Page move-protected

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 satisfy the FL 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 FLC process. Ones 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 peer review at the same time. Users 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 10 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

Toolbox
  1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that 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 post to 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. While 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 the 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. Alternately, 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 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 are discouraged (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}), 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:

Nominations[edit]

List of MLS Cup finals[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 08:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The greatest soccer championship in the non-soccer half of North America, featuring a mix of international and American sports heritage. As such, this list is based on other soccer cup lists, with a few elements taken from the NFL's Super Bowl list. SounderBruce 08:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

  • I think for accessibility there should be a symbol for the related wins rather than bold or italics.
  • I read "major U.S. expansion team" and was wondering what a minor expansion team was. After looking at the source this should specify this is for across all the major sports, not just MLS.
  • I don't see any other issues, looks great! Reywas92Talk 19:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Reywas92 and ChrisTheDude: Added symbols and colors for the remaining key elements. I'm having trouble deciding what to label a dual Supporters Shield-USOC winner as (in terms of color), but feel that the Supporters Shield should take precedent. The expansion team bit has also been fixed. SounderBruce 02:58, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • "The league also awards the Supporters' Shield to regular season winners." - needs rewording, as it could be interpreted that a Shield is given to all teams that win matches during the regular seasons
    • "Eight teams have also won "the double", claiming the MLS Cup and either the Supporters' Shield or U.S. Open Cup" - need to mention the Canadian Championship as well as the US Cup?
    • "Sixteen of the league's 23 teams" - aren't there 24 teams in MLS?
    • "The New England Revolution have appeared......but has" - bit of a grammar disconnect here
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comments. I have fixed the inconsistencies and omissions that you mentioned. As MLS had 23 teams during the 2018 season (increasing to 24 in 2019 and 26 in 2020), I've added an "as of" to the statement. SounderBruce 01:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @SounderBruce: - nice one. I didn't bother re-stating them, but I also endorse Reywas92's two points, so as and when those are addressed I will be happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Margaret[edit]

Nominator(s): ArturSik (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a complete list of Margaret's accolades and I think it meets the FL criteria. All the sources are reliable and the lead now includes all the relevant awards/info I think. ArturSik (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

List of Bandai Namco video game franchises[edit]

Nominator(s): Namcokid47 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the article has both passed its peer review, and is what I believe to be stable, informal and properly sourced from reliable areas. Namcokid47 (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

List of Kolkata Derby Matches[edit]

Nominator(s): SabyaC (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this article has in-detail list of all the Kolkata Derby matches and results.SabyaC (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)User: SabyaC

  • Oppose and quick fail - there is literally no prose (not even a lead!) and most of the content is not sourced. Absolutely nowhere near Featured standard -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to the lack of citations and a lead. I agree that this should be a quick fail as it is completely unprepared for an FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Agree with the two comments above, this is far from meeting the requirements for promotion and needs a considerable amount of work. Kosack (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Lonsdale Belt[edit]

Nominator(s): Okeeffemarc (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for Featured List as i believe it is an interesting and important topic. It is comprehensive, upto date and complete. It is also an excellent gateway for the reader to learn about British boxing and it's champions over the last 110 years. I am receptive to constructive criticism and suggestions as i want this to be a credit to the Wikipedia community.

It was also suggested here when i put this article forward as a FAC a few months back.

I have now changed the images to ensure they are free.

Kind regards, Okeeffemarc (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Lirim.Z[edit]

Question

Note: A good article can't be a featured list, as far as I know. Doesn't make sense.--Lirim | Talk 22:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Lirim.Z, i don't see anything in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria saying this, and there is no such thing as a Good List, as far as im aware? Okeeffemarc (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@Giants2008:, @PresN:, @The Rambling Man: Guys, can you clear this up?--Lirim | Talk 08:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
There's no reason as far as I'm concerned that we can't review this on the basis of a becoming a featured list. GA status certainly doesn't preclude it, and as there is no such thing as a Good List, this may be the only route to featured status for an article which at first glance appears to be more list than article. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with TRM and suggested at the FAC linked above that this article should be considered a list. If this does end up as a promotion, it should be simple enough to open a good article reassessment to have the GA status removed if that is deemed necessary. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Thirded, this is a list to my eyes and I wouldn't have promoted as a GA for that reason; that it was does not preclude it from FLC. I don't think a GAR would be needed if it passed FLC, just untagging, but I also tend to ignore procedural motions like that. --PresN 03:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

General

  • The picture needs an alt text - All the pictures have Alt text, i have expanded on them though
  • assumed responsibility for awarding the belt, which continues to be awarded to British champions as of 2018. assumed responsibility for awarding the belt, which continues to be awarded to British champions since then. (No need to mention as of 2018) - Done
  • In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC.[16] This was won by the lightweight Eric Boon that year.[17]In 1939 the last 9-carat gold belt was launched by the BBBofC, won by the lightweight Eric Boon that year. - Done


References

  • Don't use |work= for refs that are not newspapers, use publisher instead e.x for boxrec or bbc There were 2, thank goodness for CMD+F! Done.
  • Dont use all caps MOS:Caps, like in ref 3 - Done
  • Ref 4: Antiques Trade Gazette, 1 October 2011, page 22 Is this a book? By whom?
  • Some refs need authors if available, like Ref 153 - This is BoxRec, therefore not an individual author.
--Lirim | Talk 12:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Response[edit]
Thanks for the feedback and pointers so far. I have answered the points in Bold. Kind regards, Okeeffemarc (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Jessica Chastain[edit]

