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:


Woody Harrelson filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 04:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Prior to working on this, I wasn't aware of how prolific an actor Harrelson is. I hope this serves as a comprehensive and informative list. Thanks! ~ HAL333 04:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

20–20–20 club[edit]

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other baseball lists I have successfully nominated to FL and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. The last FLC 8 years ago was a close split over whether this list satisfied criteria 3b, and two months later, one admin stated that he "would have supported that one [i.e. this list] as there was no good place to merge it". —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

List of FIFA World Cup winning managers[edit]

Nominator(s): Emyil (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because meets the criteria like other similar featured lists. Emyil (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

The lede could use expanding, if possible. ~ HAL333 22:51, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
Drive-by comment

The lead is far too short, contains unsourced information (notably the bit about those who won as a player and a manager) and reads very much as if it was written by a non-English speaker ("only manager to have succeeded winning two times" is not good English at all). More in-depth comments to come later...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Further comments
  • "FIFA World Cup is" => "The FIFA World Cup is"
  • "the most prestigious association football tournament in the world" - source?
  • "Brazil have won five times, Germany and Italy with four titles each; Argentina, France, and Uruguay, with two titles each; and England and Spain, with one title each." - this doesn't make grammatical sense. Maybe "Brazil have won five times, followed by Germany and Italy with four titles each; Argentina, France, and Uruguay, with two titles each; and England and Spain, with one title each."
  • "Uruguayan manager Alberto Suppici led victory with Uruguay national team in the inaugural tournament in 1930." - this is horribly mangled English. I think what you mean is "Uruguayan manager Alberto Suppici led the Uruguay national team to victory in the inaugural tournament in 1930."
  • .....but is there a way to avoid saying "Uruguay" twice in the same sentence?
  • "20 different managers have won the World Cup" - don't start a sentence with a numeral
  • "all winning managers have been natives of the country they were in charge of" - don't end a sentence with a preposition. They also weren't in charge of the country, they were in charge of its football team.
  • "3 men have won the tournament" - again, don't start a sentence with a numeral.
  • As noted above, this sentence is unsourced
  • As mentioned earlier, the lead is far far too short. I would expect it to be around twice this long. There must be more to say, surely...........?
  • Photo caption: "Vittorio Pozzo is the only manager to have succeeded winning two times." - not good English at all. "Vittorio Pozzo is the only manager to have won the World Cup twice" would be better.
  • Not sure how I feel about having the nationality column before the name or the fact that the two nationality columns are identical. I will see what other people think about that.........
  • Ref => Ref.
  • Any reason why is linked in the refs but no other publisher is?
  • Also, the publisher is simply FIFA, not
  • Refs should have access dates
  • The Guardian ref should credit the author
  • Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Changed, added, changed, changed, done, done, changed, done, added, is lead too short? see: List of UEFA club competition winning managers, List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers, List of England national football team hat-tricks, List of FIFA World Cup hat-tricks, List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup winning managers, List of UEFA Intertoto Cup winners, List of UEFA Intertoto Cup winning managers , List of UEFA Super Cup winning managers, changed, same format like similar lists, done, World Cup is FIFA’s organisation. I think FIFA’s sources are enough, done, done, done.--Emyil (talk) 14:47, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Further comments
  • Photo caption: "Vittorio Pozzo is only manager to have winning the World Cup more than once." - this is not coherent English. Change it to what I actually put above.
  • "Suppici is the youngest manager to win the World Cup, only 31 years old in 1930" => "Suppici is the youngest manager to win the World Cup, being aged 31 in 1930"
  • "Zagallo and Menotti" - show their full names, as you have not mentioned them before this
  • "....are other winning managers in their 30s." -=> ".....were also in their 30s when they won the World Cup"
  • "Zagallo is 38 years old in 1970 and Menotti is 39 years old in 1978" => "Zagallo was 38 years old in 1970 and Menotti was 39 years old in 1978"
  • "del Bosque is the oldest coach to win the World Cup, 59 years old in 2010" => "Vicente del Bosque is the oldest coach to win the World Cup, being aged 59 in 2010"
  • You now have some sources where the publisher is FIFA and others where it is It should be simply FIFA in every case.
  • You still have only linked FIFA in the refs. You should also link CNN and The Guardian.
  • Ref 3 has no publisher
  • All the best, ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Changed, changed, done, done, changed, changed, done, List of UEFA club competition winning managers, List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers, List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals, List of UEFA Cup and Europa League finals, List of UEFA Cup Winners' Cup finals, List of UEFA Intertoto Cup winners, List of UEFA Super Cup matches (All of them have just UEFA sources.), done. Thank you for your comments.--Emyil (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You don't seem to be understanding my comment "You still have only linked FIFA in the refs. You should also link CNN and The Guardian." I don't care where the sources come from, but if you re going to wikilink one publisher (FIFA) then you should wikilink them all. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
You also haven't added a publisher to ref 3, even though you say you have...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
For that matter, ref 2 needs a publisher as well -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Done.--Emyil (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

List of Formula One drivers who set a fastest lap[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Following on from the polesitters list we have the list for drivers who have set a fastest lap in a Formula One Grand Prix. Looking forward to your comments which will be dealt with expediently. NapHit (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

There's no need when the table is referenced by one ref. NapHit (talk) 10:21, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Scratch that. I realized that each name was a link. I now Support ~ HAL333 20:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Only a few minor points from me:

  • "From 2007," would be better as "Since 2007," IMO
  • StatsF1 is spelt wrongly in one ref
  • Fastest is spelt wrongly in one ref
  • It looks odd that "All figures correct as of the" is in italics but "2019 Abu Dhabi Grand Prix" isn't
  • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, ChrisTheDude, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic archbishops of Toronto[edit]

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel its structure and formatting mirrors the other lists I have successfully nominated to FL (specifically, List of Roman Catholic bishops of Hong Kong, which just got promoted), and it now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - I made one tiny tweak which it was easier to just do than to point out here, but that was all I could find...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Great article - couldn't find anything to pick at. ~ HAL333 22:49, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


  • I'm not wild about the use of a parish builtin as a source
  • Removed, leaving the Catholic newspaper source to verify the statement. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Same with Holy Rosary Cathedral's history of itself.
  • Alright I've removed it, leaving the two other sources to verify. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I tend to take a dim view of press releases, but the things cited to the Holy See Press Office are more bios than press releases

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:44, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: thanks very much for the review! I hope I've addressed your comments satisfactorily. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

List of Romanian Top 100 number ones[edit]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi there! I have singificantly rewritten and cleaned up the article since my last FL attempt nearly three years ago. I have taken List of Airplay 100 number ones of the 2010s as an example, which I have meanwhile promoted to FL. I believe this article is well-written and presents the information in a very comprehensive way. I'm happy for any comment(s). Greets!

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

Comments by HAL333[edit]

@HAL333: Not to bother you, but have your concerns/questions actually been solved? If you're busy, feel free to disregard. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

No worries - I appreciate the reminder. After another check over its content, I Support. ~ HAL333 20:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support by Paparazzzi[edit]

I have nothing else to say about this nomination, my comments have been addressed, I have reviewed the sources and everything is fine, the prose is well-written. So I support this nomination. Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

I support this for promotion. Great work with the list! Aoba47 (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

2019 in cue sports[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because there hasn't been a "year in X" article for featured status before, and all tournaments have been cited. Please let me know your thoughts on the article. I haven't created an FL before, so bare with me Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  • It could use an image. You should also expand the lede and source anything which isn't sourced later. ~ HAL333 15:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
No problem. I think all of the information in the lede is currently cited by the lists, but I can certainly expand on that. Any ideas what type of image would be suitable? Maybe one of Judd Trump? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Yeah. One showing him in action in 2019 would be great. ~ HAL333 20:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Sadly snooker images aren't exactly super up-to-date. I've included the newest version of an image of him as I could (as an aside, most other players either do not have images, or are significantly more out of date!) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support A solid article. ~ HAL333 02:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Drive-by comment
  • This may be a dumb-ass question (it wouldn't be my first) but why does an article called 2019 in cue sports contain a huge number of events which occurred in 2018? Some of the tables literally consist entirely of events which took place in 2018...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:07, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Not a stupid question at all (far from it actually). I wasn't sure exactly how to deal with this. The article is a split from 2019 in sports, and has the snooker events done by season. (See 2018 in sports for example). I didn't want to break the chronology just for one article, but quite happy to change for just the events in the year, rather than how it's done in other articles (shouldn't take too long at all). I hope that makes sense. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Personally I do think it would be much better, given the title, if the article only included 2019 events....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I have changed this to be just the events taking place in 2019. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The lead seems quite brief, could you add some more detail?
  • "The snooker season runs between May and April," - this is linked to the 2018-19 season. As the article now covers sections of two seasons, probably better to remove the link. Or find a way to link to both seasons.
  • "Below is a list of all notable results from cue sports in the year of 2019." - don't think this is needed (this also applies to the individual sports' sections)
  • "whilst World Cup of Pool" => "whilst the World Cup of Pool"
  • I think each sport's section should have a longer block of text at the start summarising more of the content. You could also add a summary above sections such as the snooker Challenge Tour, explaining what it is, so that readers don't have to click away to another article.
    • I hadn't thought of this. Exactly, I'll add something.  Working Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "The Billiards season started in October 2018, and runs into July 2019." - firstly, should Billiards have a capital mid-sentence? Also, this should now cover both seasons which fell within the calendar year. And finally, the table still covers October 2018 to July 2019 - it should cover the calendar year.
    • Whoops, changed for events in 2019. I knew I'd missed one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "The World Snooker season began in July 2018, and ended in May 2019." - same comments as the last point, essentially
    • Changed. 08:04, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Women's snooker section ends with an event in November 2018???
  • Were there no amateur snooker events after June?
  • Some refs do not have access dates
  • Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I really like this article. I've added in a couple of tournaments that I think are worthy of inclusion. The list could get long, but there might be some items at the Asian Confederation of Billiard Sports site worth including, e.g. SEA games and Asian Championship. Similarly, anything that's a qualifying event for the main professional tour (as mentioned here) might make the grade. And Snooker at the 2019 African Games maybe? (I'm willing to help as well as to throw suggestions in!) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

90th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2018 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 09:05, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  • The Shape of Water won a four awards- remove "a". ~ HAL333 21:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, well done. ~ HAL333 02:19, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Made a few minor amendments and now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS
  • The lack of a source URL for File:2018 Oscars Official Poster.png is suspicious. It's also lazy for users to just say it "could be obtained from the distributor", which could potentially be a disguise for unofficial artwork that got pulled from a fansite or (even worse) was fabricated altogether.
  • Fixed: Added source from Deadline Hollywood showing poster. The user probably downloaded the image and then compressed it. It also may have come from the AMPAS website under press kits section. Here is the same page archived from 2018 when the 90th Oscars occured and thus shows the same key art that is depicted in this article.
  • Fixed: Changed URL to one that actually links the picture.
  • Fixed: Removed image since there is no valuable replacement.
  • Fixed: Removed image since there is no valuable replacement.
  • I would replace the Kimmel image, but I'm not sure which one is properly licensed.
  • I'll look for a better one and let you know later what a more appropriate use would be. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:39, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed: Replaced photo of Kimmel with the one you provided.
  • "However, Best Actor winner Casey Affleck reportedly decided not to attend the ceremony due to his sexual harassment accusations; Jodie Foster and Jennifer Lawrence presented the award together in his place; the Best Actor award was presented by actresses Jane Fonda and Helen Mirren." is quite a mouthful! I'd split that overly long sentence into three parts by replacing the semi-colons with periods.
  • Fixed: Replaced semicolons with periods.
  • Super short paragraphs make the text look choppy, so I'd merge the two paragraphs from "Ratings and reception" when its second one is quite small on its own.
  • Fixed:Merged paragraphs into one.
  • Fixed: Removed other see also links except Foreign Language one.
  • Variety should be italicized in ref#19 ("Oscars: 'Lady Bird's' Greta Gerwig Becomes Fifth Woman Nominated for Best Director")
  • Fixed: Changed field of Variety from publisher to work to make title italicized.

That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

That Jimmy Kimmel license is actually kind of funny. I don't know how it has been on Commons for two years. ~ HAL333 05:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Following my media review and sufficient improvements for that among other things, I support as the article is now up to FL quality as far as I'm concerned. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:16, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

England cricket team Test results (1990–2004)[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 08:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The next in the series, follows the format established in the previous FLs. I have hopefully applied all the comments and feedback from those lists into this one, but I'm sure you'll all find plenty to bring up nevertheless! As always, all feedback appreciated. (I have an open FLC, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of winners of the New York City Marathon/archive1, but that has three supports and no outstanding concerns.) Harrias talk 08:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

  • "England won more matches than they lost against Bangladesh, New Zealand, Sri Lanka the West Indies" - missing comma
  • "who they beat by 329 runs" => "whom they beat by 329 runs"
  • I never know which to use. Switched. Harrias talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The image caption needs a source
  • "The England cricket team represented Scotland until 1992, when they" - ambiguous as to who "they" are
  • Think that's it from me. Great work overall :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Cheers, responded to all above. Harrias talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Resolved comments from User:Drat8sub
  • alt. description for images.
  • Delink repeated venues per MOS:OVERLINK, only once is enough.
  • No, because a sortable table can have different rows at the top, we link every instance. See MOS:REPEATLINK. Harrias talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • It says " if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated", so MOS:OVERLINK should be followed (no one click those link, if anyone wants a single link is enough). And for the table, it does not have any different categories of rows, for which the places are needed to be linked mutiple times and for sorting, the table can also sort without linking multiple times. (name changed) Drat8sub (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Disagreeing completely! Fine, so you are disagreeing the MOS:REPEATLINK policy which says "if helpful for readers" which is not the case here and MOS:OVERLINK which says "locations and geographical features should not be linked repeatedly" until and unless its necessary. I don't see any clarification from you, how the linking justify the policies of Repeatlink and Overlink. Give a clarification on the policies, because you are a reviewer here too, your take will be reflected on other's nominations here and may be helpful. Drat8sub (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Drat8sub:I disagree with your interpretation. As you say, MOS:REPEATLINK says that "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." So let's establish a string of statements, and let me know where you disagree:
  1. Including a link to the ground and location is helpful to the reader.
  2. The reader will want to be able to easily access that link.
  3. In a sortable table, if the table has been rearranged, it might not be easy to find where that link is.
  4. Providing the link in each row of the table makes it easier to access the link. A lot easier in fact.
  5. Therefore, repeating the link in the table is helpful to the reader.
  • Note that MOS:REPEATLINK goes on to say "Duplicate linking in stand-alone and embedded lists is permissible if it significantly aids the reader. This is most often the case when the list is presenting information that could just as aptly be formatted in a table, and is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom." It specifically draws attention to the fact that including duplicate links will aid the reader if the table "is expected to be parsed for particular bits of data, not read from top to bottom", which is very much the case in a sortable table. Harrias talk 17:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I have read that before, that discussion was not about locations, more of seasons which I can understand can be helpful for readers. But my particular concern is about location i.e, cities or countries. I am ok with linking the stadiums which may be assumed to be helpful for readers but not the cities, once will be enough, as without a link to cities will not make any un-helpful situation; the statistics says so, no one actually open these cities' and countries' link, specifically coming to a article dealing with sport topics. More than that, even if they are interested in venue and click the stadium, obviously the same cities link will be found in the stadium article. So you can delink the cities atleast keeping once. I can make my final comment after that. However, FYI I've opened a discussion already there, let me see what other editors have to say on this particular matter, if you want to wait till that discussion over, you can wait. Drat8sub (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Essentially, my argument, as laid out above, is that if something is helpful to link in the table, we should link it every time. If you are suggesting that some cities should not be linked, per MOS:OVERLINK, then I have sympathy with that view, but the issue comes of where to draw the line. I can easily agree that London doesn't need linking, but Kandy does. How about Centurion, or Bridgetown? Harrias talk 19:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Harrias, I am happy to support. I think this should not be the reason to block the nom because I think the discussion will take time and once any consensus reach, we can work on the various articles later on.
  • Well, may be I'm missing here something, so if you allow me to know why the record is from 1990 to 2004, why not from 1990 to 99. Again, since Scotland board became independent entity in '92, why not '92 to '99? Again, the exact lowest point is in '99-2000 so why not from 1990-2000? If your intention of recording the history of England lowest phase then it would be upto Sri Lanka series of 2003, as after that England revived. With that, is there any similar preceding articles to see a consistency with such record?
  • Yup, seen that, looks fine then. (name changed) Drat8sub (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

That's all from me. Dey subrata (talk) 19:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Dey subrata: Cheers, responded to all above. Harrias talk 09:21, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Dey subrata: Just wondered if you'd had a chance to look over this again? Harrias talk 09:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, there were some problems with the account. Addressed the points above. Drat8sub (talk) 11:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Seems ok to me, happy to support the nom. Drat8sub (talk) 16:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

List of ICC Men's T20 World Cup centuries[edit]

