two: In data tables, any row/colspan that isn't in the headers typically causes difficulty for screen readers as well, so those as well are/should be removed.

    Yes, these issues affect many other articles. Editors who know about accessibility will sometimes clean them up, but more often we try to act as force multipliers by educating about these topics because there's just so much wiki to cover. --Izno (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  • There is no "sales" column in the tables; you can remove "sales" from the table captions.
This was done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Charts are listed in artist's original country followed by alphabetical order of chart name (e.g. "US Gospel" follows "US Christian" (Sorry, but you will have to rearrange most of the columns in the tables).
Done. It's actually an easy fix using Visual Editor (one of the few cases where Visual Editor is better than wiki-text for table editing).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • However, list the Bubbling Under column first.
  • The standard maximum amount of columns for a discography table is ten—you'll have to remove some in the tables that list more than ten.
    Yep, I thought this was getting unwieldy. There's a complication that I'll mention below.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Use the real chart name: R&B → R&B/HH
Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Subcharts are not be listed when a song has charted on the main chart:
    • For example, if even just one of Lecrae's songs has charted on Hot Christian Songs (which has occurred), do not add a column for Christian Digital Charts. For songs that did not chart on the main Hot Christian Songs Chart, add a — in the Hot Christian Songs slot with an {{efn}} next to it listing the Christian Digital peak, or given that Christian Airplay is also a subchart, pick between either (usually the highest peak).
      Okay, so for this and the need to reduce to 10 columns max: Yeah, I see why this is. Where I'm not sure what to do is that there are songs that have only charted on a subchart. What do I do in those cases? Especially in the case of "other charted songs"? I'm thinking maybe change the entire layout and use Template:Single chart?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
      The Template:Single chart is used in the "Charts" section of a song or album article; I haven't seen it used in a discography. You can still use the same format for the other songs charted table. If the songs have only charted in a subchart, then you still label the column with the main chart but add footnotes with its peak on the subchart. Would you like me to code a small example on here of how this could look? Heartfox (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
      I understand what you mean, there's already an example of this in the studio album section with Let the Trap Say Amen. The problem I'm seeing is that there are songs like "Dum Dum" that only charted on a sub-chart, without charting on a main chart. Do I just list them as a row of blanks for the maincharts but with the footnotes for subchart peaks?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
      That's what I've seen in other articles. Heartfox (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    • This also applies to the Gospel Digital column (replace peaks with —{{efn}} in Gospel Songs slots), and others.
      • Good work so far, but there is a fair bit to do... I'd advise you look over WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS for what columns are permitted when for the singles, and take a look at WP:DISCOGSTYLE (while it's a dormant proposal most of these guidelines are followed by most articles). This is my first time reviewing anything so I don't know exactly what I'm doing lol but I do have some experience with discography articles and I didn't want to let this sit in the review pile. Good luck! Heartfox (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
        Thank you, what I haven't commented on are what I'll work on implementing tomorrow.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
        I haven't gone through this, but you may want to check the Christian radio release archives here, and others in case you find Lecrae and then can use it as a better source. Heartfox (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
        Ooh, thank you for that link, that will be helpful in general.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
Question, Heartfox: Top Rap Albums is now a subset of R&B/Hip-Hop, but the creation of the Top R&B chart as a subchart came about after Lecrae was charting on the Top Rap Albums. I can note the split, but is there justification for keeping the Rap Albums charts since he was on those for years before the change was introduced?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
You may want to ask the Discography Wikiproject. Heartfox (talk) 20:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I raised the question on Wikipedia talk:Record charts.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • 3family6, the charts used look appropriate.
  • You don't have to provide a footnote for the position on the subchart if it's already charted on the main chart (they're pretty much redundant).
  • If you choose to link each instance of Billboard or other publications, make sure all of them have wikilinks (e.g., ref 32 and 80 don't, but others do).
  • In the albums table, the other US charts should follow US, not BEL and CAN (same for mixtapes table).
  • As you've chosen not to use abbreviations for the chart titles in other tables, BEL and CAN should be spelled out.
  • Specify which Belgian chart region you're using (Flanders or Wallonia).
  • Use <br /> in the chart titles for the tables so it's not all on one line with a big column (right now some do and some don't).
  • You don't need references for the songs in the other charted songs table as they're already listed in the Billboard references.
I've removed all citations from songs for which there are chart positions cited.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • You may want to limit the length of the song title column in the featured songs table, the final entry is pretty long. I think you could <br /> it. Heartfox (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment It's when I see things like deliberately ignoring guidelines such as MOS:NUMERO as was done above that I recognize that be promoted to Good Article status does not mean that the article is compliant to any specific guideline. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that to my attention, I apologize. I took the initiative to actually respond to this editor and tried to focus on more relevant things like WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS and WP:DISCOGSTYLE and hadn't done a thorough review of the entire MOS. Heartfox (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I've merged the R&B/Hip-Hop chart listings and Rap chart listings together, and put Rap charts in the footnotes. Heartfox, anything else that I need to do?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose from TRM[edit]