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

This listing of Jessica Chastain's awards and nominations will help me complete my Chastain trilogy. As usual, I'm looking forward to lots of constructive inputs. Cheers! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

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

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2018 (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) 11:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Looks good. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of number-one hip hop albums of 2017 (Germany)[edit]

Nominator(s): Lirim | Talk 00:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, this is my fourth list up as an FLC; I think it meets all the criteria. It's stable, the lead is long enough and gives enough information, five pictures are enough and the table should be alright. (All in my opinion obviously). Best regards, Lirim | Talk 00:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Oppose for now. It's a good start to the list, but this page needs a lot of work to bring it up to featured list standard. The second paragraph has no citations, there are odd typos "Th first album to top the chart". There are no links to other years. Sentences do not make sense: "The hip hop charts only include albums and were introduced on 1 April 2015". What about albums introduced on April 2? Why 2015 since this is a list for 2017? What exactly makes it "on the charts", is it record sales? If so, how many? Images on the right should have a caption per image. Images don't have alt text. That's just a 2 minute glance. Mattximus (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • "The official German hip hop album charts are record charts"=>"The official German hip hop album chart is a record chart"
      • You have partially fixed this, but you still have "charts" not "chart"
    • "The year opened with Palmen aus Plastik by German rapper Bonez MC and Austrian rapper RAF Camora[3] and was replaced in the following week" => "The first number one of the year was Palmen aus Plastik by German rapper Bonez MC and Austrian rapper RAF Camora,[3] which was replaced the following week"
      • You have partially fixed this but you still have "and was replaced" when it should be "which was replaced"
    • "The sampler album topped the chart for four consecutive weeks in summer." => "The sampler album topped the chart for four consecutive weeks during the summer."
    • "Royal Bunker, Jung Brutal Gutaussehend 3 and Revival" - Revival needs to be in italics too. Also you need to state who these albums are by, not just list the title.
    • "Generally it was dominated by German artists" => "The chart was dominated by German artists"
    • "with only four english albums reaching the top" => "with only four English-language albums reaching the top" (none of the acts in question are English)
    • "four english albums reaching the top, including" - you can't say "including" and then list them all, so replace "including" with "namely"
      • Not fixed
    • "Revival also was the last album to reach the top in December." => "Revival was the final album to reach the top in 2017."
    • In the image caption "non German" should be "non-German"
    • In the table, the scopes should be the album titles, not the dates
    • The table should be sortable (other than the ref column)
    • In the refs there are repeated uses of "Official german charts" - there should be a capital G on German
    • Are there any more independent sources that could be used? Literally every source bar one is from the official website.
  • Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: It's hard to find other refs. MTV publishes the charts also, but without an archive. Using the official links is the easist way.--Lirim | Talk 13:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Photo caption: ".....were the only non-German albums on the chart in 2017." - really? They were the only non-German albums to appear on the chart at all? Did you mean to say that? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Official Classical Singles Chart[edit]

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I originally nominated this article for FL status back in January, but the nomination was unsuccessful. Since then, I believe that the outstanding issues have been resolved, so I'm having another go. I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
  • The following part (In January 2013, following the release of his album In a Time Lapse, Einaudi's singles) is a little odd. I think that the beginning part of the joining phrase should be "Einaudi" rather than "Einaudi's singles" to connect back to the "his" in the preceding phrase.
  •  Rewritten Please let me know if you think this is an improvement. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • For this part (E. L. James, author of the original novel on which the film was based, said that she was "delighted" that her readers had been introduced to the piece of music), I think you can paraphrase the "delighted" quote.
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I believe for this part (At the time of the launch, classical music was becoming more popular in the UK:), it should be a semi-colon instead of a colon.
  •  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Other than these very nitpicky comments, I think the list is in great shape. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, Aoba! I'll try to find some time to review your list before the end of the week. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I supported before and don't see any compelling reason not to do so again -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Chris! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:22, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

List of longest-living members of the British royal family[edit]

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow editors! I am nominating this article because it is a comprehensive yet narrowly-scoped list of the longest living members of the British royal family. Please feel free to share your suggestions and comments here on any improvements this article may need to become a featured list! Thank you in advance. — West Virginian (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • "Member by blood" is linked in paragraph 2 but the term is used earlier - link it there instead
    • "She is also the longest-living member by blood" - as this comes after a string of royal women, it is a bit unclear to whom the "she" actually refers, so this could do with clarification
    • "deprived of their British titles in 1919 under the Titles Deprivation Act 1917" - might be worth adding a few words or a note to explain why this was done
    • "Elizabeth II (born 1926), is presently the sixth longest ever living British royal family member, the longest-living British monarch, and in September 2015, the longest ever reigning British monarch" => "Elizabeth II (born 1926), is presently the sixth longest ever living British royal family member, the longest-living British monarch, and, since September 2015, the longest ever reigning British monarch" - she didn't only hold the distinction of longest reigning monarch in that one month......
    • Most significantly, the chronology table is back-to-front - by definition a chronological list should be in chronological order, not reverse chronological order.......
    • Notes b & f and c & g are identical and could be combined
  • Hope this helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude, thank you tremendously for your suggestions and comments. I have address all your comments, and I thank you for sharing your guidance and expertise with me! Please let me know if you see anything else outstanding in this list! — West Virginian (talk) 16:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks much better. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Radiohead[edit]