Nominator(s): Dey subrata (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

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. Dey subrata (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  • "As of 2016 Men's T20 World Cup," => "As of the 2016 Men's T20 World Cup,"
  • "(then World Twenty20)" => "(then called the World Twenty20)". Also no reason for the name to be in italics
  • "This is the first and only instance in the championship where" => "This is the first and only instance in the championship when"
  • "until he had broken his own record" => "until he broke his own record"
  • "The second and third batsmen to score a century in the championship were....." - why is it important to note the second and third players to score a hundred?
    • Sorry, it just totally gone out of my mind, actually the first three centries makes all the three bastemen to achieve the feat of becoming players who scored centuries in all the formats of the game, a very rare feat in cricket. Gayle's being the first. Added the info and see if needs any correction. Dey subrata (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "Brendon McCullum is the highest individual scorer in the Men's T20 World Cup, scored 123 runs" => "Brendon McCullum is the highest individual scorer in the Men's T20 World Cup, having scored 123 runs"
  • "As of 2016, " - this is still true, so say "as of 2020"
    • Because this is world cup, happens after 4 years, and last time held in 2016 and the 2020 world cup is yet to start. This one is not like the last list. Dey subrata (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Yes, but just saying "as of 2016" could make the reader think that there have been more world cups since then (the article doesn't say that it is only held every four years) and the article just hasn't been updated. If you really want to keep the 2016 date then you must say "as of the 2016 tournament, the most recent to take place"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
        • ChrisTheDude, I think to add "the most recent to take place" would be better, since ICC yet to decide to hold the T20I WC as 2 years or 4 years event. Please check the above point also, if any correction needed in the added lines. Dey subrata (talk) 08:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "refers to whether the player's team won, lost" => "refers to whether the player's team won or lost"
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Made a few minor tweaks and now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Javier Bardem filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 18:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it provides a comprehensive review of Bardem's impressive work in film. I've worked on the introduction, which also mentions major awards he has won for his work. The article also includes a sortable list and is well cited. ~ HAL333 18:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

HAL333 Support, the tables are now as complete as they can get for notable entries, I cannot find a problem with the prose. Great work. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – all comments addressed and explanation for formatting precedent is reasonable. Looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Naomi Watts filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

British actress Naomi Watts is known for her roles in Mulholland Drive, The Ring, 21 Grams, and more recently in the television series Gypsy and The Loudest Voice. As always I welcome constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 08:33, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  • "in Alejandro González Iñárritu-directed" => "in the Alejandro González Iñárritu-directed"
  • "for which she garnered a nomination for Best Actress" => "for which she garnered nominations for Best Actress" (as it refers to three separate nominations)
  • "in biographical drama Fair Game" => "in the biographical drama Fair Game"
  • Film titles which start with a number should sort as if they start with the equivalent word
  • If you sort on any other column and then try to resort on the year column, the TBA values all go to the top when they should go to the bottom
  • Think that's it from me, looking good generally! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your review. I think I've sorted the above. Cowlibob (talk) 13:35, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry to throw a spanner in the works, but is there a reason why filmographies have shifted from the film being the first column to the year? Going by the guidelines on MOS:DTT, would it not be more beneficial for visually impaired users to have the film in the row scopes rather than the year? Seeing as that is the more important info, in my eyes anyway, shouldn't they be structured the same way as discographies and accolades list? The guideline I have linked to all has an example table of a filmography that is in the style I mentioned. This seems to have been common practice judging by older nominations, is there a reason why this has changed? - NapHit (talk) 19:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Community areas in Chicago[edit]

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 01:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

This is a list of, in a way, the "neighborhoods" of Chicago; there were originally 75 of them back in the 1920s but now there are 77. I think this is a nice list that explains its contents well enough and with good enough citations (there used to be more stuff about the "sides", but I couldn't find any non-citogenic sources on the matter). This is my first time at FLC, so please go easy. I understand if this is more appropriate at FAC. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 01:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended content


  • No need to just embolden "community areas" in the lead.
    • Removed
  • Given that the lead is only summarising five paragraphs of text, the three paragraphs there seems far too much.
    • Trimmed the lead somewhat, merge the last two paragraphs together into one.
  • We also tend to see things like "biggest"/"smallest", "most"/"least populous" in the lead as that's the equivalent of "summarising the table" in the lead.
    • Added a sentence for that near the end of the new first paragraph.
  • University of Chicago Press could be linked.
    • Done
  • " 1920 and 1930 Censuses" Censuses inside the pipe.
    • I've put it as part of the link
  • " changes[1] due" just move that awkward ref to the end of the sentence.
    • Done
  • "Below is a list of the 77 community areas, along with their population, area, and population density." not necessary with the section heading and the table caption.
    • Removed
  • "Chicago Community areas " no need for capital C in community.
  • "2017 Population" no need to capitalise P.
  • Same for the density column.
    • All three done
  • Total row should fix at bottom and not move when sorted. Use class="sortbottom" on the last row delineator (|-).
    • Done
  • It's a bit messy having all those numbers left-aligned. They would be better split into metric/imperial columns and right aligned.
    • Right aligned the population density column. I don't think it's particularly necessary to split the different measurements into different columns. My apprehensions in that respect were because I didn't know |disp=table was a thing in {{Convert}}. I have since separated the columns. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:56, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • "(The[11]) Loop" very awkward ref placement. Better off adding a footnote after Loop.
    • Done
  • Refs which are PDFs should have format=pdf in their coding.
    • Done

The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 13:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
@TRM: I've addressed your concerns, just let me know if you have any more. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 06:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi John, sorry for the delay. The only thing that grates now is that you have different sq mi being converted to the same sq km (e.g. 0.99 and 1.00 sq mi both convert to 2.6 sq km) so I'd consider one more significant figure in those. Also, use the same level of precision throughout for the density so the right alignment is effective. Right now the right hand digit could be hundredths, tenths or units, and that makes the right-alignment nonsensical. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Done. (EDIT: Except for the sq mi. population density, which I'll try to see how to do. There we go.) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 06:45, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to be a grind, but now it's obvious I should have said the overall population per community column should be right-aligned as well... The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

There's probably a much better way to do it, but done. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 07:12, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Source review

  • Encyclopedia of Chicago links need access dates
  • Everything else checks out

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Added. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 16:02, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

NWA World Welterweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This has been nominated three times prior, twice failed due to lack of input and once i withdrew to work on the sources. I have reworked the sources to make my latest FL (Mexican National Tag Team Championship), I've done a round of copy editing and I've had the Guild of Copy Editors work through it as well. I believe this represents a very fine body of work both prose, table and source wise and hope this will get enough attention this time. I will happily commit to doing a FL review for each person providing feedback PLUS one, which I will initate in the next day or two. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Very good article ~ HAL333 00:13, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

List of pre-dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

This list, as the title suggests, comprises the pre-dreadnought type battleships built for the British Royal Navy - the Brits built so many battleships we had to split the lists into pre- and post-Dreadnought types to keep them manageable. I wrote the list last year and it passed a Milhist A-class review in February. I think it should be up to snuff, but I look forward to correcting any issues reviewers detect. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Review by Guerillero[edit]

Citation review --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Citation review

  • McBride 2005 doesn't need page numbers in the References section because of the footnotes
    • That's not right; long cites for articles should always include the full page range (see for instance the CMoS, under the "Journal article" heading).
  • The citations in the Further reading section is throwing of Harv errors
  • The sources are all reliable

Other thoughts

  • Take a gander at WP:ACCESS. I think the tables need titles
    • Good point - I've added captions for the tables, but I don't know if they're ok or not
  • Nothing is sortable, the tables are so small that I don't think that it is needed

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Guerillero. Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Very well written and organized. The images for each ship are very good as well. ~ HAL333 00:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - The article is clear well written. Perhaps it can be made more clear in the lead what set the Royal Sovereigns apart from earlier ironclad (British) battleships? It now says ‘introduced the standard layout associated with pre-dreadnought’. I am no expert but the layout of the preceding Trafalgar-class battleships looks somewhat similar. Was it the type of guns, armor, superstructure that set them apart. Pindanl (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This list is in fine shape. A few nitpicks:

  • "over the combined French and Russian fleets"
    • Added
  • "led to the eight-ship King Edward VII class"
    • Done
  • any reason why individual ships aren't linked at first mention in the narrative?
    • Not really - should be linked now
  • any reason why the ships in the tables aren't consistently listed in order of commissioning? What's the rationale for the order?
    • No, and that's a good question - I didn't do anything to the order of the tables when I overhauled the list. They should be fixed now
  • The conversion rounding on HMS Renown's guns could be tightened, the ship article says 254 mm?
    • Done
  • can you check the displacement of the Majestic class? Looks like LT and tons have been swapped here?
    • Good catch
  • "where Ocean and Goliath were"
    • Good catch
  • the Canopus-class battleship table is headed Summary of the Majestic class
    • Fixed
  • the displacement of the Duncan class is standard, not full load
    • Fixed
  • suggest "torpedoed by the U-boat UB-50" as you have done earlier
    • Done
  • the conversion of the displacement on the KEVII class table is rounded differently from the article
    • Fixed
  • not for this list, but the laid down date for Dominion in the KEVII-class article says 25 May 1902, not 23 May 1902
    • Typo in that article, I think
  • "sunk by the U-boat U-21"
    • Done

That's all I could find. Nice work. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
No worries, supporting. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

Another list of ships this'll be (probably) a long review. Royal Sovereign class

  • for most of the pre-dreadnoughts built in Britain.[2][3][4][1] Re-order the refs here.
    • Fixed - adding the note mentioned above screwed up the ref order
  • Link Revenge, Royal Oak, Empress of India, Royal Sovereign, Ramilies, Hood, Repulse and Resolution.
    • Done per PM's comment above
  • refits except Hood, and afterward they were placed American afterward.
    • What's the British equivalent?
  • After the start of the First World War in August 1914 WWI started in July maybe you could say "After the British entered the war in August 1914"?
    • Good point
  • Why is there in the Fate part a date when HMS Hood was sunk while the rest and their "broken up" don't have the day nor even the month?
    • Because the scuttling was a discrete event that took place on a single day and the process of breaking up a ship the size of a battleship is not (i.e., it takes many months, years even, and precise dates are less relevant [and generally not available in any case])

Centurion class

  • Link Centurion and Barfleur.
    • Fixed as above
  • She moved to Chinese waters in 1898 Wait about whom are we talking about?
    • Barfleur - Centurion was already on the China station - I figured the name didn't need to be repeated because of the context, but I can add it if it's not clear - let me know
  • I believe the image of HMS Centurion should have more descriptions like maybe a year or so?
    • Added

I don't really have much time today so I'll continue tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Take your time - we're not going anywhere ;) Parsecboy (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

HMS Renown

  • again to carry the Duke and Duchess of Connaught MOS:EGG here.
  • Pipe India to British India.

Majestic class

  • Pipe Russia and Japanese to the Russian Empire and the Empire of Japan.
  • Japanese Shikishima class and the battleship Mikasa Please clarify that these class were battleships.
  • Like in the Centurion class section may be better clarification of the image is needed?

The rest will continue later. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment from PMG[edit]

Is link to Bibliography of 18th–19th century Royal Naval history really needed in this list? I am asking because I don`t see additional value - there is References section in article. PMG (talk) 14:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Probably not, but I also don't think it's doing any harm - it was in the See also section when I rewrote the list, so I left it. It isn't intended to function as a replacement to the References section, though. Parsecboy (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of Hot Country Singles number ones of 1969[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

With 43 of these lists now promoted to FL status and one having multiple supports which will complete the 1970s, it's time to start on the 1960s, a far superior decade for country music in my humble opinion...... ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

These aren't so much errors, but my personal preference

  • Hot Country Singles, in 52 issues of the magazine - I would insert weekly after 52, it makes a little more clear
  • In the issue of Billboard dated January 4 - I would reword it as "the January 4 issue", it's a little awkward
  • which spent five weeks at number one, and his total of eleven weeks atop the chart in 1969 was the highest by any artist - I would split that sentence in two separate sentences
  • his total of eleven weeks atop the chart in 1969 was the highest by any artist - You should clarify that. Was it the highest in 1969 or in the history of the chart? I would also say "cumulative" rather than total
  • All three of James's chart-toppers - just James' per [1]
  • If you wanted to expand the lede you could mention Tammy Wynette and Conway Twitty, as they both had two #1's that year.
  • I hope those were helpful. It's a good article overall. ~ HAL333 00:35, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments, I have acted upon them. I haven't changed the bit about "issue dated January 4", as it almost certainly didn't actually physically come out on that date, and I think saying "issue dated January 4" is less ambiguous. Hope that's OK....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Yeah, the January 4 thing makes sense now.
  • Support Well done. ~ HAL333 15:28, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 11:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 13:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 02:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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

List of chief ministers of Uttarakhand[edit]

Nominator(s): TryKid (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Another in a series of Chief Minister lists, after List of chief ministers of Jharkhand and List of chief ministers of Chhattisgarh. I thought about expanding the second lead paragraph but I don't really see any benefit in repeating the information already available in table just for the sake of it; but feel free to expand it if any inadequacy is felt. Regards, TryKid (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose from Harrias[edit]

  • Make the table sortable.
  • Add to the functionality of the table by splitting the tenure length into a different cell, so we can sort by date and length.
  • Add a table caption, and move the key away from the top row, where it will confuse screen readers into thinking that it is a header for the article.
  • The lead really needs more information. Why for example did Harish Rawat only serve for one day at one stage? What happened before 9 November 2000, was there just no chief minister, or no state?

For me, this falls pretty well short of the FL criteria at the moment: both for the prose and the table. Harrias talk 09:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Guerillero[edit]


  • The sources look good to me. Everything is formatted consistently, they all look reliable, and the links are good
  • I agree with Harrias that the leade is far too short
  • The alt texts need to be better

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

My only major concern is the brevity of the lead, as mentioned above. I think the fact that one of the office holders was in post for a single day is definitely unusual enough that it needs further explanation in the lead, for starters...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

List of Cardiff City F.C. internationals[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

The latest Cardiff City F.C. related list I've been working on. As far as I'm aware, no other internationals list has been promoted to FL status, so there's no basic template to follow but I think I've matched the standard up to previous promotions. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments on the lead
  • Five pretty short paragraphs looks too many - suggest merging some
  • "Jimmy Blair became the first Cardiff player from outside Wales" - maybe say "the first Cardiff player to represent a country other than Wales", as earlier players may have been from outside Wales (in terms of place of birth) but played for Wales
  • "Alf Sherwood became the club's highest capped international player in the decade following the end of the Second World War" - this reads like he was the highest capped player in that decade specifically. I presume that is not what you mean?
  • "Five Cardiff players were selected in the nation's 23-man squad for the competition, Colin Baker....." - comma before the first name should be a colon
  • "Tony Vidmar became the first Cardiff player from outside the British Isles" - similar comment to above
  • "Chris Gunter is the youngest ever Cardiff player" - think the word "ever" is unnecessary
  • Think that's it on the lead, will look at the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Comments on the table
  • Refs => Ref (as no row has more than one ref)
  • Kim Bo-Kying's surname is Kim, so I would have thought he should sort under K
  • Note a is not a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop
  • Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review, I've amended all of the points above. Let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
You've changed the Kim Bo-Kyung link to Bo-Kyung Kim, which is a redlink. I don't think you need to change how his name is shown, you just need to make it so that it sorts under K...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Ooops, amended that now. Kosack (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment These "club's internationals" lists seems a little off to me. They're almost like the "club's foreign players" lists we deleted earlier, except they also include some domestic players. Plus, footballers get called up by their national team for various reasons besides club performance if that is what is supposed to be implied in the list. That's just my best guess to be honest. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what relevance that has here really, international lists have been through AfD in the past and have remained. If you think they should be deleted, you need to start a new discussion somewhere. I'm not sure why that should stop me trying to get this promoted. Kosack (talk) 06:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


  • I don't recall having reviewed a list of this nature before, and I'm curious about the title. In my mind it should probably be "List of international footballers who played for Cardiff City F.C." or something. My concern is "internationals" has no bounds, and certainly in the good ol' days, international footballers were good all-round sportsmen and played international cricket as well. And interestingly, you note a nuance in the table caption, these are "full" internationals and not lower-level (e.g. U-21s) internationals...
  • Certainly, as I noted above, this is probably the first list of this kind to come to FLC. The other comparables in Category:Lists of association football players by club in England use either internationals, international players and international footballers. Personally the players is probably the one I'd prefer. Thoughts on any of those options? Kosack (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • I think my personal preference in there would be "List of Cardiff City F.C. international footballers". And there needs a hefty caveat saying these are only full internationals right from the get-go. But it's worth waiting for others to chip in rather than just go with my ideas! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 07:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
  • " a Welsh professional association football club based in Cardiff, Wales. " not sure you need to clarify Cardiff is in Wales really. - Removed
  • "Cardiff City Football Club is a Welsh professional association football club based in Cardiff, Wales. The club ..." count the "club"s... - Removed
  • "when he played Scotland later " played for Scotland. - Fixed
  • And against whom? - Added
  • What makes a reliable source?
  • NIFG was challenged a few years ago, the resulting discussion was pretty conclusive on its reliability. Kosack (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • " a World Cup during" could link generic FIFA World Cup here. - Added
  • "won at least one international cap " this is where you need to be more descriptive I think: at least one full* [i.e. senior cap] international association football cap...?> - Reworded
  • Intl. Years -> Intl. years - Fixed
  • Could note Kenwyne is top international scorer? - Added
  • "Kim Bo-Kyung" appears to be Kim Bo-kyung. - Fixed
  • Convert all ISBN to consistent format (at's coverter).
  • Ref 8 is the same as ref 3. - Fixed
  • Ref 43 has no accessdate. - Fixed

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 12:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the review. I've responded to each of your comments above, let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Scarlett Johansson[edit]