(WikiCup entry)

  • Don't use EP without explaining it first.
    Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "reached No. 1 on " why do we have that in the prose, why isn't it "number one"? Or vary it with "topped the chart" or similar.
    I'm not sure what the issue is here, "No. 1" is consistent with MOS:NUMERO.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "Christian hip hop site" do you mean website?
    Yes. Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • " 53rd Grammy Awards" vs " 2013 Grammy Awards" and both redirect! Be consistent with how you refer to the ceremonies.
    Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "As of September 2014, he has sold over" nearly six years ago, and he's had gold/platinum albums since, no chance of an update?
    Updated. It's over 3 million now.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • " certified Gold by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)" i would split the links, so link "certified" to the certification article, and RIAA to the RIAA article.
    Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • "Gospel charts[15]" missing a full stop.
    Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of the charts need to be explained if they're not linked, e.g. I thought NET meant Netherlands, but it turns out to mean Internet.
    There doesn't seem to be any articulated standard here for the abbreviations, so I'll see what I can do to be more clear. If anything is still unclear, please let me know specifically which ones.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Where is "Don't Waste Your Life" referenced?
  • I'm actually not sure now whether or not this was ever described as a single. The only internet references I can find to it call it a "song". I've moved it into the "other charted songs" section.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Where is note D referenced?
  • Where is note F referenced?
  • Where are "High" and note G referenced?
  • Same for notes H and I.
  • In fact, all notes which make claims of chart positions must be referenced.
    This conflicts with the feedback from Heartfox above, who thought that the footnotes and chart listings were overcited. The first instance of each chart-listing mention has a citation. So they all are referenced, not all have an immediate citation. "High" now has a cited reference.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • There are 104 spaced hyphens, these should be en-dashes, per MOS.
I'll get to work on this.
Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I'll leave this here for now, I'll come back once we've dealt with these issues. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the long delay, The Rambling Man, my wife was visiting and I've been having trouble with my laptop. Please see my above comments and the accompanying edits.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Further comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Completely forgot about this one, humblest apologies. A handful of further/final comments from me.....

  • I agree with TRM above that the chart column headings need clarifying. I can't see anything, for example, to explain what "CLASS DIG" means.
    I've tried to clarify things, please let me know if there's anything still to fix--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I also agree that notes such as "Charted at No. 2 on the Gospel Digital Songs chart" need sourcing
    Please see above. These are referenced, with a citation for the first occurrence. I removed the repeated citations due to Heartfox's above concerns about the citations being redundant.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • A couple of the videos have no director listed, is this information not known? If so, put something to that effect.
    Some of the videos do not provide the director(s), and I've been unable to find the information online. Whether this truly is unanswerable, I don't know.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you for your feedback, ChrisTheDude, apologies for the delay in my response.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:20, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, my computer was being repaired and so I missed that this review had been revived. I'll get to these tonight.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:18, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Apologies for taking so long to check back. Could you add footnote(s) to make clear what the charts are that aren't wikilinked in the column headings (GOS, Internet, etc)? And if the director of a video is unknown, put "unknown" so that people don't think you've just accidentally left it blank...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    Will do!--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
    This should be all set, ChrisTheDude.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

Sooooooooo many sources... I will get to this tomorrow. Aza24 (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