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

My Talking Heads FLC has three supports so I think I'm good for my next song list: the English rock band Radiohead. Many of Radiohead's pages are featured or good articles and because their music has been so influential since the 1990s, I felt this list deserved better than this. As always, I'm open to any comments or concerns anyone might have. Happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately I have to oppose this right now as I think the lead is overlong - lots of waffle and too much detail. In fact I meant to add an "overlong lead" tag to the page earlier today but didn't get round to it. I may attempt to trim it soon myself. edit: I should add that your recent work on the article has been excellent and has greatly improved it. Popcornduff (talk) 09:14, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Popcornduff Thanks very much! I do think it seems a little long as well but I wanted to make sure I got everything since many of their albums were completely different from the ones that came before them. Any suggestions on how to trim it? I have some ideas but I'd like your opinion as well. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest less detail about the style and reception of each album. That stuff is relevant but not to the extent that it's currently covered. I don't think the lead for this article should be significantly longer than the Radiohead lead, as a rule. Popcornduff (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Popcornduff I trimmed it down more and it's now shorter than their main article's lead. I mainly trimmed down info about EPs and less info about OK Computer, In Rainbows, and The King of Limbs, as well as removed the info about The King of Limbs live album and The Help Album. Does it look better enough to no longer oppose? :-) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Great job trimming this down. I've done another copyedit, which was much easier because the lead was so much slimmer. I'm not sure it's kosher for a someone to support or oppose FAC noms when they've contributed a fair amount to the article themselves, so for now let's just say I'll withdraw my opposition.
I have a couple more suggestions and questions.
  • You differentiate some songs using colours *and* keys. Is it necessary to use both?
  • That's how other featured lists do it. I've also have nominated six songs lists for FL and have used this format for every one. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • OK. I have to say it seems pointless (and even distracting) to me but I won't challenge it. Popcornduff (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Do single releases include promo releases? If so should this be clarified? (I'm unsure on this myself.) But, for example, Lotus Flower is listed as a single presumably because it was a promo single - but Lift isn't, despite receiving a music video - is this correct? Again, I'm unsure exactly about what counts as a single or promo single, so maybe the article is already correct... just making sure.
  • Yes. Some articles differentiate promo singles from regular singles but because Radiohead has not released that many promo singles I just combined them. "Lotus Flower" had a music video and was released as a promo single but no official commercial singles were released for The King of Limbs. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I understand. I think combining promo singles and commercial singles is definitely a good call. But to clarify: Lift isn't considered a promo single, right? Even though it had a music video. Popcornduff (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • As a result of my last copyedit one source has ended up looking a bit weird - "featured a sound[4]" - I'm guessing we can just get rid of this citation as it's not clear what exactly it's citing any more...
  • There are still a couple of bits in the lead that are a bit vague for my liking. For example, there's a fairly concrete description of Kid A - influences from these genres, etc. But for The Bends we get abstractions like "displayed the band's musical growth". Same for OKC. If possible I think it'd be good to dig through the wiki pages for those bands and get some more concrete descriptions of what distinguishes those albums.Popcornduff (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It's hard for Kid A and In Rainbows because their wiki pages don't really describe what the songs are like, mainly their genres. I've listened to Kid A but not In Rainbows so I'm not sure myself. I'll keep looking. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'll see if I can improve this myself. Popcornduff (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Popcornduff Comments above. Thanks very much for your help! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
One more thought. I question some of the production credits here. For example, Godrich isn't credited as a producer on Harry Patch - is there a production credit somewhere for that? The source provided doesn't clarify. And isn't OKC credited to Radiohead and Godrich? Popcornduff (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Actually according to liner notes for both, "Harry Patch" was produced by the group solely and OK Computer was solely produced by Godrich (at least that's how it's credited). BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Meghan Trainor[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ 16:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets FL criteria. Lists I used as reference while writing it included List of songs recorded by Katy Perry and List of songs recorded by Taylor Swift. I don't see anything that would hinder it from being featured. All input is appreciated. Thanks.--NØ 16:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from theJoebro64[edit]

Expect comments by Sunday; if not ping me JOEBRO64 21:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

List of Albania international footballers[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have reworked the page to match my other recent international footballers FLs. I believe this list now stands alongside them and meets the FL criteria. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • "As of October 2018, Albania have played 324 international fixtures, winning 79, drawing 68 and losing 177" - we're now in November, are these figures up to date?
    • Why are all the player names in bold?
  • Think that's it from me.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. The figures are up to date (although only until tomorrow). I put October to avoid confusion with their two upcoming fixtures this month. Removed the bolding. Kosack (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I don't think I have anything else -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 1995[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Apologies to FLC regulars bored with country music by now, but 18 of these lists have now been promoted, so here's #19. Don't worry, I only have another 55 potentially ready to bring here ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • Any reason the second paragraph has no refs?
  • Ref → ref abbreviation

Looks good as always. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Second paragraph now has one ref. Nothing else in the paragraph needs a reference, because it is summarising info in the table (i.e. there is no need for a ref to show that only Alan Jackson had three number ones, as the table clearly shows that......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – As always, great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

List of Indian Nobel laureates[edit]