Nominator(s): ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk & 17:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson is an American actress. Her films have grossed over $14.3 billion worldwide, making Johansson the ninth-highest-grossing box office star of all time. She has various awards for her performance. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Further comments
  • "(shared with Joaquin Phoenix for the OS sex scene)" - what does this mean? What is an OS sex scene? The only OS I know is the Ordnance Survey :-)
  • "Outstanding Performers of the Year Award (with Adam Driver" - missing closing bracket
  • Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude, What I meant was an on-screen sex scene Face-smile.svg. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 18:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the words "on screen" are needed. If it happened in a film then it's obviously on screen......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: fixed. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I just want to note that something occurring in a film does not always mean it's on screen. Offscreen actions can also occur, and can be rather commonplace in film. Sometimes the genre's conventions can be a reason for this. Soulbust (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
    • That's true, but I still don't think it's necessary to specifically state that an award was given for something that occurred "on screen", as that's pretty much a given. If an award was presented specifically for something that occurred offscreen then I can understand mentioning that, because it would be quite unusual, but I don't think the reverse is true....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Not much else needed, perhaps a "See Also" link to the FL Scarlett Johansson on screen and stage, but that's just my personal preference. ~ HAL333 05:18, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

List of ursids[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 02:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Fifth in my ongoing series of "animals in a family" (FLs felids, canids, mustelids, and the pending procyonids), we continue through Carnivora with the recognizable Ursidae, aka "bears". This one is the smallest yet at 8 extant species, though it still has dozens of subspecies and over 100 extinct species. The animals are fairly non-diverse: they range from "big" to "very big", all look more or less like a "bear", and besides the polar bear like to hang out in forests. While the giant panda famously only eats bamboo, many of the other species have a fairly specialized diet, though even then they'll often eat a fairly wide variety of things if they get too hungry. For the first (and probably last) time in this series, we actually have population estimates for all of the species, which is nice. The list format is based on the prior lists and reflects FLC comments. As always, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 02:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


  • It's standard thumbnail size, so it's whatever your personal settings are- overriding that is generally not recommended as it messes with mobile browsers (MOS:IMGSIZE).
  • Why are you citing a book on the History of Music in Russia for the specifications of the lead?
  • For the 7 words prior to the cite- "some bears have been trained for entertainment".
  • There is no generally accepted classification of extinct ursid species according to who? why? have any been proposed? which classifications do exist?
  • I can't really prove a negative, this is a phrase I've had to use in the prior lists as well- almost no animal families have overall classification schemes for extinct species. People find new species, give them a name in a paper, maybe a decade later someone says it should actually be in a different genus, etc., but there aren't any general overview papers or books for ursids that cover the entire family and try to organize things that I can point to. It's just a pile of individual species/genera; the paleobiology database at least collates all of that into one location that doesn't contradict itself. I can remove that sentence and let it stand without it, but I can't cite anything to show that there's no classifications out there.
  • Bolding of the Subfamily violates MOS:BOLD
  • Removed
  • The photos at the bottom of "Prehistoric ursids" need alt text.
  • Whoops, done.
  • Ref 27 needs a language distinction in the citation template. Therapyisgood (talk) 04:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure; I didn't put it because the link includes a full translation of the paper- the English version of the paper starts on page 13 of the pdf.
@Therapyisgood: Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 15:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Just a couple of points from me:

  • "such reclassifying" - missing word
  • Under the polar bear's diet, you use "eat", whereas everywhere else you use "eats"

Great work as ever. Oh, by the way - is that Asian black bear wearing a Batman costume? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Both done! And maybe... --PresN 19:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Just a quick comment, but sentences like "All listed species are extinct; where a genus or subfamily within Ursidae comprises only extinct species, it is indicated with a dagger symbol " shouldn't be in the body of the text, but as a note (either footnote, or in Notes section, or even could be reworded into a legend if you so choose). Mattximus (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I think this should be called List of bears (redirects here). While the other lists needed to use the Latin family name because there were multiple types of animal common names within the family, in this case it's a single type and the English name is more accessible to readers.
  • I disagree. I think keeping consistency with the other (currently) 7 lists for Carnivora is important, and that this one family has a common name that matches the whole family shouldn't change that- redirects are easy. It also makes it clearer that this is a list of "bear" species, not individual bears.
  • "A member of this family is called an ursid or a bear." This should be reversed perhaps with explanation to "A member of this family is called a bear or an ursid, from the Latin ursa." But even then, it's sort of tautologial. It's not that family members are called ursids or bears, it's that bears comprise this family; the classification came after they were named.
  • Flipped to be bear or ursid. I'm not sure about the "ursa" bit- it's not directly from ursa, it's from Ursidae, which is itself derived from "ursa", but so is Ursinae, Ursus, Ursida, and Ursoidea, and Ursid doesn't derive from any of those. Additionally, that "bear" maps to "ursid" is almost an accident for species- when the name arose for these animals, it did not apply to, say, the giant panda- but that's a "bear" now. It originally just meant "brown bear", because that's what's in Europe, and it turns out after we started calling all 8 species "bears" because they looked like they were, that for once that was correct, so the common term for the family continues to match. (As opposed to, say, the red panda... which isn't a panda, or a bear.) Tons of the common names for groups of animals no longer make much sense with modern dna analysis- in canidae, for example, what animals are "fox" vs. a "dog" or "wolf" is pretty loose compared to the actual genetics of the situation as soon as you get out of Europe. Additionally, how animals are divided into families/genera is nowadays based on their genetics (with, granted, a lot of historical weight), and not on what the common English name for a group of animals is called- saying that all members of Ursidae are bears because the term "bear" is the basis of the family, as opposed to the genetic situation, just isn't correct.
  • The note "All extinct species or subspecies listed alongside extant species went extinct after 1500 CE, and are indicated by a dagger symbol" does appear applicable and should be removed.
  • It is applicable- the U. a. crowtheri (Atlas bear) subspecies of the brown bear has it.
  • Avoid redlinks in the Prehistoric ursids section, else redirects to the subfamily may be appropriate.
  • Why, beyond aesthetics? While I avoid redlinks for species names, as the chances of any one of them getting an article is scant and the sea of red difficult to parse, genera (even prehistoric genera) are good and likely candidates for articles (as evidence, many of them do have articles). WP:REDLINK.
  • Tables are great, good work as usual. Reywas92Talk 03:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Reywas92: Thanks for reviewing! Sorry for taking so long to get to this. Replied inline. --PresN 03:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Brown bear range also includes parts of Europe.
  • For polar bear link "supratidal" and maybe "intertidal".
  • Link less well known food e.g. "beluga whales", "kelp"
  • I agree with Reywas92 above about the name of the article and so maybe the first 4 sentences could become something like:

"Bears make up/comprise/ the family of mammals called Ursidae in the order Carnivora; including the giant panda, brown bear, and polar bear. The many living/extant and extinct bears are also known as ursids, from the Latin ursa. Bears are widespread across the Americas and Eurasia ,mostly (living)/ :most live in forests, though some species live in grassland and savana, and polar bear habitat is arctic and surrounding sea/polar bear habitat is arctic (ice) land and sea/polar bears live in the Arctic." or "Bears, being classified by scientists as the family Ursidae in the Carnivora order of mammals, are also known as ursids, from the Latin ursa. Many species are already extinct but the polar bear and giant panda survive for now. The brown bear thrives across the forests of North America and Eurasia; and there are less well known species, some living in grassland and savana."

  • What about the overlap with the Bear page as questioned on this article's talk page?
  • Support

If you have not already done so perhaps you could take a quick peek at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1 Chidgk1 (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Finally getting back to this, starting with these comments: did the links and fixed the map caption. I disagree about renaming the page, and will discuss further below Reywas92's comments. The talk page comment is from 2013 and reflects a very different page. --PresN 02:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award[edit]

Nominator(s): Bluesatellite (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets WP:FL requirements. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

  • I made a few fixes and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support- great work!..Akhiljaxxn (talk) 08:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Very well done overall, but it's a shame that we couldn't get a picture of the actual award. I assume they were all copyrighted. ~ HAL333 23:01, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: Good job, I could not find anything more that requires improvement. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 23:13, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

There's some work to be done with the media use, which hopefully can get resolved soon. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:19, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Lithuania[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 18:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I am continuing to work toward the sites in Northern Europe as a featured topic. There are four sites in Lithuania at the moment, with two more on the tentative list. I think the article is ready. Tone 18:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

  • As a side note, Estonia and Latvia are probably too short to transform into the FLs at the moment (I remember opposition in this regard when nominating List of World Heritage Sites in North Macedonia) but because of the tentative sites and maps they still deserve separate articles. With Iceland's nomination getting good support, Lithuania and Sweden in a while should therefore be the last from the batch. --Tone 18:13, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Neutral – all comments addressed. Will change to support when consensus determines that there is no better place to merge this list with and that it can standalone. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Note: I am participating in the WikiCup, and intend to claim points from the above review. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

At the moment, several articles with 4 items on the list have been already promoted to FLs. Slovenia, Montenegro, Albania, Malta, for example. So I am considering this kind of the bottom limit for such articles. There is an article List of World Heritage Sites in Northern Europe which is too long, badly maintained, and does not cover the tentative sites in detail, so I do not see merging as an option. --Tone 16:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, Malta had 10 items in total when it was promoted (3 sites + 7 tentative). The rest had 8 items at time of promotion (both Montenegro and Albania was 4 + 4, while Slovenia had 3 + 5). I could understand why "leeway" was given for the examples above. But 6 total items seems to be cutting it. Especially considering how my FLC nom containing 11 items (7 + 4) was failed back in August 2012. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with all of the above, plus.....
    • "continuosly" - spelt wrong
    • "human occupancy of the area continued to the present day" => "human occupancy of the area continues to the present day"
    • "As of 2019, Lithuania lists two properties on its tentative list" - we're well into 2020 now.......
    • "so Kaunas was designated the Temporary capital of Lithuania" - no reason for capital T on temporary
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
@Bloom6132:, @ChrisTheDude: Done, thank you. --Tone 15:54, 25 April 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)

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Sebastian Vettel[edit]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

This list is about a German racing driver called Sebastian Vettel, who is a four-time Formula One world champion with 53 race victories over a 12-year career. I believe that the list complies with the featured list criteria and submit this list for all constructive criticism. MWright96 (talk) 14:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment from Dey subrata

There is only one suggestion, it would be good if you add ref. 1 and 10 as external links too seeing the importance and number of times the references used, and also the scope of future improvement and for further research. Dey subrata (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Berkshire[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This is the latest in my lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and is in the same format as FLs such as List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


  • Ratcliffe 1977 is throwing off Harv errors
  • Inkpen Common, Inkpen Crocus Field, Seven Barrows et al needs a piped link for BBOWT per WP:ASTONISH
  • Since you are using the citations as well, a citation, do you also need to link to it directly in the table?
  • Sorry I do not understand this point. Can you explain further please. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Encyclopædia Britanica is a tertiary source. Can you find a secondary source?
  • does not look like an RS to me
  • Same with
  • These are fair comments, but the problem is that I cannot find secondary RSs which bother to state such basic facts. Do you think that I should delete them? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:11, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Shilpa Shetty filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  15:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

My first time nominating a featured anything, so let's not be too rough :) I've worked on revamping this list over the last few weeks and feel that it's up to a pretty good standard. Contains everything needed to become a featured list such as a good lead, sources and a clear table. Criticism, suggesting improvements most welcome. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  15:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Now that you have made the films table sortable, you need to edit the directors column so that they sort in surname order, not forename order -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I checked few FLs like Kareena Kapoor filmography. Director column is sorted in forename order. Just curious.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  15:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
In that case those lists are wrong. See WP:SORT#Specifying_a_sort_key_for_a_cell -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
After writing the above, I checked the Kareena Kapoor list and the director column definitely sorts by surname (e.g. JP Dutta sorts under D) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I have made changes as per WP:SORT#Specifying_a_sort_key_for_a_cell. Please check if it's okay.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  12:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
What have you changed? I just checked and Anil Sharma still sorts under A, Harry Baweja under H, Vimal Kumar under K, etc. They need to sort based on the surname -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
OK, I have just looked and you have put all the sort keys in the wrong place. You have put them right at the start of each row. They need to be against the cell they apply to i.e. the director -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I have made the changes. Directors like Priyadarshan, Revathi doesn't have surname mentioned on their respective article, so I have kept the field blank. Please have a look.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  13:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
If the person just uses a single name then they should sort on that name. I've fixed that for you -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks mate. Let me know if more work is required. --25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  05:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Apologies, I forgot to check back. Still a couple of issues with the refs - refs 57 and 78 still have made-up titles. Also, IMDB is not generally considered a reliable source so could do with being replaced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done IMDB refs replaced with news articles, title fixed.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  13:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
  • For the name of her roles, you should sort them by last name, other wise it sorts them alphabetically by first name, which is strange. ~ HAL333 23:07, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 Done Except some of her movies just used a single name.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS  07:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

List of The Masked Singer (American TV series) episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it serves as an attractive and informative compilation about the episodes in the American reality singing competition series The Masked Singer. Three seasons have aired thus far on network television (Fox) and I believe it contains valuable and accurate information that is useful to readers. While the series is currently airing (the finale is on May 27, 2020), edits will be made at least weekly until then to add the ratings for each episode. However, I believe the rest of the article is stable (e.g., the ratings section is complete (at this point) in my opinion). This is my first nomination of any kind for good article/featured list/featured article, etc., so I'm hoping this will be an insightful experience. Heartfox (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS
  • File:The Masked Singer Common Logo.png has an appropriate FUR
  • Is that bar chart for viewership really beneficial? Can't say I remember seeing anything like that in similar episode list pages.
I added the bar chart as I saw that some other featured lists of episodes (Game of Thrones, The Office, Seinfeld, etc.) have them, but I've removed it now as it doesn't really serve a purpose at this point. In my opinion, it's useful for readers to see the changes in viewership over the series' history, but given that there hasn't been much change with The Masked Singer, I agree with you that it's not beneficial at this time.
  • Don't italicize "Costume Designers Guild", "Academy of Television Arts & Sciences", or "Vulture"
Done, but is there a particular reason why Vulture isn't italicized? Heartfox (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Because it's a website without any print edition SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure how trustworthy "Zap2It" or "Showbuzz Daily" are, but the former also shouldn't have italics regardless
Zap2it is run by the company Nexstar Media Group, so I think it's pretty reliable for episode guides. However, I'm not sure it's necessary given that the episodes cite themselves with the titles and air dates? Heartfox (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Showbuzz Daily is what is being used all over wiki (and in some media) now for TV ratings since TV by the Numbers shut down. It's run by two former network executives. The references are replaced when Nielsen releases DVR ratings with slightly updated viewership, so that's why there's only one of them in this article right now. Heartfox (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
Good enough for me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • For citation 11 ("Watch The Masked Singer: Season 3, Episode 8 'Old Friends, New Clues: Group C Championships' Online"), I would add an accessdate and/or when the episode aired
Done. Heartfox (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • this is just from Montreal Gazette, so delete the Variety part (citation 56)
Done, but I wasn't sure about this since it's a Variety article being used in the Montreal Gazette. Heartfox (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Everything should be set after that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

SNUGGUMS, thanks for commenting! I think I addressed all of your suggestions. Heartfox (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Support page now looks good enough to be FL as far as I'm concerned. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

List of counties in Washington[edit]

Nominator(s): Reywas92Talk 22:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

We have 21 other county lists as FLs, hope this one, being up to date with additional information, can make it 22! Should be pretty straightforward but there may be other information that could be mentioned or revised. Reywas92Talk 22:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Some thoughts
    • I would use either the labeled map or the static map
      • Why? The linked one only has space for abbreviations (and are not part of the image itself) so the full labels are also appropriate. Mobile and desktop users may prefer one or the other.
    • FIPS codes haven't been used for more than a decade, I would drop them0
      • Every one of the links redirect to a page with the actual county name in it like this
      • The census does still use FIPS county codes, the census links are still appropriate.
    • Needs a better source for the county seats and establishment date.
      • Why? NACo is a reliable source, and general sources are allowed so only one is needed at the header, adequately covering all entries; it links to all counties.
    • Why is there a citation to HistoryLink for etymology when each one is cited to a book?
      • I removed the general link.
    • The paragraphs of the leade are short and choppy. Several can be merged.
      • I combined the three relating to government.
  • --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
Drive by comments I may have time to do a full review in the near future, but for now I do have to agree with the previous poster, that the FIPS codes are not very useful for the wikipedian reader, and I would suggest removing them. Mattximus (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
This is built into Template:Countytabletop/Template:Countyrow and cannot be removed from just this page; I think it's best to keep this template for consistency across the 50 articles. It could be updated to use "ANSI Code" or "Census Code" but the Census still uses "FIPS" [2][3] and these data links are useful direct references to include. Tompw, you were involved in featuring a few of these long ago, any thoughts? I have also posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. counties. Reywas92Talk 22:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
The FIPS code column could be re-named "US Census page", which is a useful thing to link to (and avoids people wanting to add extra things to the main table). Use the FIPS code in the link - let the US Census website looks after the redirect. Tompw (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
We should avoid using WP:EASTEREGG links. The FIPS code is fine as it is, since it does have niche uses (mostly for those using raw Census data for GIS or other kinds of data processing). It is also a useful unique identifier for each county in the country. SounderBruce 23:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries at Eden Gardens[edit]

Nominator(s): Dey subrata (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

After working with many other lists and helped some list to become Featured Lists, I improved the article with all required information, citations and structure. 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. Dey subrata (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias
  • " well as a Test.." To prevent this seeming like a run on from the previous statement clarify: " well as being a Test.."
  • Consider being more vague in some of the statistics that aren't too important, to prevent it continually having to be updated: "has hosted 42 Test matches" could be "has hosted more than 40 Test matches", remove the detail about the most recent matches altogether.
Removed the most recent from all formats, but for Test, made a little tweak seeing the the most recent match is the first ever day/night Test match of India, so kept accordingly. Dey subrata (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "The first century scored by an overseas player was on 1 November 1981.." It was in 1989.
  • "Ryan ten Doeschate of Netherlands scored.." "of the Netherlands".
  • "the 1st and 2nd innings" Is this necessary? If it is, at least change it to "first and second".
  • "denotes the number of balls faced by the player to score the particular score" This is a bit clunky, just trim it to "denotes the number of balls faced by the player"
  • "refers to the date the test match started." Capitalise "Test match". No full-stop needed.
  • "refers to whether the player's team won lost or if the match was drawn." No full-stop needed.
  • As, per MOS:ACCESS, "By default, most screen readers do not indicate presentational text attributes (bold, italic, underline)", do not use these as the primary indicator of something: ideally replace them with an accessible symbol, such as {{dagger}} or {{double-dagger}}.
  • Consider using {{NA}} in replace of "NR".
  • File:Everton Weekes.jpg needs a US PD tag.
  • File:Mushtaq Ali 1936.jpg needs a US PD tag.
  • Remove the 110% font size from the ODI table.
  • Per MOS:ACCESS, do not use colour as the primary indicator of something: ideally replace them with an accessible symbol, such as {{dagger}} or {{double-dagger}}.