  • I appreciate all the archive links :)
  • link HipHopDX in ref 5
    Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Billboard missing link in ref 41
    I think you mis-numbered this. Which reference?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    Oh, I realized that the number change was due to an edit of mine, I'll find the reference.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
    I think that I already fixed this.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't "SoundCloud, archived..." in ref 45 be "SoundCloud. Archived..." ?
    This was autogenerated by the template.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Who are "Philip Rood and Chad Horton" and why are they in some Rapzilla refs but not others?
    They are the publishers of Rapzilla. This is an inconsistency. Fixed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Your 3 "DaSouth" refs are all formatting differently, please standardize them
    Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ref 63 is missing website/publisher
    Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Reach Records link in ref 64
    Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The MOS says that titles shouldn't be in all caps, even if thats the original publication, fix these for ref 73
    Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • HipHopDX link for ref 89
    Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • AllMusic link for ref 105
    Done.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Got through half (ref 113) will do other half later. The fact that most of these are just missing links is a good sign. Aza24 (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry for taking so long to get back to this, comments on other half below:
  • There's still much inconsistencies with the Rapzilla refs
  • Ref 137 missing author
  • ref 143 missing author
  • the second ref in 147 is missing the author's full name
  • Link "Vimeo" in ref 192 (and youtube in 193 and 194)
  • ref 218 missing retrieval date and the "via youtube" thing
  • Just these small fixes and you're good Aza24 (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
These all should be fixed, please let me know if I missed anything. Thanks.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
You missed a little but I went ahead and fixed it. Great work here, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Looks like everything has already been addressed. ~ HAL333 01:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions by type[edit]

Notified: Zantastik, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Lists

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the list was merged with the article U.S. state constitutional amendments banning same-sex unions a week ago and is only a redirect now. Gehenna1510 (talk) 01:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist - seems pretty uncontroversial that a list which no longer exists shouldn't be featured -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist that's odd that it wasn't removed automatically. Aza24 (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Dartmouth College faculty[edit]

Notified: Kane5187

I am nominating this for featured list removal because large sections are outdated and incomplete. ~ HAL333 04:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

  • For example, it says that Bernard Gert has been in an active faculty member since the 1950s, however, he passed away in 2011. ~ HAL333 04:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

List of Florida hurricanes (2000–present)[edit]

Notified: Titoxd, Hurricanehink, WikiProject Tropical cyclones

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it has fell way below the class of Featured List. Some parts are outdated, unreferenced, and/or written poorly.~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist I didn't realize until looking at the article history, it became a featured list almost at the start. This is how the article was when made featured in 2007. I am not against the article losing featured status. It's been 13 years since the promotion. I would love to improve the article and then have it reviewed with our current guidelines. (This is in no way implying the article in 2007 was not of great quality.) Editors got interested with storms during the 2004-05 seasons and more recently 2017 to now. – The Grid (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Netural I feel that the article could be brought up to scratch quite easily, however, I do wonder if we really do need to split the List of Florida hurricanes into six separate lists. I realise that there are over 500 systems, however, I am currently researching Tropical cyclones in Fiji and have found well over 300 systems, but am not intending to split it into several lists as things stand. I would also ask what the significance of the split years for Florida are: (ie: Pre 1900, 1900, 1949/1950, 1974/1975, 1999/2000) I look at some of the entries on the lists and see that they are in need of trimming back to just a couple of sentences. Debby 2000 for example could be better written with something along the lines of: Hurricane Debby was forecasted to move through the Flordia Keys as a hurricane, which prompted a mandatory evacuation for all non-residents. However, Debby dissipated before it's remnant tropical wave, produced heavy rainfall and strong winds across southern Florida? Jason Rees (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Jason Rees: That's what happens to featured lists that were listed years ago. People don't care about the class and they just go on and put unsourced information. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 00:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
      • It seems the lists were split by 25 years which I believe is the textbook definition of a generation. – The Grid (talk) 02:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist — Article has been rotting over the years and updates have been of insufficient quality. This requires a complete overhaul and thorough research to get back to FL status. Splitting these in 25-year increments is fine given the multitude of storms that impact the state in some way. It makes navigation easier for readers. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I decided to curiously view the WikiHistory of the article. The amount of editing matches what I stated earlier. The number of edits increased since 2015 and the quality began to decline. That would be an important point to remember when it comes time to improve the article back to featured status. – The Grid (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

List of presidents of Portugal[edit]

Notified: RickMorais, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Portugal