Nominator(s): The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because since the past nom some three years ago, the article have undergone a significant amount of changes and additions. The problems raised in the previous nomination were sorted out and therefore changes were incorporated into the article. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments
  • These links should be fixed.
  • You need to mention somewhere in the first para that the awards are given by the Swedish and Norwegian institutions.
  • Make sure all the images have alt text.
  • Most of the links are not properly formatted. Provide the title and the publisher.
Not done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. Publisher added in all links and access date updated. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The Geir Lundestad quote on Gandhi seems redundant to me. You can simplify in a sentence.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Done. Alt texts for the table entries were kept as such but !scope is used in the table to provide blue links to the corresponding articles. Also I've added empty alt fields per MOS. Thanks The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • All tables need scope rows and scope cols. You're good on scope rows in the first table
  • I think the lead image of Tagore should be replaced with a regular infobox but that's just my opinion. You can wait to see what other editors say about it.
  • All images need alt text
  • Care if I center the year column?
  • Use plainrowheaders in the tables
  • If it was jointly awarded to Malala in 2014 shouldn't she be in the table?
  • Quick correction, I meant shouldn't her image be in the table together with Satyarthi? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
That would again be redundant since the article is specifically about Indians. Her name in the brackets would serve better than to add an entire image, IMO. It would be like blue sea, instead of links, its pictures...The Herald (Benison) (talk) 20:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh I see now and because she's not Indian. My bad, all good. :-) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Lead: "Committee.They" – space
  • Lead: 5 and 7 should be spelled out per MOS:NUMS
  • Ref 4 & 15 doesn't have the correct dating style

Looks good. Great job on this! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@BeatlesLedTV: All done save infobox. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the purpose of an infobox is "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." To add one into a list article like this where already all the information is pretty much summed up as three tables (each containing only their Nobel Prize subject, rationale and year) would be superfluous, IMO. Thanks for the review.. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:17, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah as I was writing my comments I realized an infobox really isn't needed in this type of list since it's just listing Indians who have won the Nobel Prize, not the Nobel Prize itself. Anyways, looks much better, happy to support. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Support; comments resolved. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 15:13, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry

  • It's worth mentioning the year in which the prize was instituted/first awarded.
  • "The Nobel Prize is a set of annual international awards bestowed on "those who conferred the greatest benefit on humankind" in the fields of Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, Peace and Economic Sciences.[1][2], instituted by Alfred Nobel's last will, which specified that part of his fortune be used to create a series of prizes." - A punctuation error after Economic Sciences?
  • This is still unclear. The latter half of the sentence doesn't follow from the first part. Vensatry (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "some more than once." - Seems like a comma splice error.
  • "... the only woman among the list" -> the only woman among the list of recipients/laureates
  • Any reason for highlighting Sri Aurobindo's nomination(s) before Mahatma Gandhi's? We usually follow chronological ordering in these lists.
  • "... in 1937–39" - This should either be "in 1937, 1938, 1939 ..." or "from 1937 to 1939".
  • Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi -> Mahatma Gandhi per WP:COMMONNAME
  • "In 2006, Geir Lundestad, the Secretary of Norwegian Nobel Committee, cited it as "the greatest omission in our 106-year history" - The first ref. doesn't have the quote. The second one (book) seems to be first published in 2001 - five years before Lundestad made the claim.
  • Can you find some non-Indian sources? Vensatry (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "first Asian to be awarded with the Nobel Prize" - The claim is not sourced.
  • One-line descriptions (of tables) are often discouraged. It's better to use them as captions.
  • Use plainrowheaders in tables.
  • This one is a suggestion - you could include the life spans of the recipients in the table (preferably under each of the names).
  • What makes history.com a reliable source?
  • Correct the publisher parameter (you've used the author name) for ref#6.
  • Include the names of the books in refs #8 and #10. [2] and [3].
  • Add "publisher" for ref #12.
  • 'the Ministries/Departments in the Government of India' is not a single body. Vensatry (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Vensatry (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. Aurobindo is mentioned first disregarding the chronology because Gandhi invokes a special mentioning and deserves a whole paragraph. Adding it before would make it less catchy to the lead as a whole and thus losing the emphasis it requires. Hence it is placed second. Thank you for your valuable review and comments. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. How about including R. K. Narayan? Vensatry (talk) 20:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
All done. R K Narayan is notable but so is Nehru and multiple other personalities. Aurobindo received multiple nominations (for two different fields) and is indeed a bigger notable figure. Hence he is added. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Ah, never knew that Nehru was nominated eleven times. IMO, this is all set once the opening sentence of the lead is reworked a bit. Vensatry (talk) 05:10, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not convinced this list should exist in the first place, let alone be a WP:Featured list. It would seem to be a non-encyclopaedic cross-categorization, which is not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon per WP:NOT. The same applies to the corresponding lists for Argentina, Australia, Belgium, China, Denmark, and so on. TompaDompa (talk) 01:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources and with over a quarter million annual readership, I'm sure the article is valid in its existence. Please go though the AfD discussion for more details. All the citations are verified and from relaible sources and all the criterion from WP:WIAA are clearly fulfilled. Within the past 13 years from its creation, the article was very much near to perfection. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't really see anything in the AfD, the article itself, or on the talk page thereof which demonstrates that the intersection of Indians and Nobel laureates is a culturally significant phenomenon. By contrast, List of Jewish Nobel laureates notes in its WP:LEAD that the percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates is at least 112.5 times or 11,250% above average. Various theories have been made to explain this phenomenon, which has received considerable attention. Prominent late Israeli academics Dr. Elay Ben-Gal and Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, curious about the phenomenon, started to form an encyclopedia of Jewish Nobel laureates and interview as many as possible about their life and work. Could something similar be added to this list? TompaDompa (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the current lead is in compliance with WP:LEAD as well as the comments and reviews per this nom page. Or would you like to suggest another change? For example, what exact kind of more information should the lead contain further more so that it may be complete yet not too long for a FL article. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
what exact kind of more information should the lead contain further more so that it may be complete yet not too long for a FL article Well, that would be information which demonstrates that the intersection of Indians and Nobel laureates is a culturally significant phenomenon. TompaDompa (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