That's all from me at the moment. I will claim points for this review in the WikiCup. Harrias talk 11:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, fixed all above. Please comment if anything else. Dey subrata (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Harrias, waiting for your further comments. Dey subrata (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Hello Harrias, kindly put your comment, so that the process can be moved further, I've other lists to nominate. It will be helpful if you make your comment as soon as possible. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 17:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support apologies: all my concerns have been dealt with, and I'm happy to support this. Harrias talk 21:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support – My concerns have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references both look okay, and the link-checker tool shows no issues. I'd call the source review a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:26, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Giants2008, it has been 12 days since the source review done, meanwhile another reviewer too reviewed. Can it be promoted now. Drat8sub (talk) 17:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 02:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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

List of awards and nominations received by Britney Spears[edit]

Nominator(s): Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I am resubmit this nominating for featured list of List of awards and nominations received by Britney Spears because the last time I've been here in December 2019 and it takes me about 3 months long to improve my work and I think this page maybe already near the FL criteria better than my last time. Let me know which part that still I need to be solve and make improvements. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 11:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • Oppose – agree with Chris. Get this copyedited by someone efficient in English and isn't a superfan. Plus, date formats are inconsistent, lead is a mess, many refs don't seem like RS's ( obviously seems like a fan site), among other things. – zmbro (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Note to the director/delegates - the nominator has attempted to archive this nom him/herself, which I am pretty sure isn't allowed, so I have reverted, but he/she clearly wants to withdraw it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Noted. I've fixed it as described by ChrisTheDude and zmbro. First, lead is a mess and I've made a whole new lead which is better than before. Secondly, all the dates now are consistent. Again, let me know which part that I need still to fix it. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 15:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Johhnyfrankie13: as suggested before, please please please get someone whose native language is English to copy-edit the lead (I suggest trying WP:GOCE). I counted at least 10 grammar errors in the first two paragraphs....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I've already put the copy-edit template on the top of the award's page, but it's been 4 days since I put the template and nothing has changed. I'm sorry if I was wrong because I'm still new to Wikipedia. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem, let's see if you get a response -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
@Zmbro: & @ChrisTheDude: already get the copyedited and done. Okay, so can I add the BDS Certified Awards, Vevo Certified Awards, and Phonographic Performance Company of Australia into the award table?. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
@Zmbro: & @ChrisTheDude: Hi, please response. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 23:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The lead certainly looks a lot better now, I will do a proper review later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Refs are still a problem. Few missing access dates and and there are still some missing in the table. – zmbro (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • There's also some sources which look highly questionable in terms of reliability e.g.,, And what the heck is ref 336 - some sort of online PowerPoint presentation? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: the sources for Guinness World Records is done. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 08:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Comments on the new lead
  • My only comment on the new lead is this:
    • "In December 2019, Billboard named her the sixth Greatest All Time Pop Songs Artist, the fifty-eighth Greatest All Time Artist, and ranked her at seventy-first place on the list of Artists of the Decade 2010s." - get rid of all this. Being named the 58th greatest artist is not a significant achievement at all -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Done. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Starting on the table (this could take a while :-))
  • The sorting on the "work" column is mostly wrong. Any entry which is "Britney Spears" (the person) should sort under S, not B. Any entry that starts with puncuation (quote marks, dots, etc) should sort on the first actual word. Anything that starts with "The" should sort on the next word.
  • 4Music - "World Greatest Popstar" => "World's Greatest Popstar"
  • Bambi Award => Bambi Awards
  • Billboard mid-year - "New Music From Britney Spears" - Music and From should not have capital letters
  • Billboard Music Award => Billboard Music Awards
  • Bizarre => Bizarre Awards, also the award she won was for Woman of the Year (not Women)
  • BRIT Awards - I am reasonably sure that Britney was *not* nominated for British Pop Act, for fairly obvious reasons (the award was called Best Pop Act, not British Pop Act)
  • CD:UK - the award column is missing completely
  • Golden Raspberry Awards - "Most Flatulent Teen-Targeted Movie" - this was an award for the film, not Britney, so has no reason to be here
  • MTV Awards - by the look of things, neither of these was awarded to the film itself, so it should not be the film's title in the work column. It should probably say "Britney Spears (for Crossroads)
  • MTV Italy - her name is spelt "Britnet" in one place
  • I got as far as M and I need a break :-) Back for more later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
More table comments
  • Upon trying to resume at N, I noticed that none of the links in the table of contents from N onwards seem to work
  • Outer Critics Circle Award - the nominees were Spears and the other two women, not the show itself, so name them in the table, not just in a footnote
  • Pepsi - what awards are these? Just saying "Pepsi" and linking to the article about the brand is not very helpful
  • Stinkers Bad Movie Awards - the nominees were Spears and Mount, not the movie itself
  • Teen Choice Awards - Choice Breakout Movie Actres - as per above, the nominee was Spears, not the film itself. Also actress is spelt wrong.
  • Any award starting with The (eg The Record of the Year) should be alphabetised under the next word, not under T
  • Don't have an external link to in the table
  • XM Satellite Radio Awards - the award was not called "Dream Duets (with Snoop Dogg)", so his name should not be in that column
  • That's what I've found, although I probably missed something......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Comments on the state honors table
  • Outstanding Archivement - spelt wrong
  • Key to the Vegas should be Key to Las Vegas, I would have thought -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: According to your comments above, this is all done. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

According to your comments above, this is all done - it is not all done. The sorting on the work column is still mostly wrong -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Done! Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
It is only partly done. You still need to change the sorting for anything that starts with a punctuation mark. At the moment ...Baby One More Time sorts at the top because punctuation marks come before letters. But it should sort based on the first actual letter (B). The same goes for anything that starts with a " - it should sort based on the first actual letter (so for example "Womanizer" should sort under W). Hope that helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your explanation, and now is all done except I'm still finding the sources for the remaining boxes. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: and @Cowlibob:, @Dey subrata:, @CAPTAIN MEDUSA:, can you guys review this page because I believe it satisfies the Featured list criteria. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 08:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Medusa
  • add alt text for the main image
  • YouTube  ·  · gettyimages  · are not reliable sources.
  • Don't use small text in the caption. It already makes it small.
  • In the infobox it says she won 235 awards but she only won 182 according to the list?
  • In the infobox it says she was nominated for 490 awards but she only was nominated for 296 awards according to the list?
  • → website=Billboard
  • MP3 Music Awards links to MP3. What does this mean??????
  • class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" sortable=yes → no need to add sortable=yes because the sortable plainrowheaders does the job
@CAPTAIN MEDUSA: So for, all of your comment are mostly resolved also the reason I have a lot of space in reference because I have OCD which I think is more organized when there is distance, I'm so sorry for that. Johhnyfrankie13 (talk) 12:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
@Saiff Naqiuddin: I have closed the resolved comments. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 19:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Green tickY "In the infobox it says she won 235 awards but she only won 182 according to the list?" → the number of awards she won included 14 Golds, 4 Silver, 1 Bronze, 8 Runner-up, 14 places, and 13 Guinness World Records (runner-up, place considered wins in this award tally).
  • Green tickY MP3 is the major organization of those awards (MP3 Music Awards)
  • Green tickY YouTube  ·  · gettyimages  · are not reliable sources → changed to reliable sources
  • Green tickY → website=Billboard|
  • Green tickY add alt text for the main image
  • Green tickY Don't use small text in the caption. It already makes it small
  • Green tickY class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" sortable=yes → no need to add sortable=yes because the sortable plainrowheaders does the job
Saiff Naqiuddin (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
MP3 is a file format. It is not an organisation -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)


  • The text needs work. It is choppy and the tone is off
  • Barbie award is non-notable
  • Flickr links are a copyvio
  • CelebMix describes itself as "CelebMix is maintained by young people, for young people. In essence, Celebmix is a sandbox for aspiring journalists."; not a RS
  • "Votação recorde no nosso prêmio anual: 25 mil votos. Confira o resultado" needs a publication.
  • "Brazil Music Awards 2004 Britney Spears" links to a self-uploaded partial screenshot with broken embedded images
  • Capital Radio Awards is unsourced
  • CDDB Silicon Awards is non-notable. The Wikipedia page lined to is for a protocol, not an organization
  • CD:UK's award can't be Britney Spears
  • DanceStar Awards goes to a completely different awards page
  • GV Music & Fashion Awards is non-notable. Viewcount does not show notability
  • MP3 Music Awards is non-notable.
  • Music Video Production Association Awards is non-notable.
  • Neil Bogart Memorial Fund is non-notable.
  • Now! Awards list the citations with the award. Playing pin the source on the fact isn't optimal
  • Pepsi Awards looks like it was created for the marketing campaign and not a real award
  • None of the Pop Corn Music Awards pages seem to be cited to anything but themselves. I'm going to place this in the non-notable group
    • Alamy is a photo company, not a RS
  • "Spanish Music Producers Awards" links a copyvio copy of Billboard.
  • Hochman 2014 isn't an RS because he is a contributor not a staff member
  • Star Search the award doesn't appear to be one of their categories and I have doubts that this is an award
  • Virgin Media Music Awards are questionable
  • Mousekeeter isn't an award
  • The Webbies don't appear to be given to Spears herself
  • Z Awards are non-notable.
  • Miss Talent USA is non-notable
  • The failed Britney Spears Days are really puffed
  • "Item inside Britney Spears Kentwood Historical & Cultural Museum" has no content and appears to be self-published
    • Link to the wrong Kentwood
  • Outstanding Achievement Honor by Hammond Square Mall is non-notable
  • Outstanding Achievement in The Mickey Mouse Club is non-notable
  • "'Britney Day' Held To Celebrate Britney Spears' Las Vegas Show" needs a better source
  • Most Searched Person on the Internet has to be a former record
  • Hurst 2003 needs to have the series
  • None of the Cite foo templates are displaying the year in the correct place

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Guerillero: I will fix the better sources for several awards provided above but what do you mean by non-notable since like "Miss Talent USA" was an honor to spears when she was young, and the sources I put is satisfied Notability which is from the book. First, we must add an award that only has articles on Wikipedia but if the award does not have a page, we can link to the major organization to backing it up (like Barbie, Pepsi, etc). Second, the award show must meet WP:GNG and WP:ORG and it will already become qualifies as notable. Saiff Naqiuddin (talk) 11:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Giorgio Moroder[edit]

Nominator(s): Leo Mercury (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the article mentions all the most important awards won by the artist and it meets the criteria. Leo Mercury (talk) 21:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


  • Blisspop (reference 4) doesn't sound like that reliable of a source. Do we even need it, given that two other sources support his nickname?
  • The all caps in ref 6 should be removed.
  • The book used in ref 15 could use a page number for verifiability purposes. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

List of countries by Human Development Index[edit]

Nominator(s): ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I've done some substantial work here and would really like to see this very important list with two million readers annually promoted to a featured list. I've never been through GA/FA/FL before so this is all new to me, but I will happily put in the necessary work to improve the article. It has improved a ton since 2009 when it was removed as an FL and the concerns at the very short FLRC have been addressed. Thanks! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: FLs do not begin with "This is a list of..." – zmbro (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Fixed by Chidgk1 (Thanks!) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The lede needs quite a bit of work work. Also, please see MOS:ACCESS --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 22:33, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you for the comments! I am not that good a prose writer and would appreciate some more specific suggestions for the lede, Chidgk1 made some improvements, but I'm sure it could be improved further. Regarding accessibility I have gone through the entirety of MOS:ACCESS and found some potential issues. First of all there is WP:RESOL which I believe it passes as it doesn't require any horizontal scrolling at 1024×768 and well smaller than that as well. There were some issues with MOS:COLOR such as low contrast colored text for the low/medium/high HDI labels which I have made black to avoid the issue. The maps could also have a more accessible color palette and I plan on changing the color palette to be better for color blind people using Color Brewer 2.0 this weekend. The tables follow WP:DTAB with the header scopes well defined and both tables being used for appropriate purposes. Images have alt text and captions as appropriate and the information in the maps are also available in the main table. I am currently also installing a screen reader to see how it works. If there was anything I missed please tell me and I will do my best to address it. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Chidgk1:
  • If you put the actual rank and actual HDI columns next to each other, and the change columns next to each other I guess that would reduce the sort symbols by 2 but would it be better?
  • Once you have it in good shape you could document how to best update it with next year's figures - either on the talk page or as hidden text in the article.
  • It would be interesting to have a note to say whether the regions and groups are fixed over time - for example if countries move in and out of the "least developed countries" group presumably the HDI for the group is not comparable over time.
  • Re accessibility when I changed the list below I could not see any way to automate making it accessible but just pasted in the necessary stuff.
I have edited the lede slightly but it probably needs more added - for example about countries going up and down the list, such as when a civil war ends does it typically go up quickly or slowly. Also if you have time could you point out my mistakes in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1 Chidgk1 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The inequality-adjusted HDI is probably the better index and in an ideal world would be used more then normal HDI, but I chose this list due to it's order of magnitude greater page views believing any improvements would benefit more people. I don't think changing the column order would be an improvement since it at least in my opinion would be slightly less intuitive. I don't have any particularly strong opinions on the matter though and would happily switch it if you think it's better. Regarding the Groups and regions there should definitely be some explanatory text there. I will deal with it tomorrow though. When all improvements are all done I will also make a pinned section on the talk page with instructions how to update the list, including some regular expressions I've made when improving the list. I'll return to you about the expansion of the lead, but mentioning some of the trends would be an improvement. Thanks for the comments and thanks for improving the lead! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI already provides both this original HDI and the admittedly better IHDI. While I agree with your focus on the more-seen article, these are duplicative and I think merging them would be appropriate for an even better FL. The table is not that big and more information in a two more columns would be appropriate. Reywas92Talk 23:12, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
    Reywas92 That's an interesting idea and if only two columns would be added that would probably be my preference, but in reality there should probably be more. I think IHDI rank change in IHDI rank, IHDI value, change in IHDI value and IHDI/HDI ratio should all be included in a FL class IHDI list with the only redundant columns being countries and HDI. That many added columns would result in an overwhelming amount of information being display and probably cause some confusion. Having two articles with one table each would make the information density a lot more manageable. I will probably improve List of countries by inequality-adjusted HDI as well after this review is over. If you want we could start a merger discussion however. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 12:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    Actually at least for the current article, the "Rank Change from previous year" column should be deleted. Moving up or down one or two spots tells you nothing of use and can be easily inferred from the change in HDI. That column is pretty useless too though, only a few countries had a change of any substance. Now if this were change compared to maybe five or ten years ago it would be more meaningful, but the 2018-2019 difference isn't a valuable use of space for an FL. Perhaps only merge the IHDI and (longer) change in IHDI, but remove both rank change columns? While we're talking about merges though, List of African countries by Human Development Index, List of sovereign states in Europe by Human Development Index, List of Latin American countries by Human Development Index, List of countries in Asia and Oceania by Human Development Index (all in the see also) could easily just be redirected, I fail to see why the content is duplicated just to show subsets...more work to update... Reywas92Talk 19:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    Reywas92 That's also fair. I think some sort of trend column is important but a one year change is perhaps too short of a time period. The human development report contains average annual HDI growth between 2010 and 2018 which could replace that column. A merged table would then have rank, country, average annual HDI growth, IHDI, IHDI rank, average annual HDI growth. Thinking more about the IHDI/HDI ratio probably shouldn't be included either as thats just how well a country supported on one of the dimensions assessed. If it was included the education, economy and health dimensions should be included as well. Having two rank columns (HDI and IHDI) would be a bit weird, but probably the best solution. The by region pages should probably be redirected as well, ping to creator JackintheBox. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 15:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
I did not create any of the above pages, but did do extensive updates and developments for some of the by region pages about a year ago, and created choropleth maps for them. I personally think the by region pages could be retained as they allow for convenient comparison of HDI countries in different continents/regions, and judging by the view counts there are quite many people who read these articles to see countries' values and standings within their regions. I prefer these articles to be retained and included under 'See also' in List of countries by Human Development Index. JACKINTHEBOXTALK 03:51, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Just an update regarding my lack of activity. I have had a lot things happening the last month starting with the most academically intense period of my life with preparations for both my high school finals and several International Science Olympiads. I decided to greatly reduce my Wikipedia use to focus on these things for a while and then COVID-19 hit. It really changed my situation a lot with my exams and Olympiads being cancelled which I've been preparing for every day for several years. Seeing my work not mattering really made me lose my motivation to do things including on Wikipedia which has led to this delay. I'm still just as passionate about getting this to a featured list and have recommenced my efforts by working on replacing the yearly change with average annual HDI growth as recommended above. I hope to address all things brought up here in the coming days and will hopefully be as available as before from now on. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Me and Alice Hunter have had a discussion about what datamaps to use on the talk page. Feel free to join! ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Comments: Out of all the countries, only the two Congo's are listed by a name other than their article title. This is inconsistent and I can't see a reason for it. The lead should mention how the list of countries examined is/was determined. Three maps in the lead seems a bit too much, and not WP:ACCESS friendly. Perhaps a section can be included below for Visualisations? Since this is the definitive article on the list, maybe it would be worth including as supplementary to the information on this existing table, the initial ranking/value from the 1990 list? Best, CMD (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • The first paragraph is unreferenced and partly duplicates the second. I suggest merging them.
  • I am dubious about the columnn for change in rank as the figures do not seem to add up. For example, three countries between 32 and 36 go up but none down.
  • The regions are very unsatisfactory. Europe and central Asia are merged and no North America and Australasia. Of course that is a fault in the source and you can do nothing about it.
  • Looks OK otherwise. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

List of procyonids[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 01:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Fourth in my ongoing series of "animals in a family" (felids, canids, mustelids), we continue through Carnivora with Procyonidea, aka "raccoons". It's the smallest family so far, at 14 species, and doesn't have named subfamilies or tribes, partially because modern research has shown that all prior divisions based on appearance were wrong. The animals are less diverse than other families, generally being 1-2 foot-long forest-dwelling psuedo-omnivores with really long tails, but as the lead image shows they can be pretty cute. The list format is based on the prior lists and reflects FLC comments. As always, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

(I'm getting faster at these (mainly because my script now pulls information directly from Mammal Species of the World, Wikidata, the IUCN, and Animal Diversity Web to generate the tables in the first place), so mustelids isn't promoted yet, but has supports already.)

