Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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, Crisco 1492 and SchroCat—determine the timing of the process for each nomination; each nomination will last at least 10 days (though most last at least a week longer)—longer 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 the 10-day period has passed, a director 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 {{ArticleHistory}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.  – Table of Contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists ← Featured pictures Featured sounds Featured portals Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Today's featured list This month's queue Main page requests TFL statistics Featured list log Former featured lists Removal candidates log

Nomination procedure Toolbox Disambig links Edit count External links Alt text Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that Peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. 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. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. 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 edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated more than 20 days 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: Timeline of the 2013 Pacific hurricane season (FLC) List of nearest exoplanets (FLC) List of Junior Eurovision Song Contest winners (FLC) Azealia Banks discography (FLC) List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Danish Kaneria (FLC) List of Bermuda T20I cricketers (FLC) National symbols of Sri Lanka (FLC) edit · history · watch · refresh

Nominations

List of awards and nominations received by Laurence Olivier

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier was a superlative actor who was—alongside Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud—one of the finest of his generation. He was a huge presence on the stage, in film and in theatrical management – and he was active in radio and on television too. For all his endeavours awards and laurels were heaped upon him This list has had a major makeover recently, in line with the Olivier article itself (which is now FA-rated), and his career history (now FL-rated). All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)===List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset===

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 21:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The is the sixth (and penultimate) list of Scheduled monuments in Somerset. It follows the format of the previous lists but is considerably larger, particularly in the number of bowl barrows, cairns, stone rows and standing stones. All entries are referenced and images have been provided where suitably licenced pictures are available. Any comments appreciated. — Rod ^talk 21:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick comments from Harrias ^talk

• Again there is a mix of metric (imperial) and imperial (metric) for units, which I think would benefit from one consistent format.

• Thanks for spotting these. I have flipped a few so they should all be metric (imperial) but if you spot any more please shout.— Rod ^talk 22:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• I know you favour keeping the EH titles, but "Alderman's Barrow at N of Almsworthy Common" doesn't make grammatical sense to me?

• I have take out the "at" but should still be searchable under the EH title.— Rod ^talk 22:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• I know there isn't really any logical way to split this down, but this list seems to be bordering on being too long for me. Harrias ^talk 21:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• As you know I have already spilt Somerset into 7 lists and can't see how to split it further. There is one more to come which is slightly longer than this one.— Rod ^talk 22:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Couple of comments from Keith D

• There appears to be a problem with the linkage to note a.

• Hopefully fixed.— Rod ^talk 22:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• With the split of English Heritage in April may be a good idea to change over the URLs and name to the Historic England site which is already live. Suggest using {{NHLE}} for the references to pick up the new web site and name as this future proofs against any further changes as it keeps all instances of web site in one place.

• I will look at this tomorrow, however as all the links still work I may be able to do a global find & replace English Heritage to Historic England, rather than having to reformat hundreds of refs.— Rod ^talk 22:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Publisher updated.— Rod ^talk 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Keith D (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for these comments. Hopefully link to note "a" & publisher updated.— Rod ^talk 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

World Fantasy Special Award—Professional

Nominator(s): PresN 18:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Whelp, the World Fantasy Award for Best Artist FLC closed, so time to move down the line to the 7th World Fantasy Award list, and #33 overall in our perpetual FLC series. I don't like this award. Not that it isn't fine in concept- a catchall award for professionals not covered by the written or artist categories (your editors, publishers, etc.). No, my issue starts with the name (An mdash? Really?) and ends with the utter lack of consistency in the stated reasons- a given person may be nominated one year as "for editing Magazine X", and the next as "for Magazine X". Ugh. Not to mention that a few times companies were nominated instead of individuals- that's just nonsense. I've faithfully transcribed what was awarded, though, so here it all is. As always, this list should look very familiar, since it keeps the standard award list formatting of my other FLs, and comments from prior FLCs have been brought forward here. Thanks all for reviewing! --PresN 18:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 Cricket World Cup squads

Nominator(s): RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it fulfills the criteria. There were some unreferenced teams, which I have fixed. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Blackhole78, Joseph2302, Shagadelicbasil23: Informing the major contributors of this list of this nom. Cowlibob (talk) 11:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Looking at the featured list criteria, I think it has a chance- it's the first time an article I've worked on has been nominated, so I don't really know much more to say. I've done a few minor date fixes, and added a picture of the MCG, as it was lacking in pictures. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: the lead is exceptionally short for an article of this length, and does not sufficiently summarise the content. The tables all lack row scopes, which are required for accessibility. The tables would further benefit greatly from being sortable, and does not require the flags in the final column (in fact, MOS:FLAG frowns upon the flags being used like this anyway.) The lead image requires alt text for accessibility. The tables appear to be unreferenced, as it is unclear which (if any) citation covers them. It needs to be made clear when the ages and the number of matches played refers to (the start of the tournament, the final?) The section headings should not be linked, and definitely should not include flags. It would be useful to include appearances in the tournament as an additional column, to give an indication of who played, and how much. Harrias ^talk 18:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Please wait for a couple of days, Joseph2302 has already strated working, and me too. I hope within 2 or 3 days, the article will be according to your suggestions. RRD13 দেবজ্যোতি (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