List of Local Nature Reserves in Norfolk[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Local Nature Reserves and is in the same format as FLs such as Kent and Suffolk. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • Lead image seems a little big to me
  • In lead, "of which seven" → seven of which
  • 'What to see' on the information page at [4] is blank and I cannot find any information elsewhere. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Barnham Cross Common: sixty → 60 (later you use 40 instead of forty; make sure you're consistent)

Everything else looks good. Great job to you! Care to check out my current FLC? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Any chance of a slightly more informative/descriptive caption for the lead image?
    • Done (with a slightly different image). Dudley Miles (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    • "This grassland and heath common has diverse habitats and a rich flora" - is a flora a correct usage? Should it not just be flora?
    • This is a tricky one but I have tried googling. "and a rich flora" gets 58,000 hits, "and rich flora" gets 41,000. I think both are correct and I prefer my version. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    • "A ahort stretch" - typo there I think :-)

List of S&P 1000 companies[edit]

Nominator(s): XOLE2129 (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it has met the potential to provide valuable information towards individuals and groups with particular interests in business and finance. As a requested article, I have consolidated information provided by S&P 400, List of S&P 400 companies, and other reputable online sources in order to create this list which shows information of 1000 companies that are tracked by Standard & Poor's index. The article contains non-copyright images, and table-sort facilities that help users navigate the page from all devices. Also, it provides background information in regards to the index, as well as technical information. XOLE2129 (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

  • I think this article needs a lot more information in the lead and bout the S&P 1000 itself, especially because there is no corresponding S&P 1000 Index to expand on this. Looking at S&P 500 Index, very little of this sort of information is in this list detailing its background.
  • I don't know why the Russell 1000 is mentioned in the second sentence. Tell me everything about the S&P 1000 first, then comparative indices.
  • No comma between exchanges and NYSE.
  • I don't see where in the source for there being 1001 companies actually says 1001, nor why it's not 1000.
  • The last sentence of the lead is meaningless: What technical data? What is Capital IQ? There's no wiki article for it, and the source links to a useless log in page.
  • Why are the constituents split into two lists? This nullifies the ability to sort by name or anything else.
  • How are changes to the list made?
  • The 500 article discusses the weighting formula, why doesn't this?
  • Not that you have to copy the other article, but List of S&P 500 companies is fairly different from this list.
  • So I oppose for now. I think this has a way to go. Reywas92Talk 06:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


To Reywas92, the article definitely needed to cover some of the points that you have mentioned.

  • For your first point, the S&P 1000 is just the combination of S&P 400 and S&P 600, which are just the top nth number of companies in the market index. Hence, there isn't much information that could be written about S&P 1000 Index. Though I only provided background information on S&P 1000 and S&P, the reader can refer to S&P 500 (the main index) and S&P for more information, since it is only a list which combines two indexes.
  • Thanks for noticing that! I added similarities and differences between the indexes. I added it in the second sentence as there is usually confusion between the two. One just excludes BDC and the other doesn't.
  • Changed minor error with comma between exchanges and NYSE.
  • Added a source. Although you do need to log in to Capital IQ as it is a commercial/educational platform, it is the most reputable because it is offered as a subsidiary of S&P.
  • Added more information about Capital IQ.
  • Explained weighting formula. Mentioned briefly how the list is changed. Linked to more information for a more technical response.

I do have a question for other Wikipedians. A 1003 row list is fairly large, and it gets laggy on mobile devices and sometimes laptops/desktops. I understand that it's harder to sort by name etc., but how do I go fixing that? Do we just accept that the page can be laggy for some users?

Thanks! XOLE2129 (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


Hi, I had a think about it for a few days and I realised that it would be more effective overall if the table is combined for functionality, as what you have mentioned. I also removed the 'collapse initially' option to make it quicker for users to navigate the article, with an option to collapse if they're just after the information in the beginning.

Thanks again, I hope you reconsider this article to be a suitable nomination for featured list with the improvements that I have made based on your comments.

XOLE2129 (talk) 06:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV
  • I agree with Reywas92, this list does seem extremely big (almost 200k bytes); maybe you could separate the list into A–L and M–Z or something?
  • 'Holdings by region' table isn't consistent with the other tables (col headings should be dark)
  • I find it weird that the table is collapsible when it's the main table; honestly shouldn't be
  • Change date refs to month day, year not YYYY-MM-DD
  • Images need alt text
  • There's also only 11 refs. Feel like there should be more
  • I would bold 'S&P 1000' in the beginning
  • Since this list is American, make sure to use American English (capitalisation → capitalization; annualised → annualized; etc.)
  • Why are the dates in the image captions DD MMM, YY? Change to American dating
  • Lead "index.The S&P" – space
  • Many of the companies in the table are redirects and aren't properly stylized (for example: Aaon Inc should be AAON Inc.)
  • Acxiom is now known as LiveRamp
  • I would put a content box above the table so you can click a letter and it would go to the first company with that letter for better navigation

Still needs work. I'm sorry but for now I'm going to have to oppose. I do want to see what other editors have to say about it being too large because in my opinion it is. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


Comments from XOLE2129
  • Hi, I originally had the list separated from A-K, L-Z. However, Reywas92 mentioned that it'll ruin the functionality of the table sort (alphabetical order), so I changed it based on that feedback. However, I am entirely open for editors to discuss which option would be better suited.
  • Fixed all graphics and formalities (date, alternative text), thank you!
  • It is a table combined from two individual ones, so it is hard to add more information (and therefore references), since it is a list. Though, there should be a main S&P 1000 article but unfortunately there isn't.
  • The content box would be an interesting addition in the article but would I need to do one for every letter? Disregard that, I assumed that the contents box would be vertical so it would have made the list excessively not proportionate and long.