  • By and large would be happy to support this (seems just as high a standard as the previous iterations) but I do have a query about the paragraph of text just before the tables ("The following classification …"). It seems uncited and contains a few assertions which indicate that information may be contested; could this be cited? For example, if there are proposals to reclassify "some island populations of raccoons to full subspecies", perhaps we should be specifying where this proposal has come from. But aside from that I see nothing else to query. Images are all used appropriately, sourcing seems consistent. I haven't spot-checked sources for accuracy but can do so if required. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 11:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Grapple X: Easy enough to cite the studies that broke out those species (can also add the IUCN pages as sources too if you think I should); not sure about the last sentence about things not being included- they're instances where there's no strong sources that support the change and MSW3/the IUCN don't support it. I put it in the first list mostly as a reader guide to indicate why some taxonomic change they may have read about somewhere else wasn't included; it is pretty weak, though, and I'm not sure how to cite it as a negative assertion. I'm willing to remove it if you think I should. --PresN 15:06, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say you need to cite a negative assertion; there's no need to cite why you have organised the tables or information as you have, but I would at least specify one or more of the proposed classifications that the list specifies that it doesn't abide by--so either "There are several additional proposals which are disputed, such as promoting some island populations of raccoons to full subspecies,[cite one or two of these here] which are not included here", or even "There are several additional proposals which are disputed, such as XYZ's proposal to promote some island populations of raccoons to full subspecies,[cite the specified proposal here] which are not included here" would be sufficient. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 15:13, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Grapple X: Okay, fixed- now lists a specific, cited example of a proposal that is not included. --PresN 16:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Happy with that. It just avoids the case of saying "these things exist, but I offer no proof of it". I'm happy to support this. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 10:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Drive-by comment

I think there's a copy-paste issue in the last sentence of the Prehistoric procyonids section....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. --PresN 13:43, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Drive-by comments

In British English we don't use "preys on" with "fruit". But maybe that is normal in US English? If not maybe change to "eats". And "hunting" to "diet".

Consider changing "In addition to the extant genera, Procyonidae comprises 19 extinct genera, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed. Extinct species have also been placed into some extant genera; around 40 extinct Procyonidae species have been found, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed." to something like "As of 2020 around 40 extinct species and 19 extinct genera have been discovered: although some extinct species have been placed in extant genera research is ongoing, so the extinct Procyonidae may be recategorized in future."

P.S. If you have time to do a bit more which might help a smidgen to save the animals from climate change could you point out my mistakes in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1 Chidgk1 (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: This is the second time someone's commented about the "preys on" (though I think the other time was also you); I've gone ahead and changed it to "eats" and changed the template to say "Diet" instead of "Hunting", to better accommodate non-carnivorous species. I've also changed that sentence to "In addition to the extant species, as of 2020 Procyonidae comprises 40 extinct species placed in both extant and 19 extinct genera, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed." --PresN 16:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I would break the sentence beginning "Procyonid habitats are generally forests" into two after "as well"
  • I think that's genuinely all I have...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support It's a very good article. I couldn't find anything to pick at. ~ HAL333 20:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts and source review

  • The use of the green Open Access symbol is inconsistent
  • I find NGO sources to be questionable at times, but the Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International looks reasonable to me
  • The alt texts need work
  • Everything else passes my review.

--Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

  • @Guerillero: sorry for the delay! Not sure which refs you're referring to to not be consistent with the OA symbol; the cite iucn template adds it by default to iucn refs, and a bot did the others, so I'm not clear on what I need to do- is it just that ref 4 needs a not-OA symbol? Other than that, added alt text to the two images that were missing it; the maps don't have it because they have a caption directly above them instead describing the map. --PresN 02:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

List of The Mandalorian characters[edit]

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 00:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

This is a comprehensive list of all the characters from the Star Wars television series The Mandalorian. It is my hope that it will eventually be the anchor of a good topic on this subject. I believe it meets all of the FL criteria. I modeled it in part after the excellent List of Alien (film series) characters (and I'd like to give a shout-out to DarthBotto for his work on that one). Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 00:07, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Made c couple of little tweaks, now happy to support - thanks for bearing with me while I went through this bit by bit :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks very much ChrisTheDude. Your thoroughness was much appreciated! — Hunter Kahn 00:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

List of largest cruise ships[edit]

Nominator(s): Ahecht (TALK
) 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I have spent some time cleaning up this list line-by-line, and I believe it is accurate and fully referenced enough to qualify as a featured list. A peer review only uncovered a minor copyediting detail, which has been resolved. Ahecht (TALK
) 23:01, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Needs an actual lead. Consider mentioning info from Timeline of largest passenger ships in it. Looking at just the source for Symphony of the Seas, "Double" and "Maximum" passengers needs to be clarified as guests vs. including crew. This can be done in the lead, but is this consistent? Citation 9 for the Costa Smeralda does not appear to mention 5,224 in it: citation 10 says 6,554 passengers and 8,200 passengers and crew. These were the only two I even checked... Reywas92Talk 01:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Reywas92: I've expanded the lead a bit. Both "Double" and "Maximum" are under a heading that says "Passenger capacity", hence why the Smeralda lists 6554. Symphony of the Seas (and all the other rows, as far as I know) only list passenger capacity, excluding crew. By default, double occupancy is twice the number of cabins unless specified otherwise (some ships have "single" rooms that are not doubled when counting double occupancy), but I'll clarify that in the lead. Not sure what's going on with passenger citation in the Smeralda line however -- I could've sworn that the passenger citation was to the manufacturer (Meyer Werft), I must've kept the wrong one when I was pruning. --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 03:58, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Reywas92: I've vastly expanded the lead since late February, and clarified all of the column headings. I'd appreciate your thoughts. --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 15:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of it is decent, but a lot is just generic information about cruise ships. "Operators of cruise ships are known as cruise lines, which are companies that market cruises to the public." "Cruise ships require electricity for powering both hotel services and for propulsion." Certain brands being for party ships or classic elegance is irrelevant to this list – Holland America isn't even in the list! The WP:LEAD should focus more on summarizing the rest of the article, so it should relate explicitly how the biggest ships are the party ships, or perhaps which new ones use LNG. The intros to the sections are great, but if I just read the lead without knowing the page's title, I'd have no idea what was coming next. Reywas92Talk 17:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Reywas92: Thanks for the feedback. Some of that text was copied from Cruise ship with the intention to reword it to relate to ship size, but I seem to have forgotted to do that in some places. I have updated it to try to tie it back to size -- for example, the intention with the Carnival vs. Holland America was to point out that Carnival has larger ships while Holland America has smaller ones. With the electricity sentence, the goal was to point out that using electricity for propulsion has allowed ships to grow longer, but I hadn't made that clear (it should be fixed now). I had also intended to point out that the switch to LNG required larger ships since the fuel takes up more space, but upon reviewing the sources, it turns out that there are ways around that, so I removed the LNG mention from the lead. --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 16:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

  • The paragraph above the first table is not really a summary of the table, but it appears to be footnotes of the table itself, but in paragraph form? Suggest moving "Year indicates the year the ship originally entered service, which in some cases may not the year it started service under the listed cruise line or with the listed name." to a footnote beside the year column. The remainder can be a footnote for appropriate sections for example "Registro Italiano Navale only list length between perpendiculars, not length overall," should be a footnote for every ship in which this is true.
  • Phrases like "The following is a list of cruise ships" is no longer considered acceptable for featured lists as it is tautological, and should be removed. The entire second paragraph reads like the same description of the table itself, not the contents of the table, which is what the lead should be. Once this information about the list is moved to footnotes or legend where appropriate. After this there is not much of a lead left. A lead should summarize the contents of the table. And needs quite a bit of work.
  • The on order section requires similar work, there is no paragraph describing the contents of the list, just another footnote related comment.
Overall, there is a serious lack of information in the lead, and in the two subsections, both of which are required for featured list. Remember the lead is to provide context, and summarize the contents of the table, not instructions on how to read the table itself.

Oppose for now, as there requires quite a bit of work to bring this up to standards. The table itself is pretty good though, so I can scratch my opposition once the lead and two subsections contains some prose. Mattximus (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Thanks for the thoughtful review. One quick question: WP:SALLEAD says that the lead should make direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected. Do you have any advice on doing this without a "The following is a list of..." sentence? --Ahecht (TALK
) 20:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That link provides a checklist of exactly what is missing...!
  • begin with a lead section that summarizes its content (maybe what is the largest current ship, or any other ship of significance, you need to talk about the ships from your tables, especially in relation to their size)
  • provides any necessary background information (this could involve history)
  • gives encyclopedic context (including linking to other pages)
  • Makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected - to answer your question, something like this "There are x cruise ships over x tonnes currently in service" is better than "this is a list of cruise ships over x tonnes". This should be done before each table.

Mattximus (talk) 22:01, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mattximus: I've added text to the lead and to the two sections. I'd appreciate your thoughts. --Ahecht (TALK
) 01:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
The lead is much better now! I strike my oppose. I would add two things however. First, I would put an image of the world's largest cruise ship right at the top (with a caption stating it's name and the fact that it's the largest, with alt-text), and I would add one line at the end of the first paragraph of the lead mentioning that Symphony of the Seas is the largest and give its gross tonnage. Both these changes don't warrant an oppose so I will preemptively Support. Nice work! Mattximus (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Mattximus:  Done Thanks! --Ahecht (TALK
) 15:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I just noticed the year ordered does not sort properly due to the addition of "May". There are date template that I believe can fix this. Mattximus (talk) 16:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • @Mattximus: There are templates such as {{Date table sorting}}, but in this case I just removed the month, since the column is titled "Year (planned)", not "Date (planned)". --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 22:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

List of Old Wykehamists[edit]

Nominator(s): Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this list of notable pupils of one of the United Kingdom's oldest schools for featured list because it is now a mature article. I gave it its present structure some years ago, adding many of the citations and images. The list will continue to grow (rather slowly) when people from the school become notable. I hope reviewers will find it interesting and informative. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I made a few little tweaks and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Support from KJP1[edit]

Hi Chiswick Chap - long time no see, hope you're keeping well. You're certainly keeping busy with this labour of love. It certainly meets the FL criteria to my mind and I'm pleased to support. A few comments below that don't stand in the way of this.

Many thanks for the comments and support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:01, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Order of names within century
  • what order are you following? It's not chronological as, for example, Richard Pace, c.1482, postdates William Horman, c.1440, who sits below him. Would alphabetical not be easiest for the reader?
It's meant to be chronological; Pace's estimated date has changed. Reordered those two.
Sixteenth century
  • John White/Thomas Bilson/Arthur Lake - not sure why their bishoprics need capitalisation? You don't elsewhere.
Eighteenth century
  • William Douglas, Duke of Queensbury - much though I like rake and gambler, it’s not really an occupation! Aristocrat and gambler? Landowner and gambler?
  • Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth - not actionable, but interesting Winchester's produced only one PM, and that the ineffectual Viscount Sidmouth. "Pitt is to Addington...." Actually, you could action it by replacing the image of Williamson with that of the school's only PM (see Images below)!
  • Philip Lutley Sclater - link Zoogeographer? It's a new one on me.
  • Samuel Rolles Driver - lower case Biblical?
  • Frederic Thesiger, 1st Viscount Chelmsford - you've got him in twice, here and in the 1880-1889 section (10th down). He belongs here, I think, but I think you should put in the notability you have below, i.e. governor and viceroy.
Good catch, fixed.

Down to 1870. Will need to stop and come back. KJP1 (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

On we go. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Jack White - being picky and old-fashioned, I'd go for uncapitalized trades union organiser but our main article doesn't so feel free to ignore.
Said on first three British expeditions there.
  • John William Fisher Beaumont - don't think The Bombay High Court needs a capital T.
  • Spencer Leeson, Headmaster and bishop - as above for H
  • Godfrey Rolles Driver, Biblical scholar as above for B
  • George Jellicoe, aka Viscount Brocas, soldier-statesman, businessman-diplomat - not sure about these hyphenated jobs. Just commas?
  • Alasdair Milne - link BBC?
  • Michael Howard, 21st Earl of Suffolk and Berkshire - link Berkshire Earldom as well as Suffolk?
Victoria Cross and George Cross holders
  • "one Old Wykehamist won the George Cross in military circumstances and another Old Wykehamist won the George Medal in military circumstances" - the close repetition is a bit jarring. Perhaps, "one Wykehamist won the George Cross and one the George Medal, both in military circumstances/situations"?
Thanks, done.
  • And, any reason you're not listing the George Medal holder? I'm assuming he's in here somewhere, List of recipients of the George Medal, 1940s? Although he may not have an article, he surely warrants a mention and minimal redlinks in lists are permissible.
Let's think about that one, but good to hear that it's feasible at a pinch.
Added. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Richard Williamson (bishop) - absolutely get that Wikipedia's not censored but, given the abundance of choice, does this repellent, anti-Semitic nut job deserve the prominence of a photo?
My feeling is that we show the rough with the smooth.
Absolutely take the point. I was pleased to include John Vassall, the gay spy, in the list of my alma mater’s alumni! But Vassall’s dead and Williamson is, at least to my mind, regrettably alive. And, while I’d of course agree he should be in the list, the choice of photos is selective. Anyway, I’ve made my point and it’s not a criteria issue, so I’ll just get back to the list. KJP1 (talk) 17:02, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Right - that's my nitpicking over. It's a grand list, fully meriting the bronze star. KJP1 (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Hennepin County Library branches[edit]

Nominator(s): —Collint c 21:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Paul2520 and I have been working on this list of library branches in Minnesota's largest library system for a few years. We both, but especially Paul, have journeyed all around the county to collect images of all 41 branches and have attempted to develop the most complete list in existence of the openings of the extant Hennepin County libraries. We are excited to work with any further comments and suggestions towards making this article a featured list, and appreciate all feedback. If promoted, we believe this would be the first List of library branches article to make FL status and hopefully serve as a useful template for future efforts to improve coverage of libraries worldwide. Thanks kindly! —Collint c 21:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Review by Reywas92
  • This is a very nice list, but it should be merged to Hennepin County Library. That is quite a short article and the lead content is duplicative, so a split is not at all warranted. I'm not sure this passes WP:LISTN since there don't appear to be sources that cover the topic of branches rather than the library generally. NYC is the only other list of branches but that's a different animal.
  • "the borders of" is extraneous
  • "across 24 cities and towns" -> "in..."
  • "located" is extraneous, readers know "in" is a locator adverb here
  • "Four of the branches" -> "Four branches"
  • Bloomington is missing wikilink
  • Only the second Minneapolis in the table is linked; link all or only the first
  • Notes column shouldn't be sortable
  • Southdale: "between" requires an "and"
  • North Regional's note is rather random: of course a public building would take a few years to go from proposal to construction completion
  • Rewrite "In late 1800s, opened in Fletcher–Loring Flour Mill"
  • and "Original 1889 was"

Reywas92Talk 07:41, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Reywas92! Helpful feedback. I've addressed most of your comments.
I'm still mulling over the North Regional note (I agree, it should be updated). Updated the note, per Benidt reference.
Re: the merge, nice idea! I will discuss with Bobamnertiopsis. = paul2520 (talk) 17:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I would also suggest a merger, as the main article has very little additional content (other than the lead it essentially consists of a less-detailed list of locations). The merged article would still really be a list, though, so I don't see why the FLC couldn't continue...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dank

  • Yes, agreed that this is an attractive and useful list, and that the main article is so slight that it would be better to merge it with this, and that the merged article would be appropriate for WP:FLC. - Dank (push to talk) 21:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Query - there seems to be a consensus among all the editors who have commented so far that this article and the main one on the library should be merged, but in six weeks nothing's been done about this. Are there any plans to merge.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi ChrisTheDude. Bobamnertiopsis and I have reason to believe the list is relevant still (see discussion here). I have some thoughts that I was about to write on Bobamnertiopsis' talk page, that I'll put here.
How about we rename Hennepin County Library#Libraries to Hennepin County Library#Branches and move the middle paragraphs from List of Hennepin County Library branches to that page? We'd still have the complete, cited list with photographs and details, and the library page would then have more context to the branch system.
Sorry for the delay! Courtesy pings to Reywas92 and Dank. = paul2520 (talk) 15:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Iceland[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 13:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The land of fire and ice (insert your favorite GoT pun - but hey, they filmed it there as well!). A new nomination from Northern Europe, following the FLs for Norway and Denmark, and Finland is getting support. Medium-term plan is to get all the countries covered so I can nominate a featured topic, let's see. Tone 13:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I would make the bit in brackets a separate sentence starting "The existing site...."
  • "From around 930 AD to 1798, Þingvellir has served" => "From around 930 AD to 1798, Þingvellir served"
  • "as a venue of Althing" => "as a venue for the Althing"
  • "Althing is also the oldest surviving parliament in the world" => "Althing is the oldest surviving parliament in the world"
  • "Fragments of around 50 booths built from turf and stone are visible though the remains" => "Fragments of around 50 booths built from turf and stone are visible, although the remains"
  • "off the South coast of Iceland" - no need for capital S
  • "in view of biodiversity, the fish" - change the comma to a semi-colon
  • "The shape and functions of these houses were changing over time" => "The shape and functions of these houses changed over time"
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Fixed, thank you. --Tone 21:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

I saw this now. The general list is so-so, since it mostly includes copy-paste descriptions from the UNESCO sites, has no maps, and provides little content related to the tentative list. So, if there are enough entries on either list, a separate article makes sense. I'll address the other comments later. --Tone 10:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I probably have time for just one review of these, so I'll go have another look at Finland. - Dank (push to talk) 16:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Chidgk1

  • Perhaps add an article description
  • Perhaps shorten the beginning to something like:

"The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage Sites are places of cultural or natural importance; as described in the 1972 UNESCO World Heritage Convention, accepted by Iceland in 1995. Natural sites Surtsey and Vatnajökull National Park were added in 2008 and 2019. Þingvellir National Park was listed back in 2004 as a cultural site, and is now on the tentative list both for nature and as a part of a new transnational Viking heritage nomination."