There's no rush, featured list candidates have to be open for at least ten days, and most are closer to a month. Harrias ^talk 18:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment:I've added a lead, with a better summary of the scope of the article i.e. more about the 2015 Cricket World Cup, and clarified the ODI and age figures in the lead section. I can see how the referencing of player details looks bad, so am going to add sources for them (it'll take ages to do, because I need to run a stats query into a database for each player, to get the correct info at 14 Feb). I guess using similar queries on the same database I can also find all matches played in the World Cup, and add this. Flags I can deal with too, but I'll probably do it last. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Also, I'm planning to add total World Cup appearances after the tournament finishes on Sunday, using sources from here. We're currently working on the nightmare task of adding sources for all the currently listed player stats, as we need 2 sources for each player (so over 400 sources in total). There's unfortunately not a more efficient way, I searched every cricket stats site. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Question to the nominator – I'm not sure if your are a major contributor to this list. Leaving that aside, did you go through the criteria and ensure that this list meets the prime requirements of an FL. Also, are you aware of WP:PR? —Vensatry _(ping) 18:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

83rd Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2011 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. The presenters and performers are cited with two links each containing a minute-by-minute log of the presenters and the awards they each gave out and the performers and songs. The St. Louis Post Dispatch links are working.Birdienest81 (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Support I can now safely say this meets FL standards Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Fine looking list. Only correction I can see is making presenters singular at the Kirk Douglas part of presenters box.--Jagarin 01:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Done: Thanks for pointing that out.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Great, well-sourced list, it meets the FL criteria. --Carioca (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much! Your support is appreciated.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 22:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Universal Studios Orlando attractions

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for Featured List status because I believe it meets all of the FLC criteria. The list consists of all attractions from the Universal Orlando Resort. The first nomination was closed due to a lack of reviewers. Dom497 (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra

Nominator(s): —Prashant 18:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have previously taken Priyanka Chopra's biography and filmography to FA and FL status respectively. She is one of the most popular and versatile actresses in Hindi cinema. After the premature nominations, i worked hard on it and I feel that it now meets the FL-criteria.—Prashant 18:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Cowlibob

• Prose in the lead needs work, it's very repetitive. I count at least five uses of portray, six uses of role.

Tweaked a bit.—Prashant 14:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• For each awarding body, you need a ref which tells us who gives the award and for what.

This article is modeled after several Featured lists, and they don't give refrences about the same thing.—Prashant 14:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Remove any awards that are based on internet polling like the Surfer's Choice as they are very prone to being fixed.

They come from the most reliable source, used for Bollywood articles Bollywood Hungama and are genuine.—Prashant 14:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• This list shouldn't be an indiscriminate one of every award she has ever won but a list of her notable awards, ensure that they would meet WP:GNG.

Most of her awards are listed, not all. Regarding the notability, I think all awards are widely covered by media and are reliable.—Prashant 14:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• The Filmfare debut award was shared with Lara Dutta that year.

Cowlibob (talk) 11:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Added along with other ties.—Prashant 14:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

@Prashant!: Thanks for fixing what you have, due to an unfortunate real life circumstance, I need to leave Wikipedia for a while. Apologies. Good luck with your nomination. Cowlibob (talk) 16:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

List of five-wicket hauls in Twenty20 International cricket

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(ping) 09:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

A short list, but likely to grow in the coming years. I have another nomination open at the moment, which has got two supports and no outstanding concerns. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _(ping) 09:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Argo (2012 film)

Nominator(s): Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 04:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC), Cowlibob (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria and it deserves to be listed to FLs. Thanks. Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 04:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Support — ḞɾɑṇḵɃōẙ _(Buzz) 09:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• Ref 3 is missing Los Angeles Times and its publisher (Personally, I'd prefer Tribune Publishing, but an actual person is fine. Just make sure it is consistent)
• Refs 25, 53,7 and 77 should have (Penske Media Corporation) in parentheses next to Deadline.com link.
• Refs 28 and 67 are missing Prometheus Global Media.
• Not much of a big deal personally, but is it possible just to only link the first mention of every source and publisher to avoid overlinking (unless your other film lists do otherwise just curious)?

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Jessie J

Nominator(s): — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I really think that this list satisfies the FL criteria, cause it's simple, easy to navigate and well organised. This is its second nomination because the first one failed as a result of no activity. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:12, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Great comprehensive list!  — ₳aron 10:34, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support – Per my comments on the previous one. Plus, if you could look at my one. -- FrankBoy _(Buzz) 10:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not loving the lead image for her, just based off the face she's making, is there another picture that can be used? But passed that, I support, good job :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Wow guys! Thank you, sincerely. Those were 3 fast supports, in comparison with the previous FLC that was closed because of no activity. @Calvin999: and @FrB.TG: I will comment on both of your lists, very soon. And @Lady Lotus: I changed the picture, hope you like it now. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 15:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Perfect, that's actually the one I was thinking of :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:07, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Why have you hidden the writers' names in the list? Readers should be able to scan a table readily without having to click on each individual entry. I suggest you remove the hidden status of entries in this column. BTW I would also consider left-justifying the text in columns with words rather than numbers. Gatoclass (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The emphasis is not on the writers solely. This isn't a list of songs written by or for Jessie J. It also makes the table unnecessarily longer to display all of the writers.  — ₳aron 16:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You have used fixed-width columns, that is not a good idea because different users have different screen sizes and so the narrowest possible table width is usually the best. Regarding the writers' names, you could just use the surnames, with links where appropriate, and a master link in the column header giving their names in full. Alternatively, if most of the songs were written by the same people, you could just use a code, A, B, C etc for this or that group of songwriters. They are just a couple of suggestions. Hiding the songwriters' names is just going to make users interested in the songwriters work very hard to get their information. Gatoclass (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not me who has used fixed-width columns. No, just using surnames and a master key is a ridiculous proposal, it's creating too much unnecessary work and navigation. Not all of the songs are written by the same people either. Using an A, B, C system is just confusing. It's not difficult to click on "Show" is not very difficult. I think you are over thinking it a bit.  — ₳aron 17:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect Gato, I don't like your idea(s). I think this is how they will get more interested and want to see who the writers are by clicking show. And I wouldn't say one click is a "hard work" to get the information who the writer of a specific song is. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 17:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