Again, it's open for discussion on the function of the actual list (whether it should be sorted, or separated since the list is big). I only made the table collapseable because the article is big. Regards, XOLE2129 (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from UnitedStatesian
  • Strongest possible oppose for this ever being a featured list.
  • With that out of the way, kudos to XOLE2129 for the work put in.
  • With that out of the way, here are the reasons:
  • Significant overlap (40%) with an existing list, List of S&P 400 companies, that is already maintained by numerous active editors.
  • Almost guaranteed to be out of date all the time: for instance, the list currently contains Jack Henry & Associates Inc and Lamb Weston Holdings Inc; both are no longer in the 1000.
  • Too large, as has been pointed out above.
  • Too many nonlinks, thus violating the guideline for list inclusion.

UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Cardinal electors for the 2005 papal conclave[edit]

Nominator(s): RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 06:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

In light of the success of my previous nomination, here are the cardinals who elected Benedict XVI in 2005. Comments and suggestions made on the 2013 list have been incorporated in this one, which is almost identical in style, so there should be no major issues. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 06:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

My only comment is that I don't understand this bit at all: "The number of votes required to be elected pope with a two-thirds supermajority and with a one-half simple majority were 77 and 58, respectively". How can there be two different numbers of votes required to be elected? The article doesn't explain this..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:30, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Clarified accordingly. The simple majority would have only come into use in the case of a protracted stalemate (which didn't happen here). RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense. In that case support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

List of number-one hits of 2017 (Germany)[edit]

Nominator(s): Lirim | Talk 10:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

My third list up for FLC. Added Refs, pictures and made the lead bigger. I think this meets the criteria. Lirim | Talk 10:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment - just my opinion, but I think the singles number ones and albums number ones should be separate lists (articles). I've never seen both combined in this way on WP for any other territory/year..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Small problem, this format has been used for more than sixty lists, probably in accordance with the German articles.[5] I can't decide on my own to split all these articles in two seperate lists.--Lirim | Talk 12:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
The lists for Austria and Switzerland use the same format.--Lirim | Talk 12:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries by Rohit Sharma[edit]

Nominator(s): Political Cricketer, Vensatry (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Rohit Sharma has had a phenomenal success in ODIs since 2013. His figures in the format stand next only to Virat Kohli. Political Cricketer created the article (happy to include him as a co-nom) and I expanded the lead and tidied up the table. As always, look forward to comments. Vensatry (talk) 11:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • In the first sentence, "twenty one" should be 21
      • Either one should be fine. Let's stick with words. Vensatry (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "In October 2013, he became the third player to score a double-century" - picky, maybe, but clarify that he was the third player in ODIs to achieve this
    • "highest individual total by a batsman in the format as of October 2018" - we're now in November...........
    • "highest score by a visiting batsman against Australia until England's Jason Roy made 180 against Australia" - second "against Australia" isn't needed
    • "In December 2017, he became the first player to score three double centuries in ODIs" - source?
    • "and he is only player" => "and he is the only player"
  • Hope this helps! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Fixed all. Thanks for the review. Vensatry (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comments
    • Link not out in the lead too.
    • Provide references for ODI and T20I debut matches.
    • "Test centuries scored by Rohit Sharma" seems unnecessary to mention since page is only for rohit sharma. Instead you can write as "Centuries scored in Test cricket". Similarly for ODI and T20I.
  • Other than those, all looks OK. Sa Ga Vaj 15:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Sagavaj: Fixed all. Thanks for the review. Vensatry (talk) 09:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support my concerns addressed. Sa Ga Vaj 15:48, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support --Binod Basnet (talk) 08:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

List of AFL debuts in 2008[edit]

Nominator(s): Allied45 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Continuing my quest to develop more Australian Football League-related featured content, this will hopefully be my third FL this year after successfully getting Norm Smith Medal and List of Gold Coast Football Club players promoted. This time I have turned my eye to developing a format for VFL/AFL debut lists that can hopefully then be replicated across this series of existing lists. Allied45 (talk) 22:49, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments - looks good, just one minor point spotted so far: key tables should not have a full stop at the end of text that isn't a complete sentence. Also, given that the key says, for example, "The number of games played in 2008", is it really necessary to say "Statistics are updated as of the conclusion of the 2008 season"? Surely that's obvious/implied...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks ChrisTheDude, all fixed. Allied45 (talk) 08:50, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Cardinal electors for the papal conclave, May 1605[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