  • Then maybe add more in the lede about the other tentative list sites and/or something else - such as how locals and tourists feel about the list
  • I made a few minor copyedits but these 2 sentences are confusing me: "The turf house tradition was brought to Iceland by the first settlers and has evolved from the longhouses built from timber and covered by turf. The shape and functions of these houses changed over time, adapting to local climate and the needs of the people." So were the first ones in Iceland the longhouses,or were those the ones in the settlers previous homeland but there was no timber in Iceland, or maybe they started with the original style but ran out of timber? Maybe also add an example of how they evolved.

If you have time to do a bit more which might help a smidgen to save a few glaciers from climate change could you point out my mistakes in Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey/archive1 Chidgk1 (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: Thank you for the edits. I rewrote the turf part which was indeed confusing. I would stick with the intro as it is in the standard form considering other lists, and I usually even get complaints that they are too short. What locals feel about the list is perhaps out of the scope here, or at least some good sources would be required. I'll have a look at the coal power stations soon. --Tone 09:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "Two further sites were added in 2008 (Surtsey) and 2019 (Vatnajökull National Park)." The brackets looks clumsy to me. How about "Two further sites were added, Surtsey in 2008 and Vatnajökull National Park in 2019."
  • Þingvellir National Park in the tentative list could be expanded.
  • "The structure of a turf house is built from timber and they are covered by turf." Ungrammatical change from singular to plural.
  • Looks fine apart from these minor points. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Dudley Miles: Done! The Þingvellir section in the tentative list as a serial nomination already covers the above description, being the parliament and Viking legacy, so I though it was enough. --Tone 17:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

List of active coal fired power stations in Turkey[edit]

Nominator(s): Chidgk1 (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because these power stations are the main contributor to greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey so it would be great if someone at COP26 could discuss them. As this is my first attempt to get anything featured I suspect there may be a lot I need to improve.Chidgk1 (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Very nice list, hopefully it'll be deleted someday for being empty.

Thanks. I got the idea from List of active coal fired power stations in the United Kingdom and List of coal fired power stations in Australia and once this one is featured I hope others will copy the format. Although Global Energy Monitor have a useful world list I guess they have to put most of their effort into the biggest countries like China and are not able to include the smaller power stations.
  • The hatnotes links can be included as in-line or see also links, not needed at the very top for disambiguation
  • -> "so the plants are the largest"
  • I could follow the note on searching the main source, but perhaps you could give the translations for the selection names and/or link directly to a translated version. Not sure if there's a guideline for this.
Done (but when I tried to search from the translated version it just hung)
  • Three say local coal – I see this is what the database says but should be lignite right? All the same for the Soma plants.
You are almost certainly right but I have not yet found a source to cite to confirm that
  • What's the point of having the license number? Seems like internal data of no use to the public.
This is because the names can change with change of ownership or in sources can sometimes be confusingly different for the same plant or confusingly similar for different plants (for example Soma and Bekirli)
  • "Note:" is not necessary
  • The linked page doesn't actually have details about capacity payments: The table marks a number and eligibility but I don't know how to interpret it.
I can easily change the column heading from "Capacity Mechanism Payment (₺m)" to "Capacity Mechanism Payment (millions of lira)" or somesuch if you think that is clearer.

Reywas92Talk 20:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Is there anything more I need to improve on this please?Chidgk1 (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to resolve the discrepancy in [Note 1] at the top, but otherwise I don't see any further issues. Reywas92Talk 23:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry I am afraid I don't have update access to government websites! I just checked the Turkish page and it says 68 "santraller" which definitely means "plants" not "units". But I cannot believe that is right. If you like I will write to the ministry and ask but I doubt they would reply.Chidgk1 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
However I wonder if we should have a row for each unit like the Global Energy Monitor database. Does anyone have an opinion on that? Chidgk1 (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice list and great graphic. You might consider some of the following: G. Moore 23:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I analyzed the page for dead links. This added some archiving of 47 links
Thanks - I have never done anything with archiving - if anyone thinks automatic archiving might not be enough let me know and I will read up on manual archiving.
  • I think that the first cell in each row would look better if it was left aligned, ie adding

|scope="row" style="text-align: left"|

  • Format external links and add accessdate, i.e.
    • "Interactive map of coal plants: Global Energy Monitor". Retrieved March 5, 2020.
Formatted but I think the access date in the licence query and co2 refs is enough as those will change over time.
  • Notes column might be better as the last column. I would also include any references in this column.
Moved to second from last because very few people will need to read licence number - re refs if I put them all in that col it would not be obvious which cell they refer to e.g. the ref that Çan-2 type is combined cycle.
  • the year and CO2 emission columns would be better right justified. Use a break, if there is additional text required. Generally, all numbers should be right justified.
Right justfied. Re additional text - should I have a row for each unit does anyone think?
  • The open street maps link does pull up anthing because there are no coordinates on the page.
Removed co-ord mapping box as it seems not to find the co-ords in the map source
If you want the Open Street map to work, you would have to include the coords in the table. See List of plantations in North Carolina for an example. G. Moore 14:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks - I think I may use that in individual articles about each plant rather than here as the map gives a general idea.
Done thanks
  • "As of March 2020" - we're in April now
Removed months from "as of" as no one is going to update them monthly
  • Coal fired or coal-fired? The title uses no hyphen but the first sentence uses one
Removed hyphens and requested category rename
  • Add a comma after Turkey in the first sentence
  • Write gigawatt in full with (GW) in brackets the first time the term is used
  • Same for TWh
  • Second paragraph should not start with a number
  • Explain CO2eq the first it is used, as above
Replaced with the simpler "carbon dioxide" as that is what it is in this case - the source quotes CO2eq as they were also studying differently fuelled plants.
  • "the plants are the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey." - source?
@ChrisTheDude: This is in the pie chart in the linked article. New figures were released yesterday, so I will make a new pie chart. Do you think I should put the new cite in the pie chart and then the new pie chart in this article? Or should I just cite the new figure? Or both?
  • "Unlike neighbouring Greece, which is closing down all its lignite-fired power stations;" - should be a comma at the end, not a semi-colon
  • "The main opposition party" - seems odd not to state which party this is
  • "5 older plants" =? "five older plants"
  • "As of February 2020" - as above, we're now in April
Removed months from "as of" as no one is going to update them monthly
  • "So public information on the carbon-dioxide emissions of individual plants may not be available until after Sentinel-7 satellites are launched in 2025." - this is not a complete sentence
Combined previous sentence
  • "Much of the operational fleet was built in the 21st century." - surely this extremely short sentence could be merged with another
Combined previous sentence
  • Also, what is "the operational fleet"? No explanation is given.
"Operational fleet" is a bit tricky to define exactly at the moment, as we don't know yet how many of the plants which were shutdown on 1st January will be retrofitted with filters and restarted. If plants are restarted I will put them back in the list. But whether or not those plants are included the sentence is still true.
  • "Also the price of natural gas fell in 2020" - "also" is not an appropriate word with which to start a sentence - needs rewording.
  • What is "MW" in the map caption?
  • "For details of annual capacity payments please see the list of important power stations in Turkey." - if this is an important piece of info, why is it not in the table? if it isn't important, this note is not needed.
It is important and there are 2 reasons it is in the other list and not here. Firstly, although important in terms of money and GW, it is paid to a small number of large plants so if I put it here there would be a column with lots of empty cells taking up space. Secondly it is also paid to some non-coal plants, so others may wish to add those payments in future and I think it would be best to keep them in the same list.
  • In the header of the table, there seems to be a huge gap between "operational capacity" and the brackets
  • Is the "type" of many stations unknown? If not, why are there blank cells?
Yes unfortunately I have not been able to find a source for the type of the small plants (under 100 MW)
  • Same for coal type
Yes unfortunately I have not been able to find a source for the coal type of many smaller plants
  • And emission, for that matter
Yes unfortunately I have not been able to find a source for the emissions of the smaller plants
  • Some of the cells in the notes column where there is no actual note have a dash, others are just blank. Any reason?
Another reviewer suggested I put dashes in all the blank cells so I have now done them all I think (left totals blank as they are not sortable - but can put dashes if anyone thinks that would be better)
  • "Of the 6 x 165 MW units 2 units are shutdown and 4 units operating under temporary licence" => "Of the six 165 MW units, two units are shut down and four units operating under temporary licence"
  • In that note you spell licence with a C, but elsewhere it is spelt with an S.
  • ZETES notes should start with a capital L
  • Note 1 - It is unclear why [4] says there are 67" - this looks awful with the ref like that. It would be better to write it as "It is unclear why the Turkish government says there are 67", with the ref at the end.
  • In the same note, "shut down" is two words
  • Note 2 - "On the original." This is not a complete sentence. I do not know why it is there/what it means.
I hope it is now clearer - if not please let me know
  • Note 6 - same comment as note 1
  • Quite a lot of work to do here, I fear........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has commented so far. If I have not resolved your comments or you have more please let me know. Also it would be great if anyone who has not yet commented could take a quick look as I suspect there is more which could be improved. Chidgk1 (talk) 09:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • It does not look right citing a newspaper report to say official figures on the number of power stations are wrong.
You are correct, however the newspaper was with 2 government ministers, and their number matches the number of entries in the Energy Market Regulatory Authority database (cited on column headers) which is also an official source.
  • So why not give the Energy Market Regulatory Authority database as your source - although I realise you may also need the newspaper for the ones that are shut down. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Might the difference in the figures be due to some power stations having more than one plant?
"Power plant" is a synonym for "Power station". "Station" is more common in British English. Maybe "plant" is more common in American English. Certainly some stations are very close together but on separate sites, such as ZETES-1, ZETES-2 and ZETES-3, however I have listed them separately. Whereas if I understand right if a station has multiple "units" they would be on the same site.
  • Ref 5 does not support 47 power stations, so far as I can see.
Ah well spotted - I have moved ref 3 to a better place: 52 - 5 =47
  • "over twice that of a gas-fired power station, so the power stations are the largest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey" is not referenced.
Reference added
  • "totalling almost 1 billion lira,[9][10] and in 2018 US$4.4 billion was spent on coal imports" Using two different currencies in conjuntion is unhelpful to the reader. I would provide a conversion of lira to dollars (at a specified date shown in a note).
Done - did not bother with note as very approx but can add if needed. Template:To USD has not yet had 2019 added - User:EncMstr has asked IMF but perhaps they have other priorities now!
  • "to give lignite burning power stations dispatch priority" What does this mean?
Clarified the link to read "priority over other types of generation."
  • "and despite abundant sun and wind, Emba Hunutlu is under construction" This is not supported by the reference.
Improved references
  • I regret that I have to oppose due to the unreferenced non-WP:NPOV comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Thank you for your useful review. Could you let me know if you spot any more unreferenced non-WP:NPOV comments. If I am unable to reference them I can easily remove them. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The referencing is improved but some comments in the lead still read as as POV opinions rather than a neutral encyclopedia article. Expressions such as "and despite abundant sun and wind", "although they will lose money" and "may create financial problems for power station operators" should either be omitted or attributed, just as the Republican People's Party claim is attributed.
I have attributed the comments and added reasoning in support of new lignite power:"The Turkey Wealth Fund, the country's sovereign wealth fund, is financing it because the country needs to maintain energy security by reducing fossil fuel imports.". I did not cite abundant sunshine as I assumed that is common knowledge - if any cites are still missing please let me know.
  • The comment " perhaps they are confusing with the number of units or counting power stations which were shut down much earlier" is also unreferenced personal opinion. I suggest moving the note to after ref 4 and saying maybe: "The Energy Ministry gives a figure of 67 power plants, but does not list them and the Energy Market Regulatory Authority database lists 52.
  • There is an error in note 2 as it has a stray </ref>. I cannot open the source as I do not have a program to open a zip file on my current computer, but I assume that it is still a valid source.
Yes it is published in April each year and only the most recent spreadsheet within the zip is needed but I don't know any way to directly reference only that one
  • smokestack measurements" should be linked or explained - and the relevance of Sentinel-7 satellites should be explained.
  • Do the dashes in the table mean information not available? I suggest replacing them with "Not known", except in the Notes column which should be blank if there is no note.
  • Thanks for your amendments. I am close to removing my oppose, but the lead is still a bit too much opinion rather than a neutral summary of facts. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles, ChrisTheDude, Reywas92, and G. Moore: - I suspect there is more needs to be fixed which I have not spotted.

Also fresh eyes may notice any readability issues - if other people have a chance to look at this.

Comments by Guerillero[edit]

  • I have no idea what the lettered footnotes point to to even start looking at their reliablity


Yes note 4 was confusingly written. If it is still unclear please let me know.
  • Greenpeace isn't a RS
Replaced with Nature
  • You are using three citation methods
I have removed "harvid". In general I was trying to use the automatic cite generation on the visual editor as that was easiest for me as the writer. But for long documents I thought I ought to list them in sources. But I would welcome advice if there is a better way.
  • Climate Transparency isn't an RS
Replaced with FT
  • Health and Environment Alliance isn't an RS
Removed as duplicate as the fact is cited in the government source in the refs column
  • isn't a RS
It is only to cite that Diler is on their list

I'm going to assume all of the Turkish sources are reliable --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: What does EÜ/4969-240/2940 mean? Also, I would remove the totals column --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Totals removed. EÜ/4969-240/2940 is the number of a licence allowing the power station to operate. As every row has a licence number, rather than explaining in every row how to query the database I would like to explain in one place. But if you as an expert Wikipedian looking at this for the second time are not getting it then a new reader will have no chance. Therefore I obviously need to clarify more. On the other hand I don't think it should be in the main text because only a few readers will need to verify the info. Possibly what is obscuring the important point about querying a single plant is that originally I was trying to query all coal-fired power stations because it was very hard to identify the small ones. But that query will likely not be needed so much in future as I am almost certain no new small coal plants will be built. So I will split that off into a separate note. I wonder if I can also put a screenshot in the footnote.
@Guerillero: Amended footnote and added screenshot. Is that clear to new readers now? Any more questions or suggestions?
Perfect! Support --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Question for first time readers[edit]

As [this screenshot] is being proposed for deletion can you understand the refs column without looking at it? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

WCW Light Heavyweight Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 16:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Hopefully the third time's the charm for this one, which was archived after drawing no responses on its previous two candidacies. It's another short-lived pro-wrestling championship from the early 1990s. I'm aware that there's a degree of overlap between this and List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions, but this is a more thorough look at a separate entity which is only in hindsight considered one and the same with the latter so I don't believe that's going to be an issue. The article was given a copy-editing tag-team by Zppix and Baffle gab1978, and follows the same layout as the FL WCW International World Heavyweight Championship. Thanks for looking at this to anyone who takes the time. GRAPPLE X 16:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

  • As the opening paragraph is only one sentence, I would merge it with the next one
  • "WWE, who purchased WCW's assets in 2001" => "WWE, which purchased WCW's assets in 2001"
  • "Morton and Pillmen contested" - typo
  • "Pillman successfully defended the championship against Tom Zenk at the May 17 WrestleWar event in Jacksonville, Florida; before being defeated" - that semi-colon should be a comma
  • "would depict any maneuver performed from the top rope of the ring as illegal and resulting in disqualification; this effectively ended the appeal of the light heavyweight style" - I don't think it's quite right to say it ended the appeal of the style, as the style would still have been appealing but essentially wasn't allowed to be used. I would say "effectively ended the viability of the light heavyweight style"
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for taking a look. I've addressed anything you have raised here. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 09:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias[edit]