No, one click is not much work. But what about those who are interested in seeing who is doing all the writing for this artist, or who wants to see at a glance who wrote what? They are going to be seriously inconvenienced. Hiding the fields defeats the whole purpose of a table IMO, which is to provide quick and handy access to a large amount of information. Gatoclass (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The you just click "show." It doesn't defeat the point at all, because this isn't a list of songs written by Jessie J or for Jessie J. It's for songs she has recorded, so the emphasis is actually on the first column, the list of songs.  — ₳aron 17:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Have it your own way. But if I was going to vote on this nomination, which I'm not, I couldn't vote for a table with hidden fields like that. Gatoclass (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, that's your opinion. No one is asking you to change your mind.  — ₳aron 17:31, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick drive-by comment: the caption to the picture of David Guetta refers to him as a disc jokey -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude I changed it to DJ. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 09:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Ariana Grande

Nominator(s): FrankBoy _(Buzz) 19:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

After taking six lists to featured status, I am nominating a fully-sourced awards list of Ariana Grande. This is my first nomination on a non-Bollywood article. There has not been any edit-warring in the recent history of the article, although I and Musdan77 had a disagreement, which was eventually resolved. As always, lookin' forward to constructive comments, which I am eagerly waiting for. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 19:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support -  — ₳aron 12:04, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 12:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tomica

• Unlink Ariana Grande in the awards box
• Ok, personally I think that the lead here needs a re-writing. I don't see the point having a whole paragraph that reads as summary of her whole career. I think you can mash up her highlights with the awards won or nomination received
  • To address this issue, a help could be List of awards and nominations received by Madonna lead. See how they mash her career with the awards won at the time. Of course Grande is not on even 1/10 on Madonna's success or age, however, I believe you can do it good.

• I have shortened the first para restricting to the award materials only. I can not think of mixing the first and second para as in the second one as most of the awards are outside of her album work; they are awarded to her for her music work, fashion, style etc, not for a particular work. Besides, I think it's essential to mention her important releases, just like some FLs do, such as Chris Brown. Anyways, I have done some tweaks and trimming for a better flow. Hope they look better now.

• After you re-write the lead (if you) I might further comment on the prose
• The tables look good from a brief first look
• Idolator is not a reliable source for FL/FA
• Ref #27, Digital Spy should not be italicized
• Ref #36 same as above

• Ref 36 (now 33) seems to be the one by The Hollywood Reporter, I guess it needs to be in italics. They are always italicized.

• I believe Zap2It is not a reliable source
• Ref #54 see Ref #36
• Splitting the references in 4 columns is too much, do it in 3
• You can add an 'External link' section with Grande's profile on Allmusic (specifically her awards)

• I don't see a need for this one as the awards data available in the source are only based on Billboard charts.

• I am not gonna oppose, but I think that this list still needs an additional work before it's promoted to FL, especially its prose. After the comments are addressed I am gonna revisit the list and respond. All the best! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:13, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Tomica: Thanks for the input. I have resolved almost all of them. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 22:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Pinging Tomica as I am not sure if you have watchlisted this or not, but my response towards your comments were quite swift. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 13:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• I still don't think the lead is good enough. Suggestions: Move the 2013 awards to the paragraph with the information for Yours Truly and the 2014 for the ones with My Everything. Further: At the 31st annual MTV Video Music Awards, Grande won the Best Pop Video award, and garnered three nominations, including Best Female Video. --- for what song? As a reader I would like to see that in the lead. Same here: She was awarded the Best Song and the Best Female awards at the 2014 MTV Europe Music Awards.. Awkward prose: Grande, at the 2014 Young Hollywood Awards, earned three nominations, including for Hottest Music Artist.. As I said, read carefully the Madonna list and see how well is written, then imply it here. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have made some tweaks and have moved the album/single related awards to the first para. While the first para talks about her accolades for her work, the second one (except the first two sentences) is about her awards outside her music work. Thanks @Tomica:. I haven't read Madonna's accolades list BTW. --ḞɾɑṇḵɃōẙ _(Buzz) 14:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• With the lead looking [reading] quite better now, I give my support. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 15:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• Well, thank u so much, Tomica. --ḞɾɑṇḵɃōẙ _(Buzz) 15:45, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

• Support good work :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks SNUGGUMS. :) --ḞɾɑṇḵɃōẙ _(Buzz) 20:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Sesame Street Muppets

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this is a well-sourced, as-comprehensive-as-possible list. Note to reviewers: this list is strictly sourced. Everything is supported by reliable sources; if no RS were found for any aspect of any character, it wasn't included. OR was also excluded. The result is that not every Muppet character that's appeared on Sesame Street is listed here. (Not that it would be possible, anyway.) Regarding images: Sesame Workshop is notoriously protective of its images, and rightly so, so very few images (just one, of Jim Henson) have been included. As the nominator and main editor of this list, I've made the executive decision to not include the few character images that are available, and leave them for individual character bio articles, if they exist. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support  — ₳aron 09:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Oppose per Calvin999's comments, and "Actor/Muppet performer" is probably better titled "puppeteer". Frank Oz and Kevin Clash are probably worth adding if including images of puppeteers. I suggest withdrawal as this looks like an incomplete list and thus a premature nomination. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll address both of the above, since they bring up the same issues.