The next in the 17th century conclaves series I am working, this conclave only followed a month after the previous one (list of electors), and was pretty easy to make work of since there were only a few changes in the electorate in that month (two deaths, a few arrivals, and sickness). The conclave this list goes with is one of the more entertaining ones and features some of the best drama from saints and other leading figures of the late 16th and early 17th century Catholic church. I tried to capture these in the captions to the images, as I think they fit better there than in the prose, and I welcome any critiques on improving this list. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Support TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It might not be completely up to my standards, but it's certainly good enough for me to support. RAVENPVFF | talk ~ 02:08, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose I'm truly sorry but I don't see why this isn't simply an expansion of the brief Papal conclave, May 1605 article, and a bid for FA. Once again, TompaDompa's 3b acceptance here seems very peculiar to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
    • The Rambling Man, long-term, that is the plan for this series (taking the 17th century ones to GA/FL/FA). I’ve been removing the lists from the articles for a few reasons because 1) they’re generally sourced to self-published sources and require a lot of effort to source the lists like this and 2) I think the format that exists for the 20th and 21st century conclaves of having a list of electors that is distinct from the article is better. I’ve seen several of the older conclave GAs with lists and I personally find them overwhelming and distracting from the prose of the article when incorporated. I agree that the May 1605 article is short now, but when/if it is eventually expanded, I think having the list as a part of it rather than as a separate page would be less useful for readers. At least I tend to ignore incorporated tables in articles, and I see value in having them distinct so people who are more interested in the various electors themselves can have a treatment of them that is focused. It’s fine if you disagree, but thought I’d explain my logic here for the choice in this format. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Tony, I appreciate your explanation. I think your best bet is to just go all-in on one of these, merge the table and the GA header article, and head to FAC. I'm never going to turn down a great FL but I really can't, hand on heart, go for this one as an FL based on the really brief main article. I should also note that my opinion here is simply as a reviewer, and that others may (and probably will) disagree, and I'm not playing any kind of trump card on it. I hope you understand. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
        • Understood completely, though I disagree that it would improve the main article to have it there, to the point where I’d be fine with neither of them going to FL/FA if people think they’re too similar. My honest view is that a merge would be a net negative for the article, and keeping it readable and useful for the readers is what I care about more than the icons on the top. People can disagree in good faith on the best way to achieve that, which we seem to do here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
          • Honestly, I think it would form a part of the main article which would eventually be auto-collapsed. Until the main article can be so large as to sustain a spin-off, I'm not sure I could legimitately support it standalone. I think TompaDompa is using a different approach to 3b, but let's see what the other FL delegate and director say since this is clearly going to be somewhat contentious, and possibly precedent-ial. Thanks for your approach, by the way. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
            • No problem. I don’t mind discussion about these things ever. I’ve been pretty busy the last 6 or so months IRL, which is why I’ve mainly been focused on the easier admin type things than the conclave project (content being harder to do than mashing buttons...) I’ll have some time later in the week/this weekend to go over the main article again, and I think I might have some ideas there that could help with your objections. Part of my reticence here is that I’m trying to get this series of articles and lists to the point where it can be used as a sort of example of half-decent Catholic historical content, and that incorporating lists has traditionally been a way that articles in this area get away with not having reliably sourced prose. Tangential to the FL discussion, but I think it helps explain the choices I’ve made: I view it more of a long term project getting done piece by piece. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
              • Okay, cool, just let me know if you'd like more from me. For complete clarity, I'm just a single reviewer here, nothing more. If consensus weighs against my position, no problem either. I think you have a really strong Featured Topic in the making, once you merge these lists with their GAs. It could be more awesome than my Boat Race GA series (160+ and counting)... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
                • My view is that it is fine having them as one article or two, but as two cardinal lists have already been promoted to FL it is better to carry on with two rather than have a confusing mixture of styles. I think it would be very helpful to have hatnotes on the articles on each conclave cross-referencing as e.g. {{about|the list of electors for the March 1605 conclave|the conclave itself|Papal conclave, March 1605}}. I would like to see a decision on the principle before I review. Views of Giants2008 and PresN? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────On the previous one in this century I had a participants section with a hatnote in the section. That could also work here (and is something I intended to do when talking above, but RL and other stuff on WP happened.) Currently it’s a see also in the main article, but it can be changed pretty easily and I can incorporate in content. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Apparently I was pinged to this FLC before and missed it. Sorry about that. I don't recall seeing it on my notification list, but my apologies nonetheless. I looked at this list and the main article and hate to further muddy the waters, but if I was editing the pages in question I would merge them under the papal conclave page (since I see TRM's point about whether separate articles are needed) and nominate it here, not at FAC. In cases like this where it's borderline whether a page counts as an article or list for FAC/FLC purposes, I like to look at the size of the prose in relation to the table size. On my computer, the list is almost twice the size of the body prose, which tells me that a merged page should probably be treated as a list. Some of our FLs with history sections and the like actually have prose sizes similar to this article. If the main papal conclave article had the table added and was nominated at FAC, I think there's a substantial chance that they would refer it back here. I hate to point such interesting articles away from FAC, but I have to call them like I see them. Of course, if consensus develops for a cross-referencing system, I could live with that. Let's see if anyone else has any thoughts, as it seems like we're pretty divided here. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I'd be happy to see the conent of the GA merged into this list and then taken once again through FLC. The GA is pretty sparse so it wouldn't be a big task. I certainly still have concerns over the way in which TompaDompa is interpreting the 3b rule, as this one, in particular, is a clear-cut case, just whether to merge into FL or FA. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
My concern is that I think that papal conclave articles should be in a consistent format. If this article should be merged then so should the two articles which have already passed FLC. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
That's certainly something to consider after the conclusion of this. We can't, from this FLC, mandate any merge of material. That would be up to the principal editors and probably need other discussions. Right now, this is about this FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
If everyone will let me flesh out the article a bit more tomorrow, I’d appreciate it. It was one of my first major articles, and looking back on it, I agree I could add a lot more, especially when compared to other articles I’ve worked on in this series. →I’ve spent the better part of the last year cleaning up the self-published lists from microstubs and actually having them tell the story of the conclaves. I think merging back in would distract from the narrative, which is in my view more important than the list of participants. I’ve been putting off expanding the GA, but since there seems to be pressure to move along, I’ll make it my top priority tomorrow. I do appreciate everyone’s feedback here, even if we don’t all agree. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
No pressure from here, Tony. I made my position clear about a month ago. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I do not think this article should be considered in isolation from other papal conclave articles which have already passed FLC, but we will have to agree to disagree on that. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I think past performance is no guide to the future. Let's deal with here and now, and if that impacts past endeavours, so be it. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Lesley Manyathela Golden Boot[edit]