The crossover is with List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions (1991–2007) and WWE Cruiserweight Championship (1991–2007), rather than the List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions article you linked, as far as I can tell. I appreciate your comment that it "is only in hindsight considered one and the same". But our current articles treat them the same, and I struggle to see why the prose and brackets can't be merged into WWE Cruiserweight Championship (1991–2007), especially given the current short length of that article, while the list entries are already provided at List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions (1991–2007). It seems to me to contravene 3(c) pretty obviously. Can you convince me otherwise? Harrias talk 12:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately no policy here would give a definitive answer on this and really boils down to which company's opinion we follow--WWE, who currently own the video rights to the content involved, or the historical WCW, who created and managed it. It seems clear to me that the intention behind the creation of the 1996 WCW Cruiserweight title was to have a clean start with a new and separate lineage, and personally I would be in favour of treating it the same way. For what it's worth I think the prose detail here on the Light Heavyweight belt would be undue if merged with the WWE list, which would then essentially have to summarise three different title lineages and explain two partially-recognised merges. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 14:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I have some sympathy with that approach. If that is the case though, I think Wikipedia needs to treat them as separate entities: remove them from the List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions (1991–2007) list (which is an old FL, which needs some work to meet the current standards anyway). That last can just note that the WWE also consider the earlier WCW Light Heavyweight Championship to be one and the same, but direct readers to this link for more information. Similar changes would be needed at WWE Cruiserweight Championship (1991–2007), and the titles of both would need changing to "WWE Cruiserweight Championship (1996–2007)". If we make this distinction clear on the encyclopaedia, then I think this can be considered as a standalone article. Harrias talk 15:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense. Some page moves would be involved (to use "1996–2007") but I assume that would be uncontroversial. I'll make a start with those two articles tonight to highlight the delineation. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 20:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I removed the duplicated content from the earlier list, adding a "see also" for this one. In the parent article for that list I added a hatnote and a bit of extra prose to delineate the two more clearly. I hope this helps. Gʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ˣ 23:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Source review by MPJ-DK

Since this FLC Is in the orange box at the top of the FLC page I am going to do a source review since it has to be completed before it can possibly be passed for FL. Note, I have my own FLC nomination if anyone wants to reciprocate (not required). Note, while I am part of the WikiCup I am not looking to claim points for the source review I'm going to do. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

General comments
  • 7 out of 15 sources are primary, from WWE who now owns the championship. That is almost 50%, which seems less than ideal for Featured content. Keeping in mind that WWE has a tendency to write history as they want it, which is not necessarily the same as how it happened.
  • Online World of Wrestling- WP:PW/RS lists it as "unreliable" and thus needs to be replaced
  • - is generally listed as "unproven" source wise, but I know that their pre-2000 content is mainly built on the "Wrestling Title Histories" book, which is considered about as good a source for championship history as there is, so I'll say in this context that is a reliable source.
  • Is there a location for the 2 book sources?
  • This is where using so many articles gets dicey - they all refer to the championship by the wrong name, proving that their "fact" aren't as factual as a Featured List requires.
  • Source review oppose - Grapple X unless the above issues are addressed. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Image review
  • File:WCW Light Heavyweight Championship.png - Fair use argument is appropriate, lines up with other championship belt images used on Wikipedia. Since the championship was abandoned in 1992 it is unlikely that a free use image of someone with the championship belt is available to use.
  • File:Jushin Thunder Liger.JPG - APpropriately tagged, has been on commons since 2015 with no indicators of copyright issues
Image review Passed MPJ-DK (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Deadliest Catch[edit]

Nominator(s): CYAce01 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe the award nominations and wins that Deadliest Catch has accrued over the years showcases its place in television popular culture. The show continues to draw an audience and bring entertainment to millions. The list also meets criteria. CYAce01 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Zmbro: Done, done, done, and done. CYAce01 (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll retract my oppose since a lot of work has been put into this but I still don't think it's ready yet. I think looking at the recently promoted List of awards and nominations received by Game of Thrones would be helpful:
  • Saying Deadlist Catch under every single nominee is complete overkill. We know what the page is about so we don't need to be reminded of that with everything we read. I suggest ditching those
  • Do keep episode titles since those are important though
  • Ditch the production companies, etc... Basically, anything bulleted in the table that's not an episode title. Complete overkill
@Zmbro: Most of the redundancy is just to list credit where credit is due (and as shown in the sources). E.g.: Say the production company employees made a visit to the Deadliest Catch pages and didn't see their company on the nomination/win lists. The companies/people might see that as an insult. Therefore, I was just writing the credits shown in the sources. The exception was for the Emmy Awards where excessive numbers of individual personnel credits were shown, hence the disclaimer (it seemed that everyone and their pets were listed—clearly not within the scope). CYAce01 (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • All the Deadlist Catch episode: entries can just be shortened to the episode names
  • No refs are archived, which they should be. I'm also positive some of these are missing authors
That's it for now. – zmbro (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll take another look when I get a moment. Thanks for the notes. CYAce01 (talk) 08:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Comments on the tale
  • People's names should sort based on their surname, not their forename (eg Bruce Hanifan should sort under H, not B)
  • Done
  • Rather than saying (eg) "Editors: Kelly Coskran & Ed Greene" say "Kelly Coskran & Ed Greene (editors)" so that it sorts based on name, not job title (in this case it should of course sort under C)
  • Done

-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:52, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Good catches. Thank you! CYAce01 (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Support - looks OK to me now, nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Some thoughts
    • The references need a ton of work to be up to par.
    • New York Festivals World's Best TV & Films isn't a notable award
    • We are Movie Geeks isn't a RS
    • Productionhub isn't a RS
  • --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

List of Washington College alumni[edit]

Nominator(s): Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after much research I think I have listed all of the notable Alumni of Washington College. I modeled the formatting and organization after several existing FLs and I think this lives up to the MOS --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 06:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support – My comments have been satisfactorily addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Medusa
  • Add a better short description. Rather than "Wikimedia list article".
    • "Alumni of private liberal arts college in Chestertown, Maryland" --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • There are two alt for images. One empty and one used, any reason for this?
    • I am using Example text on all of the images. There should only be one alt text. I think the tool is showing the captions --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
  • title=Kenneth M. Merz Jr. Named New Editor Of The Journal Of Chemical Information & Modeling → title=Kenneth M. Merz Jr. Named New Editor of the Journal of Chemical Information & Modeling
  • nine [[State senator|state Senators]] → nine [[State senator]]s
  • |website=Washington College |publisher=Washington College → just use the publisher
  • journal=Paris Review|date=1978 → journal=The Paris Review|year=1978
  • subfreshman → sub-freshmen
  • A "M" indicates a Master's alumnus. → An
  • Maryland state Senator → Maryland State Senator
  • New York state Senator → New York State Senator
  • Psychology at University of Bristol → Psychology at the University of Bristol
  • In the ref, there are eg. date=1978 they should be changed to year=
  • In the table there are eg. Writer, and Poet in the Notability section. Can you expand them?
    • None of their books are notable, but they are notable for being a writer
  • Consider archiving sources.
  • Category:Lists of people by educational affiliation in Maryland|Washington College should be the first category. Than Category:Lists of people by university or college in Maryland .....
That's it from me. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 13:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I have replied, CAPTAIN MEDUSA --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 02:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Justin Moore discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Just as a disclaimer, my work at this page has been limited to quite recently, although this is because I've only been a user since November. I've been a regular updater at this list since. I believe this list meets, or is very close to meeting, the featured list criteria, and I have compared it formatting wise to other featured lists and the formatting seems consistent with them. Hog Farm (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Bandai Namco video game franchises[edit]

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the third time I have decided to nominate this for FLC. This is a comprehensive list of all video game franchises created by Bandai Namco Holdings and its subsidiaries, including Banpresto and B.B. Studio, alongside those from both Namco and Bandai created prior to the merge. All entries contain references from reliable sources that prove it is a series, all of which meet WP:V. This list has been a personal project of mine that I have worked hard on improving and fixing, and I hope to see this finally become a Featured List. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:29, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicle

Third time's the charm, let's take a look:

  • The first reference is to Bandai Namco Entertainment's coporate history yet the first sentence is about Bandai Namco Holdings. This is quite confusing.
  • In references the website parameter should be filled as well as the publisher parameter. E.g. for website=Eurogamer the publisher=Gamer Network. A useful list is on WP:VG/RS.
  • "As of 2017, Bandai Namco was the largest toy company by revenue in the world" Statista source states 2018.
  • "as well as the third-largest video game company..." I think the "as well as" is redundant here since you are using a list.
  • "Bandai Namco owns former developer Banpresto, which operates as a toy company in Japan and was purchased in 2008," ,In the source it states Namco Bandai Holdings made Banpresto a wholly owned subsidiary in June 2006 hence it was purchased in 2006 not 2008.
    • Bandai Namco purchased Banpresto in 2006, and merged their video game operations with theirs in 2008. Fixed. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
  • "The company retains the rights to defunct developer BEC" Could you be more specific here? Do you mean BEC's video game intellectual property? If so it may be worth stating for clarity.
  • " Licensed IP" I do not see why the acronym is since Intellectual property (IP) was not introduced in the lede.
    • Not sure what you mean here...? Namcokid47 (Contribs) 00:47, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
      • I was confused as to why "IP" was used over "Intellectual property" in the key for the table. Although this has already been addressed by Dissident93 when he changed "Licensed IP" to "Note: Fields highlighted in yellow are licensed intellectual properties"  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
        • Yeah, we shouldn't be using abbreviations unless we've used the full word at least once prior. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have not managed to look at the table yet.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 23:53, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Spy-cicle I've corrected all errors you have brought up so far. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 02:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
    • @Namcokid47: Just to remind you there are still some outstanding issues below.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
      • @Spy-cicle: Not sure what you mean here. The Statista source does show the revenue of the company. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 01:07, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
        @Namcokid47: My concern was that the archived Statista source not display the infomation regarding the revenue of the company instead showing a pop-up for a subscription. However, I did not see that there was a paragraph of prose which was not covered by a pop-up. Although, there is still a small issue with this archived source as it is not the most up to date infomation on the revenue of the company as it is displaying 2017 infomation as opposed to the 2018 infomation currently being linked. This needs to be fixed as is states "As of 2019".  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Okay it seems you have fixed all the issues addressed so far in the lede however I have found something else. Currently the archived Statista source does not display the infomation regarding the revenue of the company.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:29, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Additionally the references in Japanese need to have the following parameters filled out: trans-title, trans-website (if applicable), language.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Namcokid47: Are you going to the above two issues?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I already did. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 23:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
        • The language parameter and Statista archived source still need to be addressed.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
          • @Spy-cicle: - The Statista source actually does display the revenue of the company: "In 2018, Namco Bandai had the highest annual revenue of the selected toy companies, generating revenues of 6.6 billion U.S. dollars." I have also added the trans-title parameter to all Japanese refs. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 17:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
          • @Spy-cicle: - Hate to ping you again, but are you planning on commenting? I've covered the two issues you brought up. Namcokid47 (Contribs) 21:09, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
            Sorry this slipped my mind. Support Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:22, 23 May 2020 (UTC)


  • "while Tekken is its best selling franchise, selling over 40 million copies across multiple platforms." Having "selling" twice in three words isn't the best writing possible; how about "with sales of over 40 million copies" instead?
  • "and is also the third-largest video game company in Japan...". The "also" is redundant here and can be removed to make the sentence tighter without affecting its meaning.
  • I've never been a fan of "List of" section headings, as it's obvious from the title that this is a list. "Franchises" would work just as well as a title.
  • I haven't checked the references in detail, but ref 47 has all caps ("GOD EATER") that should be removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:27, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The article passes my source review. I do wonder if the lead needs to be a bit longer, but I don't really know what it is missing. It is probably alright --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC
  • The company owns the video game assets - I would insert "also" before owns. Otherwise everything looks great, the lede svg is very aesthetically appealing. ~ HAL333 00:52, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Support ~ HAL333 01:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 02:39, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Bruno Mars videography[edit]

Nominator(s): MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive look at Bruno Mars' videography to today. It contains an introduction and sortable list of the music videos, directors and a small description of the video's plot. I'll try to update it constantly as new videos are released, like I have done with all the works for the artist mentioned above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and fixes. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments I will submit this review as part of the WikiCup.

  • "Bruno Mars performing in Houston, Texas on November 24, 2010" should have a GEOCOMMA after Texas.
  • You correctly use B.o.B. (with three periods) in the lead but not in the table.
  • I'm not clear what a "home video" is in this context, is it a homemade job?
  • Link stop motion.
  • Five paras in the lead is a little too much per MOS:LEAD. If you need all that explanatory text, consider moving some of it to the relevant sections below and have a true lead which summarises the article as a whole rather than carrying all the prose.
  • CeeLo has no space.
  • "doesn't" avoid contractions.
  • No need to link major geographical locations like London or Tokyo, they are well known, unambiguous and it's unlikely a reader would ever suddenly want to click on those in this context.
  • "Victoria’s Secret" avoid curly apostrophe per MOS:CURLY.
  • "FOX " our article on that show just calls it Fox.
  • "K'Naan" -> "K'naan"
  • What does "Himself" mean when the role he was playing was called "Little Elvis"?
It was Mars himself, expect younger.
  • Channels should be linked every time in the TV appearances table because it's sortable.
  • No point in having a sortable table (commercials) when only one item is listed.
  • Consistent formatting for ref columns, i.e. with hover-over text, unsortable etc.
  • Spaced hyphens in the ref titles should be en-dashes per MOS:DASH.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man:First of all, thank you so much for your kind comments. Secondly, I have adressed every comment. I would also appreciated another look at the lead, to see if there are any other points I could summarise. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

List of presidents of the National Rifle Association[edit]

Nominator(s): –MJLTalk 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

This is an exhaustive list of all 67 presidents of the NRA and six of the past executive vice presidents of the NRA. All presidents are included, but only executive vice presidents that have a page are also included. The primary list is sortable by year elected to office, last name, and type of occupation a person had, and the specific name of that occupation. Additionally, it is color-coded to represent backgrounds of Activism, Business, Law enforcement, Legal, Military, Nature, Politics, shooting sports, or other general fields. The primary list has 5 high quality images which accompany it, and the article has two images side-by-side depicting the current president and executive vice president. There are a total of three red links on the page and 3,732 words in the article (of which roughly 302 of those words represent readable prose). It's the highest quality list article I have ever created, so therefore I am nominating it for featured list status. –MJLTalk 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick comment: The table looks like a rainbow and does not include any type of symbol, which are needed for color blind people. Also, all caps in the refs need to be removed; MOS:Caps. More comments later. Lirim | Talk 13:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The all caps issue has now been fixed. I'm not sure how to best address your first comment, though. I would be willing to just axe the colors altogether since the table is already sortable in that regard. I'm open to suggestions there. –MJLTalk 16:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The colors are superficial and don't tell me anything that the Background column doesn't tell me already. Should be removed.
  • The Ref. Column should be titled {{abbr|Ref.|References}}
  • president of the National Rifle Association/Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association do not to be fat text
  • Executive Vice Presidents of the NRA should also be in a table like the Presidents of the National Rifle Association
  • The pictures are way too large (200px is large enough)
  • The lead is too short
Lirim | Talk 20:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Lirim.Z: I removed the colors, titled the heading {{abbr|Ref.|References}} (no period), reformed the exec VP list as a table, resized the pictures, and expanded the lead. I have no clue what you meant by "[NRA president/Exec VP of NRA] do not to be fat text" so I left that alone. I think you are referring to the bolded black text? If that is the case, I will state having it bolded is simply my preference, but I will remove it if needed. –MJLTalk 01:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC) Edited: 14:49, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Drive-by comments:
  • There needs to be consistency in your "background" column. First what do you mean by background? Second, why do you sometimes have U.S. Senator, and other times specify the state (U.S. Senator from Wyoming). What does "activist" mean? It doesn't seem to match the others in this column which appear to be occupations? Some generalships are included in background, sometimes they are not.
  • You can use the term Businessperson and link to the article
  • First Executive Director of the NRA-ILA is mentioned in a note, but nowhere is ILA defined.