• Not all the performers are puppeteers; for example, Roosevelt Franklin was voiced by one actor (Matt Robinson) and puppeteered by another. The same is also true about Roosevelt Franklin's Mother (next entry), who was voiced by Loretta Long. We could change the heading to "Performer".
• The entries in the "Actor/Muppet performer" column are supported by sources in other parts of the table; for example, Alistair Cookie was performed by Frank Oz, which is supported by ref17. I did it this way to prevent WP:OVERCITE. If you like, I could include citations after each entry. The empty spaces exist because there was no reliable sources that name the performer. Now, understand that sources like Muppet Wiki (which isn't a reliable source because as great as it is, its content is user-generated) include the performers, but even an extensive search failed to illuminate a reliable source that supported it.
  • It wouldn't be overciting, because they aren't cited in the first place. All information should be visibly sourced.  — ₳aron 09:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
• I maintain that this list is as comprehensive and complete as the sources allow, which is the reason for the dynamic list template at the top. It's impossible to include every Muppet character that has appeared on Sesame Street, but I maintain that the current version of this list is accurate and well-supported.
• I've removed the empty tables as per Aaron's suggestion. I'm also willing to include images of puppeteers (not just Oz and Clash), and will do so next. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999: and @SNUGGUMS: I believe that I've addressed all your comments now. The refs and table are now formatted in the way you requested. Please let me know if they're acceptable, and if there's anything else you want me to address. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

The tables are all different widths. If it was me, I'd force all the widths to be the same, using which ever table has the widest for each column as the rule of thumb. It just makes it look more uniformed.  — ₳aron 22:51, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

All the image captions are just "*name* in *year*"..... not very informative. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:58, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999:, the code in the tables is identical. It looks different with the tables with images because the images force the tables' shorter width. I can see two possible solutions. I can place the images either at the beginning or the end of the tables, which I tried and you directed me to put them on the right side. Or I could force the widths in all the tables to look the same, even in the imageless tables. I support leaving them as is; forcing the widths would leave too much white space. @SNUGGUMS: I have done as you asked regarding the image captions. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Better, though I'd remove the years and add a pic of Kevin Clash. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I respectfully disagree. The years need to remain because we need to know when the pics were taken, which is a common practice with captions. And sorry, but I can't add an image of Clash, because there aren't any free ones available. If there is and I'm misinterpreting it as non-free, please point it out to me. And why Clash? I mean, yes, he's an important puppeteer in the history of Sesame Street, but he isn't even a current one. I wish I could find a free image of Jerry Nelson, or Richard Hunt, or Fran Brill. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Others are also fine to add, but yes- I recommend adding Clash because of his prominence as Elmo. You can use File:Kevin Clash Elmo 2010 (cropped).jpg. As for years in captions, why not use years puppeteers portrayed the puppets instead of years photos were taken? See List of The Simpsons cast members for an example. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, gotcha. Changes done as per your suggestions, @Calvin999: and @SNUGGUMS:. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It's getting there. Here are my concerns regarding references:

• "Sesame Street.org" shouldn't be italicized, and remove the ".org". No need to have this and "Sesame Workshop" within the same ref.
• "The New York Times Magazine" → The New York Times
• Remove "Magazine" from "Spin Magazine"
• Not sure if "How Stuff Works" or "Parenthood.com" are food sources to use

Well done with the captions, BTW :). Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: done all you suggest. Thanks for the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You missed one instance of "Sesame Street.org"; FN43 still has italics where it shouldn't. CBS News and CBC News should not have italics either. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course. I did a slight fix per WP:CONTRACTIONS, and now support since I can't see any other problems. Let's see what Calvin999 thinks. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I understand that it is impossible to account for every muppet and puppeteer on the series since the people at Sesame Street are lousy record keepers of production of the show. Also, they hardly release stuff beyond their main characters to the public. However, it's well organized and cited list. Keep up the good work!

--Birdienest81 (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Ariana Grande

Nominator(s):  — ₳aron 16:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I believe it passes the criteria for FL. It is follows the same structure, format and purpose as previous nominations of mine (Leona lewis, Adele, Emeli Sandé). I think that this one for Grande has a good section of prose/lead which covers her start in the music industry up to now. It is very comprehensive, and the table includes all songs from both albums and the EP, as well as guest appearances where writers can be sourced. It has a very clear structure and is visually appealing. It's very easy to use and navigate. The history of the article is very stable and only consists of me editing it. There not edit disputes or wars.  — ₳aron 16:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Support – Excellent work. Just one minor point:

"Her music career started when she contributed to the soundtrack albums for the American TV sitcom, Victorious, in which she also starred". --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 19:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you  — ₳aron 19:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. After all my comments were addressed I can say that this list really deserves the golden barnstar. Good work! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:31, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you  — ₳aron 13:37, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Great work overall. — HĐ (talk) 09:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you.  — ₳aron 11:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hey Aaron, you should also add this song. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• That's not an alternate vocal recording though. It's the same vocals as her original, same for Azalea. So I'd be reluctant to include it, because it's not a different recording as such. It's just a remix.  — ₳aron 20:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Then according to your theory you should also exclude "The Way" (featuring J. Balvin). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 23:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support, very nicely compiled list. While this doesn't prevent me from supporting, I'm curious of one thing; is the clickable "show" feature to see writers a new practice? I haven't seen it used very often in song lists. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Yes, I think it just makes the table look more streamlined. Because you don't have the same amount of writers for each song, the size of the rows are governed by how many writers there are, which can make the table unnecessarily longer.  — ₳aron 18:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Sure thing, and I'll keep this in kind for song lists I try to make FL's myself Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, as the lead is much too detailed: she's had a career for all of four years now, so what happens next year? The year after? Are we going to end up with a 10-paragraph lead? Some of the less necessary details should be trimmed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input but this is the eighth list I'm nominating, and my previous seven have all passed with lead lengths in accordance with their discography and careers thus far. Saying what might happen next year, in five years, in 10 years is a bit superfluous to be quite honest and bordering on WP:CRYSTAL. If and when she releases a new album, then we can deal with that as and when it happens. But for the time being, I disagree that it is "too detailed"; the lead covers the scope of the list.  — ₳aron 12:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Patently ridiculous. You have 3602 characters (597 words) in the lead, including such dithering fluff as "it is a genre which Grande revealed she never thought she would venture into, but the experience caused her to only want to record dance songs." In what appears to be an attempt to urge and contextualize every single she's released, you've bloated the lead with information which would be better suited for her article or the article on the song. 2500 characters would not be out of place, but 3600 is too much. That your other lists were promoted in such a state is simply evidence that they all need a more thorough check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • And it's not crystal balling to say that a recording artist is liable to record more; that's kinda in the job description. Even if she were to retire immediately tomorrow, there'd still be at least a sentence added to the article (about her retirement). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• More minor note: the pictured in the image captions is not needed. (Indeed, it's not present in two of them).
  • I think this comes down to a matter of personal opinion, because you're the only one who has taken issue with in across eight nominations, so you are in the minority. It may come as no surprise, but I disagree with everyone you have written. I haven't solely written about singles in the lead; I've got a balance of singles and non-singles (it is a list of songs recorded), and I've given them all a little bit of info about genre or background, so that it doesn't read as a series of facts. I'm actually offended that you would accuse me, as well as all of the editors who have supported my nominations, of deliberately nominating/supporting them in "such a state." I don't understand why you are commenting and voting on something that hasn't happened yet, and might not happen for another year or two. I think you're being quite rude. No one is better than anyone else on Wikipedia, regardless of what one's contributions are.  — ₳aron 14:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Sigh. You don't seem to understand my point. This is a list of songs. This means that this should be an overview, speaking generally, of trends in her music. If we were to use your approach for, say, Whitney Houston, we'd end up with a lead that went on for 3,000 words. As Grande is reasonably early into her career, we don't have to quite worry about it yet, but there is still fat that needs to be trimmed. An overview means highlighting the bigger hits, maybe genre trends, not listing X amount of songs.
    • If you prefer not to consider my objections, fine. SchroCat or Giants can (when they have time) close this. So long as I'm opposing, I have to recuse from my delegate duties. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
      • It is an overview, though, of songs she has recorded. I've hardly written about every song in the list, just a sample from each project. I have read your reasons for objecting, and I've responded to them. I've taken on board what you have said, and I have decided that I don't agree with them. You're not getting what I'm saying, though. With regard to the "An overview means highlighting the bigger hits, maybe genre trends, not listing X amount of songs," I am going to have to highlight your lack of knowhow here. Lists like these are here to document all songs recorded by the singer. It is not supposed to be single-release centric. Songs are first and foremost songs before they become singles. A single is just a song which receives more promotion and attention than other songs on an album. Placing more or all weight on the singles is not how we do it. The lead of of an article like this should never focus on just the singles, that is what a discography article/list is for: to document what songs have been released as singles and their respective chart positions and certifications. So I'm going to have to make you completely wrong on that point.  — ₳aron 15:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Final point: you mentioned your eight (actually, according to our records, seven) FLs, and how the issue was never raised before. Looking through them, the only one which is currently over 3k characters in length is List of songs recorded by Leona Lewis, which has expanded by 1,000 characters since it was promoted in 2012 (was 2572 characters, is now 3680 characters). It's quite likely that the issue was never brought up because the issue wasn't present at the time. Unless you're willing to bring this list in line with your own precedent, I can't in good faith strike my oppose.

And quite frankly I don't get why you've gone on a diatribe about singles and songs. That's neither here nor there. I've never asked you to focus exclusively on singles, nor would I. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• • I said: "this is the eighth list I'm nominating, and my previous seven have all passed," I never said I have had eight promoted, I said this is my eight list nomination, and that my previous seven have been promoted, so please read what I write more carefully so you don't trip yourself up. And you did say about placing more weight on singles, you said: "highlighting the bigger hits," which is obviously about singles, because a non-single can't be a hit because it doesn't get commercial release. I can't take anything you have to say seriously while you keep on contradicting yourself and making embarrassing statements which shows you're not actually paying attention to what I'm saying. It shows that you're actually not up to commenting/reviewing/voting in an informed way because you keep on going back on what you say.  — ₳aron 23:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I must say, I like your gall, claiming that I need to read more carefully then immediately misrepresenting what I said. It's completely possible for an album-only track to end up becoming a hit. This often ends with the song being released as a single, but not always.
    • Yes, I was mistaken in remembering your statement about nominations/lists. That doesn't change the fact that, of your eight nominations, only this list appears to have been this size when you nominated it (though one has since expanded to the point that its lead is a bit too long, showing my concerns about the future are well-founded). My main point remains unchanged: objections have only been raised now because the problem seems to have only shown up now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
      • See, you've made another contradiction. "It's completely possible for an album-only track to end up becoming a hit. This often ends with the song being released as a single." So even if this does happen (although it doesn't) then it becomes a single anyway. Find me a song, a non-single, article whereby it has become a hit. Thus, meaning that it has had no commercial release (single, promo single etc), has reached the top 5 of multiple major national charts (no components) and stayed there for X amount of time (more than just one week or two weeks. A significant trajectory), has been certified gold or platinum, has been ranked high on an end of year chart and perhaps won awards, too. Basically, everything that a hit single is, but without any form of release or promotion (as non-singles tend not to be heavily promoted).  — ₳aron 08:59, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
        • You are again ignoring the main point, and clearly unwilling to work with reviewers. Instead, you are focusing on what you perceive to be inconsistencies in my posts, and going on a lengthy diatribe on a completely unrelated point. I have unwatchlisted this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
          • I'm not ignoring anything. I'm fully addressing you each and every time. I'm not perceiving anything, it's the bottom line truth. You can't say that a non-single can be a hit, then when I call you on it to give me an example, to then throw your toys out of the buggy and not do it and say I'm not willing to work with anyone. I think my contributions show that I have often worked with others. I have actually trimmed the lead down, not that you've noticed. I think that you use of "diatribe" is extremely misplaced; it's not me who started off being bitter, I think you will find that was you.  — ₳aron 09:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Frankly, I'm shocked that this has gained so much support. The lead, in addition to be remaining too detailed as Crisco 1492 details above, also requires a copy-edit. Some examples of problems are:
• "Put Your Hearts Up", a bubblegum pop, was
• it was aimed as children and teenagers
• on the albums opener
• I am also not a fan of hiding the writers: this means that the table loads with a blank column, which in addition to looking odd also requires a lot of effort on the part of the reader to open them all if they wanted to compare across them. Harrias ^talk 16:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I disagree that it's too long, especially after shortening it this morning. hiding the writers makes the table short and makes all of the rows the same width, too. I think it's personal opinion.  — ₳aron 16:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support - I think this is an excellent list, and that the relative size of the lead is appropriate. I don't find Crisco's concerns persuasive. Good work. AgnosticAphid talk 03:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you  — ₳aron 11:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Dharma Productions films