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I believe its doesn't fit the criteria anymore. There's basically no source, and no improvement after over two weeks notification on talk page. Jarodalien (talk) 02:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Maybe give it a few more weeks? The page has seen some changes since you put it up for removal and I think I can improve on it. But I'm not sure at the moment if it can be improved to the point that all of it is covered by references, so I'm not against removing the feature and then adding it later on. CriMen1 (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Just go ahead make improvement that you can, and I don't think we should really care if the feature status removed or not because we could always promoted again when it fits.--Jarodalien (talk) 10:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster[edit]

Notified: User:Killervogel5, WikiProject Baseball

Lists are showing significant aging, including:

  • Player rosters have not been updated in a full nine years.
  • Stats need updating for certain players where the player played for the Phillies beyond 2011 (ie Jimmy Rollins in Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (R) played for the Phillies for three more years.) Updating for those already on the list.
  • Leads in every page need to be updated for the numbers of players for that letter or letters.
  • A lot of the files for living or recently deceased people need personality rights templates at the Commons.
  • A lot of the lists have something similar to: "Among the 34 batters in this list, catcher Hezekiah Allen has the highest batting average: a .667 mark, with two hits in his three plate appearances." I'm not sure that's a fair comparison, especially when Baseball Reference doesn't allow cross comparisons amongst players until a certain benchmark is hit for pa/game. Same with pitchers.
  • I would recommend removing the "Italic text indicates that the player is a member of the Phillies' active (25-man) roster" altogether, because honestly it's tedious to update. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:58, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist. Honestly, I'm just going to call out delist now. It's so out of date it'd be a massive project. The table gives 2,081 players (1,037 hitters and 871 pitchers). The Baseball-Reference citations, when taken together, give 3,104 players (2,090 hitters and 1,014 pitchers). There's some overlap here, as any of the pitchers who pitched in a game without a DH would also be considered as a hitter, I believe (they'd appear on the lineup card, even if they didn't get an at-bat), but that indicates a massive amount of updating needed. No way that gets done in a reasonable amount of time. Hog Farm Bacon 03:04, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist and consider merge or AFD JFC if you want baseball statistics, just go to We shouldn't be awarding featured status (or 18! stars) to a mere import of a single webpage of data. Reywas92Talk 21:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist all – It's a shame because these lists were in great condition when they were promoted, but the nominator hasn't been active in years and the lists have fallen out-of-date. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

List of Stewards of the Manor of Northstead[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject Politics, and User:Ironholds

This 2008 nomination has really suffered over the years:

  • The lead prose is severely lacking.
  • The lead is only supported by one reference, and has numerous uncited sentences.
  • The table contains numerous citation needed or full citation needed tags.
  • References have a number of consistency issues, such as linking or proper fields, as well as placement issues (why suddenly add references at the end of the date in the late 2000s)
  • A number of, albeit minor, linking and formatting issues (the picture below the infobox, redlinking of Coalite plc, stuff like that)
  • Not necessarily a disqualifier, but it would be nice if more references were accessible to support WP:V.

Needs some TLC or should be delisted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:40, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

List of extant papal tombs[edit]

Notified: Gerbis, WikiProject Catholicism

I am nominating this for featured list removal because of the issues indicated in the templates added on 5 March 2020 (the reasons for Gerbis adding the templates may be found in Talk:List of extant papal tombs#One source). The article may fail to meet Wikipedia:Featured list criteria 3a, considering that the content may be outdated. ΣανμοσαThe Trve Lawe of free Monarchies 03:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

List of national anthems[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Countries & WikiProject Songs