Nominator(s): Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the page contains a well sourced and informative list of seasonal goal scoring achievements by footballers in the South African Premier Division. South African football is not comprehensively covered and the list thus provides a reliable source of information for viewers. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Comments from ChrisTheDude
    • Rather than simply referring to "in honour of the late Lesley Manyathela", I would explain who he actually was by saying "in honour of Lesley Manyathela, a South African international striker who died [etc]"
    • I would put the image of Parker below the "winners" heading - it looks odd straddling it
    • Don't think the word "conversely" is needed in the lead, especially since it doesn't immediately follow the info about the highest-ever season total
    • "The 2017–18 season saw" - a season can't "see" something
  • Think that's it from me.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Response
    • Hi ChrisTheDude, thank you for taking the time to help with this nomination.
      • I have added more infomation on Manyathela, highlighting that he was a former international and recipient of the award.
      • I have moved the image to below the "winners" heading
      • I agree that the sentences don't flow and removed the word "conversely"
      • I have tweaked the wording of the final para of the lede, let me know what you think.
    • Thanks again, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • "....after Polokwane City and Mamelodi Sundowns forwards Rodney Ramagalela and Percy Tau both ended the campaign on 11 goals" - this wording is slightly confusing, it could be interpreted as saying that both players played for both clubs. Maybe "....after forwards Rodney Ramagalela of Polokwane City and Percy Tau of Mamelodi Sundowns both ended the campaign on 11 goals".........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


Comments from TompaDompa
  1. Images should have WP:ALT text for WP:ACCESSIBILITY reasons.
  2. If there are photographs of the current holders available, having them in the infobox would be nice.
  3. Since the award was renamed, it should be mentioned what it was called before.
  4. The WP:LEAD is a a bit short. There is plenty of space to expand it.
  5. The "Ref(s)" column should be "Ref(s)" (i.e. {{abbr|Ref(s)|Reference(s)}}).
  6. Since the players do not represent the countries they are from but the clubs they play for, including their nationalities is not appropriate.

TompaDompa (talk) 20:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

  • Response

Hi TompaDompa, thank you for the feedback.

  • I have added ALT text and removed one image due to a factual inaccuracy.
  • There are unfortunately no images of the current winners, or of those mentioned in the lede. Do you think the image of Parker should be used?
  • The award had no previous name. I have reworded the lede to mention the colloquial name and that it was named - rather than renamed - in 2003.
  • I have added some more info to the lede. Let me know if you think more is required.
  • Added wiki code for Ref.
  • I've left the nationalities in, though. I do believe it is relevant has place in equivalent FL's such as Premier League Golden Boot.

Thanks again for your comments, please let me know if you have any other concerns. Also, ChrisTheDude, please see the abovementioned edits and let me know if you are still happy to support the nom or if there are new tweaks which you feel need to be made. Thanks. Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

It's better to keep the image of Parker where it is. I stand by what I said about nationalities; the players don't represent their countries but their clubs, and this use of flags is proscribed by MOS:SPORTFLAGS. TompaDompa (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
I'll keep the Parker image where it is then, thanks. I disagree with the interpretation of MOS:SPORTFLAGS, though. The nationality of club players is commonly used on like football pages: see Premier League Golden Boot, Premier League Golden Glove, European Golden Shoe, Capocannoniere, List of Ligue 1 top scorers... Liam E. Bekker (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and I would say all of those pages contravene the principle of not emphasizing nationality without good reason. TompaDompa (talk) 21:02, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Just checking in to say yes I am still happy to support..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi TompaDompa, please see recommendations below, particularity with regards to nationality, and let me know if the changes I've made cover your concerns. Thanks. 07:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'm fairly sure that Apartheid isn't supposed to be treated as a proper noun and doesn't need the capitalization.
  • Reference 1 requires an access date, like the other source links have in their citations. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Response

Hi Giants2008, thank you for your comments. I have addressed the issues raised. Cheers, Liam E. Bekker (talk) 11:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – My couple of comments have been adequately addressed and the list looks to be in good shape. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of Rajasthan Royals cricketers[edit]

Notified: Vibhijain, WikiProject Indian Premier League

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the main table in this list has not been updated since 2015 and the information in the lead had become out-dated.Sa Ga Vaj 00:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

TBF it's not quite as dramatic as it sounds, as Rajasthan didn't compete in 2016 or 2017, so there's only this year's stats missing........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: but if you look closely, the stats are incomplete even for the 2015 season. Sa Ga Vaj 11:20, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)