Nominator(s): KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

After successfully working on the List of films released by Yash Raj Films, this listing provides a fully-sourced account of the films produced by another leading production company, Dharma Productions, that has produced some of the most widely regarded films of mainstream Hindi cinema. Look forward to constrictive comments to help improve the list. Cheers! KRIMUK90 ✉ 06:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it meets the criteria. Nah, kidding, I fully Support this. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 08:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

LOL, thanks. But you may want to remove the "oppose" from there for the convenience of admins. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose for now (3b violation) – Solely based on the size of the parent article. With a size of 5.8k chars, I see no reason to have a stand-alone list. —Vensatry _(ping) 10:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see a 3b violation here. It's very much an acceptable type of WP:CONTENTFORKING. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this list fits into at least one category of what can be called as an "acceptable fork". On the other hand, the parent article is very short and hardly contains any reference. The list of films can well be accommodated in that article. —Vensatry _(ping) 08:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a policy that explicitly states that we cannot have a stand-alone list if the parent article is short and/or unreferenced? I don't seem to find it. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The answer lies here. According to the criterion, short-size of the parent article would mean that this could reasonably be included as part of it. —Vensatry _(ping) 09:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Oppose Plot summaries are not relevant to this article, which is a list of films by a production house. Therefore I instead expect things like the name of the producer(s) [KKHH article lists Yash and Hiroo Johar, for eg], the budget of the films, their box office and similar. I also think the actor focus in the lead and in the photographs is similarly misplaced.—indopug (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. It's always nice to see opposes based on personal preferences. FYI, listing a synopsis for the films by a production house is quite common. Look at this FL for instance. If an editor wants to oppose a nomination due to policy or poor prose etc, that's quite understable. But opposing based on what he/she expects to find in it due to their own preference is frankly, a little upsetting and defeats the entire purpose of this encyclopedia. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 03:10, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a personal preference at all; by "I" I meant the average reader. See 3(a), if you want me to be explicit about the criteria this article fails to meet.—indopug (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so when it's a country it can have a synopsis but when it's a production house it can't? How convenient. Also, what an average reader expects from an article is not what 3(a) talks about. " It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items.". This list already does all of that. There is no violation, and your oppose is purely based on your personal preference. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 17:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• When I read the oppose, I knew the list I wrote would be referred to.

Anywho, since this is a list of films by an individual production house, the producer's information should not be left out. Period. I would tend to include the short plot summaries, though, as they imply a certain formula or structure commonly used by the studio (and thus give a better understanding of the studio). If these were 100 word long summaries, I'd agree with Indopug, but a sentence is manageable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Since Dharma is a in-the-family production company, all the films are produced by Karan Johar and his mother, Hiroo Yash Johar. Is it really necessary to keep repeating that for each film? And in case of co-productions: if it's with UTV Motion Pictures then Siddharth Roy Kapur is the additional producer, if it's with Red Chillies Entertainment then Gauri Khan is the additional producer, and if it's with Phantom Films then Anurag Kashyap is the co-producer. All pretty standard for each production house. Indian production companies are very different from Hollywood companies in which each film is produced by a different set of people. That's not the case here. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Budget and box-office figures are essential information when talking about the films of a production house. The absence of these was the crux of both my comments; for some reason you've taken my constructive criticisms personally, become combative and made it solely about plot summaries. Also I think it'd be more relevant to have as many of the producers' photographs on the side as possible.