I am nominating this for featured list removal because... It has no lead, failing point 2 of the list criteria. Furthermore, it only has 30 refs, half of which are in the "Introduction" rather than at each national anthem, failing point 3. Skjoldbro (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment WP:SOFIXIT. References in the wrong place in the list can easily be moved. If there isn't one, the article on each remaining anthem should have a reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Already created a lede, moved all of the refs out of the main section and supplied others from their articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Finished up to Finland and we're at 100 refs. Many were taken from the linked articles, but several are not well sourced or do not have RSes, so I used The CIA World Fact Book. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Walter Görlitz has done excellent work on this, but we need a reference for each entry at a minimum. I believe that without critical commentary, the categorisation at the bottom of anthems by key is trivia, so should be removed. (The alternative is to replace it with thoroughly sourced prose analysis in the lead of which keys are most common and why. But even this may be better suited to National anthem, which is where I recommend the excellent image is moved to.) If these two things are done then I support keeping the list; otherwise, I support removal. — Bilorv (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    • These concerns have now been addressed, except that Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Somaliland and South Ossetia still lack references in the table. Spotchecks done on a couple of entries but Transnistria isn't verified by the given citation (it only gives a different English translation of the anthem name, not the composer, date etc.). — Bilorv (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
      • @Bilorv: I have added refs for those you listed. Aza24 (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
        • Keep: outstanding work by both Walter Görlitz and Aza24 has brought this up to current FL standards. — Bilorv (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment This list does include some outdated phrasing such as "This table includes" and needs rewording. Also for some reason "Note: This list is for those who have declared independence and are partially recognized." is not actually a note, but a sentence in the lead to the table? This page is showing its age. Mattximus (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist per all. There are plenty of LEADCITEs. The "Key" table can likely be merged in the main table if it isn't crufty, and the orange tag has been up since Septemner 2018. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC) Keep per Aza24; good job with the work! – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist swaths of unsourced text in table "National anthems of UN member states and observer states". That alone is enough to delist. @Walter Görlitz: do you have an update? Therapyisgood (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist per Therapyisgood --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. ~ HAL333 15:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - if those above can give me a day or so I'm gonna take a crack at tidying it up Aza24 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

  • @Walter Görlitz, Skjoldbro, Mattximus, John M Wolfson, Therapyisgood, Guerillero, and HAL333: Aplogies for pinging you all, but seeing as the article has drastically changed in referencing I figured it was appropriate. I have now put references for every country, a lot of them from their official government websites, or a news source based in the country, but when I couldn't find any of these, I used CIA factbook or the very helpful anthem encyclopedia. I have (perhaps boldly) removed the key table entirely, since I have found that many of the countries on it seem to be placed in the wrong section, and it is completely unsourced. Also, imo it seems unhelpful, in the sense that many of the anthems are often changed key depending on the performer or orchestration. (Orchestra playing it vs band vs choir etc) Anyways, I would appreciate any comments on the current state of the article, since it now seems close to being saved. Aza24 (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for finishing what I started. It looks better now. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Walter Görlitz: Indeed. Your work had created a fabulous list and I felt bad seeing it demoted for a lack of references, glad I could help. Aza24 (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

My two concerns still have not been addressed, so I’m still leaning towards delist. Mattximus (talk) 01:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mattximus: I've put the two notes in actual notes and removed the "this table includes" if that addresses it? Aza24 (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
yes much better, my concerns are addressed. Mattximus (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)


  • The name in the "Lyricist" column needs to be sorted by last name in some instances. Ie Francis Scott Key should not sort as "Francis" but rather "Key". Template:Sort name could be used, although I don't know all the naming conventions for all the names.
  • The table in the "Anthems of partially recognized states and territories" section should be sortable.
    • Done.
  • What makes reliable?
  • Several of the references need accessdates, ie 34 and 36.
    • Added for 34 and 36.
  • Ref 50 does not appear to be in English. A trans title would be nice.
  • Ref 57: no space before colon.
    • Fixed.
  • Ref 94 is not in English.
    • Changed ref
  • Citing the Factbook variously as, The World Factbook - Central Intelligence Agency., and The World Factbook. CIA.

Right now I still support delisting. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Therapyisgood: I've been getting distracted with other things and didn't get a chance to go through many of the existing references (the ones there before I came to it), seemingly mostly where these issues arise from. Thanks for your comments, I'll work them out in the next few days – I'll probably tweak the lead around too, it could be better. Aza24 (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero and HAL333: This list has been worked on a bunch since June and some editors have flipped their !vote; are you still in favor of delisting? @Aza24: are you finished with Therapyisgood's comments? --PresN 14:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@PresN: Shoot I completely forgot about this one. I'll get to it this weekend (hopefully), and if I haven't in the next 2–3 days feel free to delist since this one has been here a while. I've been meaning to go through the refs for the first half of the list since some, like Guerillero pointed out, are not reliable. Aza24 (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
I replaced the source in question with a CIA World Factbook reference (theoretically, you could source most of the list from the CIA Factbook, there's even a page for national anthems, but I don't know if that is acceptable for FA standards). I will look at what other sources need to be replaced or updated. MSG17 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Everything looks good except for the references, as Guerillero pointed out. ~ HAL333 04:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)