Mattximus (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Mattximus: Last two notes are fixed, but to your first point... Well, I wanted to list everyone's day jobs because this is an unpaid position, but not everyone had day jobs. Some people also had like fifty day jobs, and I didn't know what to say for them either. Church, for example, was both a journalist and a soldier (like at the same time). What I did was just approximated to whatever reliable sources said and hoped for the best. –MJLTalk 03:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What's going on with some of the refs? Ref 78 contains refs 76 and 77? Never seen that before............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: I'm really... lame because I wanted to keep citations in the table two or under. I therefore bundled the citations. –MJLTalk 16:01, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
    • When you do that I don't think you are supposed to put ref tags around the citation templates within the refn. See the example edit I just did to Gutermuth's row (fabulous name by the way :-)) - I think it's meant to be done like that.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • @MJL: apologies, I forgot to check back with this one. Do you plan to amend the "refs within refs" as per the above comment? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
        @ChrisTheDude: I just removed all the bundled refs instead. I might switch out the citation style to a more sleek harvnb thing later, but for now it's not worth the effort just for a prettier table. –MJLTalk 19:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I made a few small tweaks to the lead and am now OK to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Satisfied with the above comments. GRAPPLE X 21:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Teratix[edit]

  • If, as the title suggests, the list only includes presidents, why does the lead discuss LaPierre, the vice-president?
  • Specifying image sizes in px is discouraged per MOS:IMGSIZE, use the upright parameter instead
  • There are a few seas of blue links throughout (e.g. Union general Ambrose Burnside)
  • position of president of "of" twice in close succession is jarring to read.
  • the lack of shooting skills of recruits same here
  • the newly organized rifle association selected 1) cut "newly organised", it's clear from preceding text 2) Any information on how this selection process worked?
  • famed Union general WP:PEACOCK
  • to act as its first president cut "to act"
  • Throughout its history, Presidents you lowercase the term in this context everywhere else
  • Outrage porn refers to media, not people
  • to intentionally provoking outrage and condemnation. One source for this which, while reputable, only covers a single contemporary president.
  • In recent times MOS:DATED
  • No need to link Obama
  • currently chosen by the board of directors see above
  • have gone on to become paid by the NRA this phrasing is awkward
  • during Oliver North's time in office he sought to make the position a paid one Missing some context here. Why did he fail? Why was this opposed?
  • In total, there have been 65 different presidents of the NRA between 67 separate terms in office -> "There have been 65 presidents, serving 67 distinct terms." or similar.
  • Those who have held the position include former president Ulysses S. Grant, Harlon Carter, American Football League commissioner Joe Foss, and David Keene. why highlight these particular people?
  • As of 2019, the current president of the National Rifle Association is Carolyn D. Meadows. -> "As of 2019, Carolyn D. Meadows is president" or similar
  • For accessiblity, the table needs:
  • Why are the numbers right-aligned?
  • No need to link "businessperson", it's a common term. And there's no ambiguity over gender, so just write "businessman"
  • Source says Kayne Robinson was only a deputy police chief
  • Mustin's tenure needs a dash
  • The table is inconsistent on whether the subject's locations should be presented
  • All the footnotes should go. The information is either covered (or should be covered) in the lead or best presented in the subjects' articles.
  • Anything wrong with the lead image in Oliver North, rather than the noticeably wider one in the list currently?
  • May add more comments concerning citations later

Overall, I'm a little uneasy about this list. The prose problems are fixable, but there's a lack of detail concerning seemingly key elements of the position (single sentence on the purposes of the role, single sentence on the selection process, nothing on the duties of the role beyond noting that it's "largely symbolic"). – Teratix 13:18, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  • In reverse order (bottom of the list to top):
  • Sounds good
  • I like variety
    • It's a bit too jarring to just have one wide image based on an editor's personal preference. – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Image now cropped.
  • Do I really have to remove the footnotes?
    • Maybe you could keep [i], but everything else, yes, for the reasons I've outlined. Of course, you can disagree, but best back up your disagreement with reasons. – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Okay, I got rid of most of them, but I kept footnote C as well. That seems to have been a pretty turbulent time period for the NRA, but I think it would be UNDUE it cover it in the lead. If you still object, I'll get rid of it, but it should probably be examined separately from the others.
        • Presidents' resignations seem like just the sort of thing to discuss in the lead. – Teratix 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Originally, I wanted to include a section dedicated to their home states, but I could not get reliable information for each of the presidents in that regard and worried about WP:UNDUE. However, it should now be consistent for every politician and chief law enforcement officer on the list.
  • Fixed
  • He was also the Chief of Detectives, so I went with that instead.
    • Upper or lowercase "chief" and "detectives"? – Teratix 12:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Changed
    • Couple still outstanding. – Teratix 12:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The right-aligned numbers make me happy.
    • Not very important, I guess. – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Updated
    • Might need to double-check this, I don't see any changes on my end. – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Done
    • Could still be more concise. – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Those people are interesting, I guess.
    • Not sure this is a suitable criterion. What you and I find interesting may differ. – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Still unresolved. – Teratix 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed
  • Added content
  • Replaced with Some former presidents have later been employed by the NRA
  • de-linked
  • used Since the 1990s
  • Added a source about Porter
    • Hmm, not sure that says anything about the selection intentionally being for this purpose. It's an exceptional claim, especially when made in Wikipedia's voice. It does certainly seem that way, but I think the sourcing needs to be more explicit. Otherwise, this section may need a rewrite. – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
      • From the article, "The election of James Porter... is one of many defiant signals to come out of the NRA's annual meeting in Houston over the weekend." "Porter... has been building that outrage his whole life." I could look for another source if you like, though. –MJLTalk 17:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
        • Neither of those quotes are an adequate source for the statement that presidents intentionally provoke outrage. – Teratix 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • De-linked
  • lowercased
  • Cut
  • Removed "famed "
  • Now the rifle association voted to have Union general
  • of --> among
  • Removed "position of"
    • Hmm, it's a bit ambiguous now (could be referring to the role or the person holding the role). Sorry, it was better before I got to it Face-smile.svgTeratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Restored. –MJLTalk 16:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • See above
    • Some are still outstanding. – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Corrected where possible
  • He's basically the shadow president of the NRA.
    • The list is on the position of president, not the actual leadership, wherever it may lie; that's probably more appropriate in the group's article. – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Teratix: I hope that covers 90% of your concerns. Face-smile.svgMJLTalk 23:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Probably will not support nor oppose this list, as I'm not best placed to evaluate the neutrality and comprehensiveness of certain sections in a page on such a politically-charged group. (will wait and see how changes go – Teratix 03:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)) (For future reference, it's easier to follow a featured content discussion if you reply to comments directly underneath where they are posted, as I have done). – Teratix 12:03, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
      • @MJL: just checking you've seen my replies. – Teratix 03:49, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
        • @Teratix: Hi, yes sorry. I've currently bitten off a bit more than I can chew, so to speak. I will responding to your concerns hopefully in a few days. Regards, –MJLTalk 05:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Apologies, at this point I'm going to oppose promotion of this list. My reasons, ordered by severity:
  1. The lead makes an extraordinary claim in Wikipedia's voice without adequate verification (presidents have served [the purpose of] ... intentionally provoking outrage and condemnation.). Additionally, the succeeding sentences discussing presidents' controversial statements give an impression of improper implied synthesis (i.e. discussing presidents' controversial statements to imply that is the purpose of the role, despite no source directly stating this).
  2. The lead does not adequately explain what the position of president entails (criterion 2). It's largely symbolic (implying "not entirely") and has served purposes ranging from providing the NRA greater legitimacy to intentionally provoking outrage and condemnation... but nothing beyond that (and as per my previous point, even this sentence is problematic). No explanations of their duties (or lack thereof). I hate to say it, but some of VF9's hatted comments hit the nail on the head.
  3. The list does not follow the Manual of Style (criterion 5) in several places, notably the accessibility guidelines.
  • Given that this nomination has been open for almost five months and still has serious unresolved problems despite a relatively active nominator, I think it needs a break, a clean slate and possibly a rewrite.
This is my first time opposing an FLC; I may be overreacting? Previous reviewers (@Guerillero, Grapple X, ChrisTheDude, Mattximus, and Lirim.Z:) do you have any thoughts? – Teratix 12:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Wayne LaPierr's portrait shouldn't really be at the top because the list isn't about the EVP. Besides that, everything looks good --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: Are you still working on this list? The oppose has sat untouched for a month, and if not addressed I'm going to have to close the nomination. --PresN 17:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@PresN: Oh, yes sorry!
Basically, I wasn't too sure how to respond to In actu besides saying I disagree? I am not aware of any unaddressed accessibility problems, feel that I have described the position of NRA president in the best way that RS citations allow me to do, and do not share In actu's perspective on the possibility of synthesis. –MJLTalk 01:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
(I made the oppose, not In actu/Guerillero). I added a caption to the table, which resolves the accessibility issue. However, there are still an array of unresolved issues, which I have outlined in my previous comments, including the two major problems which have led to my opposition. I welcome efforts from the nominator to resolve them, but just saying "I disagree" without explanation is not sufficient. – Teratix 14:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Comments this review will be submitted to WikiCup.

  • Avoid repeating NRA in the opening sentence, replace the second NRA with "organization" perhaps.
  • "origins in" as you've given a precise date, I assume this to be the "foundation" date, so why not use that.
  • "two Union veterans" just leave link as Union Army as to non-experts or non-Americans, that makes more sense.
  • Besides, you have "Union" as a pipe twice with different targets.
  • "Church would soon succeed" -> "Church succeeded"
  • Is it president or President?
  • Don't use the hash symbol to mean per MOS:HASH.
  • The later image captions could use some relationship to this list, i.e. when the individuals were NRA president and when the photos were taken (for context).
  • Background sorts very strangely for me.
  • Interesting that you select "Political commentator" as Oliver North's background. I'm no expert but my awareness of North comes from his significant military service.
  • In my opinion, the row scope parameters should be against the name of the president as that, after all, is the topic under discussion, not the number.
  • Avoid SHOUTING in the ref titles.
  • Note b ("Son of Irvine C. Porter") is both unreferenced and unhelpful considering Irvine C. Porter is a redlink. What benefit does this give the reader?
  • Presidents sucbox at the bottom needs work on en-dashes for year ranges.
  • Also Tom Washington is linked in that template (and not in your table) but links to a basketball player...
  • I don't understand the inconsistency in linking between the template and table either, I would expect them to be identical.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 08:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Oppose Until above-mentioned comments are disposed. Table needs scope row tags as well. Dog Hole Cave (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC) one purpose account vote removed. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 14:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: Considering closing this nomination- Opposer still opposes with no further comment made, and no response has been made to TRM's review in 3 weeks. Will close soon if no action is taken. --PresN 02:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of national anthems[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Countrie & 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)
  • 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)

Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Awards, WikiProject Lists, WikiProject Theatre

I am nominating this for featured list removal because... largely the same reasons as Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play but will quote here in relevant part: "The lead is nothing like it was when the list was promoted. The table is completely unreferenced now as well. No references to the winners, no references to support the characters the winners or nominees play, no references to support the nominees. No scope row tags. Cannot sort the main table. There's a trivia section which goes directly counter to MOS:TRIVIA. If you're colorblind you're out of luck trying to tell which is the winner from the tables. Changes came after a bogus "consensus" emerged on the talk page of Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play three years ago."

Therapyisgood (talk) 09:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Tentative delist with a bold suggestion although I got the feeling from re-visiting that discussion that delisting these articles was exactly what HesioneHushabye wanted (to whit: I'm not looking for my version to be a featured list candidate (nor do I think the current version should be). I would advocate restoring this version and adding the last four years of winners. I'll do it myself if we think that's a better approach to these lists than simply living with such complete crap. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
    I would support that as well --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 14:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you Guerillero. That approach could also be applied at the other FLRC, i.e. here if we get some agreement to do so? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    I would support that in both cases. The current versions are appalling -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks Chris. I'd be interested in hearing what PresN and Giants2008 have to say about this? The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
    That solution sounds fine to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Tony Award for Best Featured Actor in a Play[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Awards, WikiProject Lists, WikiProject Theatre

I am nominating this for featured list removal because... The lead is nothing like it was when the list was promoted. The table is completely unreferenced now as well. No references to the winners, no references to support the characters the winners or nominees play, no references to support the nominees. No scope row tags. Cannot sort the main table. There's a trivia section which goes directly counter to MOS:TRIVIA. If you're colorblind you're out of luck trying to tell which is the winner from the tables. Changes came after a bogus "consensus" emerged on the talk page of Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play three years ago. @The Rambling Man: who made excellent points at Talk:Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play#Suggestions. The ownership of this page is toxic. Glad to get it demoted, but wished the better version could have prevailed.

Therapyisgood (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

List of Chinese inventions[edit]

Notified: PericlesofAthens, WikiProject Chinese history, WikiProject Technology, WikiProject Invention, WikiProject Technology, WikiProject History of Science

Since the first FL removal discussion it has been three months time to clean up the article to meet FL standards. While undoubtedly many low quality entries have been removed, the list still suffers from the flaws that I pointed out then, namely WP:OR and WP:SYN. While the core of entries that elevated the list to FL in 2008 is mostly well-sourced, the hundreds of entries added since have deteriorated the overall list quality. Many of the claims make too much of the source they refer to, blowing up vague references to oldest evidence in a certain cultural, temporal or geographical context to an absolute claim of global priority for China. To give you an idea of the nature of the problem see this sample of ten supposedly Chinese inventions I collected after the clean-up was finished.

Source quality and interpretation are one thing, another is the seemingly boundless time frame of the list. While invention lists for other peoples and eras are careful not to overstep boundaries of time and space, the section "Pre-Shang" extends Chinese inventions to 20,000 BC (entry "Cookware and pottery vessel"). Where will attribution to the Chinese stop, with Peking Man? Instead of FL status the list urgently needs to be tagged for serious contents and definitional issues. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

To spur a discussion all editors who have participated in the first candidacy have been informed of this one. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Easy delist --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 20:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Confused about the process of opening a second delist discussion, but, not up to par and not looking like things will be fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist per nom. Khirurg (talk) 20:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Definite Keep. This entire voting process is rigged as practically the only people re-invited here (April 22nd) are those who voted for delisting the last time an attempt was made to delist this article. The two who voted for keeping it were either uninivited: Pericles of AthensTalk. Or inactive for a month by the time the newest notification for voting this article down was sent out: Khanate General talk User:Khanate General. Furthermore, there's no invitation notification put in the head of this article for others to know of this voting process taking place (there is that option), which decreases the chance of additional voters to chime in. Which I wouldn't otherwise complain about if not for the very skewed invite. Secondly, I have some concern with the list of issues brought up. For example, acupuncture and animal zodiacs are not inventions of something purely physical, ergo historic connections are necessary to establish invention, not just similarity, otherwise the Chinese would have invented soccer not Britain. Ergo if some other society had needles for medicinal practices, that in itself is a separate practice from Chinese acupuncture unless evidence can be brought that Chinese acupuncture derived from those earlier needle practices. What problems amongst the ten listed that I think are valid could easily be deleted rather than delisted as the article already separates inventions into categories in alphabetical order so not really that hard to search where the article said it and delete that part. ArchimedesTheInventor 19:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
    It is patently incorrect that PericlesofAthens and Khanate General weren't notified of this discussions. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 16:02, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
    You obviously didn't read what I wrote and mis-represented it. Which part of what I said was wrong?
-PericlesofAthens wasn't re-invited, re-invite being the key word. The re-invite you guys received on April 22, due to and I quote:"To spur a discussion all editors who have participated in the first candidacy have been informed of this one" was not sent out to PericlesofAthens. Are you claiming that is incorrect? If so, point out the link for his invite for April 22.
-The re-invite occurred at a point when Khanate General was inactive for a month. Are you claiming that is incorrect, if so point out any activity he made within a month of the re-invite which occurred in April 22. ArchimedesTheInventor 12:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
He was invited in the initial wave on the 8th instead of the second wave on the 22nd. I don't really see a problem there. If he wanted to be involved he would be involved in this. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Nobody was involved in 8th, only after the 2nd re-invite of the 22nd did anyone start getting involved, an invite he didn't receive even though the people who previously already voted for delist did. People are less inclined to join in on a blank discussion, and because of the lack of the re-invite there is no proof he would even know of later developments starting from the 22nd. There's an easy to way to solve this particular problem (not the rest of the problems mentioned), why don't you just invite him? ArchimedesTheInventor 01:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
I would like to take back by vote. I apologize, being new to wiki I mixed up "Featured list removal" with "Articles for deletion". And here I wondered how so many people would take the drastic action of deleting the entire article and redoing it from scratch when it's much easier to simply get rid of the low quality edits. But now I realize there's a difference between "Featured list removal" and "Articles for deletion". In which case, now that I know, I would like to change my vote to delist as well. I apologize once again. ArchimedesTheInventor 06:34, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist, with regret. The nominator mentions concerns of the list containing entries with dubious proof of invention in China, and I am also concerned by undue weight in relation to the mention or amount of detail of some of the less groundbreaking inventions. No doubt the many contributions by unregistered and new editors in the decade since this FL's promotion have added a great deal of valuable information to the list, but it is not detailed-oriented and of consistent quality in the way that an FL needs to be. — Bilorv (talk) 20:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep Several of the items mentioned in the talk page seem to be reaching. Pre-Shang for example does not mention any specific inventions. The examples citied for evidence of pre-Chinese acupuncture are fringe and the wikipedia article on acupuncture make no note of them. Tea was first drunk in Yunnan, which is today part of China, and the first physical evidence of it according to wikipedia was found in a Han emperor's tomb. Given the geographical and archaeological evidence, disputing it as a "Chinese invention" seems pedantic as is arguments over the definition of a "bombard". Qiushufang (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball single-game home run leaders[edit]

Notified: Staxringold, WP:MLB

The list has numerous issues: (1) multiple sources are dead; (2) multiple sections of the lead lack inline citations; (3) the prose is choppy and written poorly, as it is just a list of random facts about four-home run games. I also feel like the scope of this article, as titled, isn't comprehensive. In reality this is a List of Major League Baseball four-home run games, which would be a better title that accurately captures the scope of this list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm happy to take a look at salvaging this one...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Gonzo_fan2007
  • Delist per Criterion #3 - Comprehensiveness. ChrisTheDude has done an admirable job and greatly improved the list. However, because MLB and 3rd party reliable sources track postseason single game records separately from the regular season, I strongly believe this list is not fully complete without the addition of the postseason record. This is especially true considering the lead specifically cites the postseason record of 3 HRs. ChrisTheDude, I am happy to switch my vote if this is something you are willing to implement. If so, please feel free to contact me directly to let me know of the change. Considering the rest of my comments have been resolved, I feel comfortable disengaging from this discussion at this time and would appreciate it if all editors would respect that. Thanks again ChrisTheDude for all the improvement you made to the article. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Giants2008
  • Comment – The biggest issue with the list is clearly the lead section. There's no reason that any article should have eight mostly stubby paragraphs in a lead. Bringing the lead in line with how the single-inning leaders list looks would be a major step forward, as much of the current uncited content would likely be removed, and sourcing the rest wouldn't be such a big job. If that's done, I see no reason why FL status couldn't be saved here. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
    • I'll get onto that in the coming week...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I have revised the lead somewhat, let me know what you think.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Lead looks better ChrisTheDude. More specific comments below above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:10, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I agree that the lead is much stronger. I won't declare a position in case I have to close the FLRC, but my major concern appears to have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep – improvements made by ChrisTheDude have taken this back to FL level. It is unnecessary to include the postseason single-game record, and doing so alone will not make this list meet criterion #3. The stubborn insistence of including this (detailed in all its glory above) is sadly mistaken and misguided. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)