(If this list were really comprehensive and you added columns for budget and box-office, the table would probably become too wide for the plot summaries anyway)—indopug (talk) 20:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Indopug, it's Indian films we are talking about. There is little transparency on budget and box-office information, and that's for those for which the information is available. It makes very little sense when we don't have such data for a large number of films on this list. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Support I think it meets FL criteria. I disagree with Vensatry that there is a 3b violation here. The list is of reasonable length and I think it would bloat the main article on the production house. Rather the production house article needs major expansion and sourcing. Agreed with Crisco here on the plot. In fact I was only just thinking how much the (basic) plot summaries helped the understanding of the films here. It allows the reader to overlook the scope of the productions and what they were producing at given times. I think it's an excellent list, although I suppose I'd have expected a column on producer or gross for comprehension's sake. I guess though a producer column is redundant if they're mostly the same person. If not, then I think Krimuk you ought to add something in the lede or footnote to explain all films are produced by Karan Johar and his mother, Hiroo Yash Johar and if it's with UTV Motion Pictures then Siddharth Roy Kapur is the additional producer, if it's with Red Chillies Entertainment then Gauri Khan is the additional producer, and if it's with Phantom Films then Anurag Kashyap is the co-producer.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Much thanks Dr. B. :)Added the producer info; hope it's better now. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: My question is why can't this be reasonably included in the parent article? Even if we consider the length, 28 films don't seem to be a bigger number (with one-fourth of them being co-productions). I also don't understand why would it "bloat" the main article, when you yourself agree that the main article needs to be expanded. —Vensatry _(ping) 07:50, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a growing list, on average four films a year. In ten years time that's 40 films. If the main article was given a major expansion then splitting this would be the way to go. It's a non issue from my perspective anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the main article does need a major expansion. But the scope of it is much different from this list. Just as Aamir Khan filmography deserves a separate article from Aamir Khan, despite the latter being poorly written and needing a major expansion. As such, I don't understand why you would want to oppose a well-written list only because the parent article hasn't been expanded? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 08:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• It's not a case of WP:IDL, but I'm worried about WP:CFORK. I agree that the scope is much different for both the articles. But for now, both seem to contain a substantial portion of overlapping content, although the list is a much improved version. I see no reason why this should be a standalone article as the prose part of this "well-written" list can be incorporated into the main article and the table be merged with the same, until the parent article gets expanded. In the case of Aamir Khan's article, the filmography can well be forked-out as the size of the parent article is well over 20k+ chars (close to 4k words). However, that's not the case here. —Vensatry _(ping) 09:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I can understand the concern, and agree that the main article needs a major expansion, but a straight-out oppose seems drastic, don't you think so? -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 13:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• No, I don't think so. As I said earlier, it clearly fails to meet at least one criterion. —Vensatry _(ping) 14:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, both Dr. B and I disagree with you on this one. Cheers! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I think this list is well sourced and format. I also strongly disagree about opposition because of the parent article. I agree that it needs expansions, but including it in the main article would create a bit clutter since this list is about the individual films as opposed to the production company itself. That's just how I view it.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Birdie. I really appreciate it. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:01, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Dr B. and Birdie regarding the scope question. However, Indopug's question of budgets is something that should be looked into (where available). Not necessarily for all of the films (we can all appreciate how rare that is to come across), but if there is information for what was their most expensive film, or what their average cost is, that would be very helpful. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: I couldn't find a direct ref for their most extensive film or for what their average production cost is, but I did find the budget of what I believe to be some of their most expensive films. If I add the budget of these few films in the lead, will that suffice? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to be !voting in this discussion (in case I have to close it), but IMHO it would help. Indopug, of course, could give further feedback. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sure. :) Indopug, what do you think? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 13:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Elaboration of my opposition

I have opposed this article's promotion to FL not because of a couple of easily-fixable things, but rather since its entire focus is misplaced. Again, understand that this is not just any list of films, but a list of films by a particular production house. It must thus prioritise aspects of production before anything else. Specific ways that the article gets it wrong:

• Needs box-office and budget information: I opened a bunch of the movies' articles, and many of those since the 1990s have both budget and box-office info, with citations. Therefore two new columns for these should be added. Empty cells—even for half the films in the table—are okay.

• I agree that biggest hits/flops info should be in the lead; this information will surely be found in film journals, magazines or biographies/history books of the Johars and Dharma. If not, just say "from the information available, xyz is the biggest hit/flop"

• Another concern I've listed above and that has gone unnoticed is the article's incorrect focus on actors rather than producers (who indeed didn't even find mention in the table until I highlighted the point above) in the lead and in the photos. For eg, pics of Screwvala and Gauri Khan captioned something like "Dharma has often collaborated with UTV and Red Chillies...".

• The lead can focus more on the producers. For example, it doesn't mention that Yash Johar was the exclusive producer for the first two decades, before it was taken over by his son. Have the types of films produced changed over the years? How are Karan Johar's films different from his fathers'? What is the impact of the UTV and Red Chillies collaborations on the films?

• WP:Recentism: quite clearly the article is tilted towards recent releases. The entire cast of one 2012 film (SotY) finds mention in the lead and have their pics included; but nobody except Bachchan from the 1980s and early 90s does. Post-90s directors are named more frequently.

• Sources: is Bollywood Hungama a reliable source? Are there none better?

• Minor point: the refs in the Footnotes are not necessary, everything is already cited in the table.—indopug (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I see the entire point of this oppose to be highly misplaced. This is a listing of the films produced by the production house, and not an analysis on them. The analysis on hit/flops, types of films produced etc should be included in the parent article, and not in this one. Also, a whopping 70% of the films produced by them are post-2000, so obviously larger focus will be on the recent ones. Also, wanting pictures of producers instead of actors is probably your only valid concern, though an extremely minor one and easily fixable. And finally, box-office and budget info can be suitable add-on's for the list (where available), yes, but are not mandatory. Tomorrow, another editor may take offense that the names of editors and cinematographers aren't mentioned in the table. As such, I can't base the list on everyone's personal preference. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

If your idea of this article as solely a "listing" of films, then all you need is a bullet-point list such as "Dostana (1980)" and so on. For that you don't need a separate article, but just a separate section in the parent article (as Vensatry suggests).

And I continue to be bewildered as to how plot summaries and cast lists can be considered perfectly relevant, while actual production-house-related information like budget and box office—which is available for great many of the films, so Crisco 1492 needn't worry "how rare that is to come across"—are merely my "personal preference".—indopug (talk) 14:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• "A great many films" where, exactly? My specialty is Indonesian productions, and in this industry figures are rarely published. India appears to publish figures more often, though it's possible that not all the films here have released such information. Unless you can provide more than "it's common", Krimuk's objection is completely reasonable to me. Sources showing that there is information available, for instance? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Go to the article, and open the wikipages for the films from the late 90s onwards. Many of them have sourced figures right there in the infobox.

Further note that the nom refuses engage with most of my comments (recentism, reliability of Bollywood Hungama, mentioning the biggest hit/flop in the lead as you suggested etc). If nominators can get away with such blatant condescension ("probably your only valid concern, though an extremely minor one and easily fixable"—and he hasn't fixed it, by the way) and any criticism is dismissed as personal preference, it's hard for reviewers to take the process seriously.—indopug (talk) 19:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Call it what you may, but I refuse to "engage" with reviewers who are so condensing in reviewing nominations. As I said earlier, someone else may have a concern that the names of music composers aren't mentioned in the table, because you know, music is such an integral part of Indian films. As I have said before, I really cannot indulge everyone's personal opinion in making a list. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Krimuk90, Indopug has a point here. When you talk about list of films produced by a production house, it makes sense if we focus on the producers/co-producers rather than actors. For now, this list seems more inclined towards the actors just like their filmographies. I think I had pointed out this in the DYK nomination as well. —Vensatry _(ping) 07:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

But actors have the maximum visibility, don't they? In India, stars are the selling point for a film, whether we like it or not. So why shy away from doing that here? --Krimuk|90 (talk) 13:56, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems like you haven't got the point. This page is not an actor's filmography, but all about a production house, as simple as that. —Vensatry _(ping) 17:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and there are pictures of actors, who, I repeat, are the most visible aspect of the films by any production house. I don't go on and on about these actors, but just have a few pictures of them. That doesn't make the page about them. It still lists the films of the production house, and doesn't list the films of these actors. It's a ridiculous POV preference to fight over. If someone doesn't like the pictures of actors, and prefers the pictures of producers and directors instead, they can google it! --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Except this is not about the most visible aspects of the productions, it is about the production house itself (and thus, the producers).12:40, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

The person who has produced most of the films already has a picture in the lead. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 13:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion: I reckon the pictures make sense, but since you have space, how about you also add a picture of Yash Johar (he produced a large proportion of films; every film from 1980-2003), Hiroo Johar (she pretty much produced every film 2006-onwards) and Ayan Mukerji (as the director of the highest grossing film YJHD) AB01║TALK 05:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any free images of either Yash or Hiroo Johar, though I'll try to find some on BH. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 07:36, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I have added images of Ayan Mukerji and Gauri Khan, and also put the gross of YJHD which may be the highest grossing Dharma film. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 14:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Support: Looks good to me AB01║TALK 01:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks AB01. :) --Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

List of women's international cricket hat-tricks

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 21:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Another cricket list! This one is based upon the already featured and subtly different List of Test cricket hat-tricks and List of One Day International cricket hat-tricks. As always, all thoughts, comments and otherwise are welcome!

Note: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tied Twenty20 Internationals/archive1 is still open, but all the comments made there have been resolved, and it has received significant support. Harrias ^talk 21:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment "dismissing three different batsmen" isn't accurate, is it? He can dismiss batsmen A and B with the last two balls of one match, then dismiss A with the first ball of the next match he plays. Wouldn't that be a hat-trick? The three main tables should be in different second-level sections.—indopug (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Indopug: Good points both, sorted. Harrias ^talk 18:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - You have used fixed width columns, that will not be helpful to users with smaller screens. And why do you need bullet points for the dismissed batsmen? They just look like unnecessary clutter to me. Gatoclass (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The fixed widths are so that the columns in all three tables line up, something that people have requested at previous FLCs. If the screen is smaller, they automatically get smaller, rather than force a scroll, so I don't think it should be a problem. The bullet points are simply from convention; they are in both the the lists mentioned above, but also in all of the five-wicket haul lists, such as List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Dale Steyn. That said, I have no particular objection to removing them, but it should probably follow that all of the other similarly formatted lists should follow suit. Harrias ^talk 12:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Star Trek (film)

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This was previously nominated for FL, but failed due to the issues here. But following the points raised there and the successful FL nom of List of accolades received by Star Trek Into Darkness, I've made those edits to the article and am now renominating. Miyagawa (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Support — FrankBoy _(Buzz) 21:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Excellent list.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Premio Lo Nuestro 2014

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been researching the Lo Nuestro Awards history and I think this list meets the criteria. This list is based on several FLs, mostly the 84th Academy Awards and Premio Lo Nuestro 2013. I will be watching closely this nomination, to follow your comments. Thank you. Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Support A very well-written list based on prose. Although the table is formatted properly, the empty space seems quite annoying to me and I do know that you have categorized. Can something be done to it? --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 21:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. Javier Espinoza (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comments: Please provide context to the uniformed reader, who is Antonio Guzmán? You said who was Jenni Rivera but what about Tito El Bambino, Olga Tañón, Gerardo Ortíz, and Pitbull? The lead says "the telecast garnered more than 9.5 million viewers" but the article says "drew in an average 9.5 million people during its three hours of length" which is contradicting. There's overlinking problems in the article (Pitbull, Daddy Yankee, Marc Anthony, are linked twice). I also did some minor c/e on the article, feel free to revert if any are feared worse over the former. Best, jona^(talk) 16:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank your for the comments, I did some changes in the lead, but I did not find more info about Guzmán, he produced several award shows in United States, but the imdb ref is all that I could find. Javier Espinoza (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. There's still an overlinking problem (in the musical performers section), also you didn't need to provide a source for who Guzman was (especially one from Amazon/IMDB) the concern was in the lead and not the infobox. Best, jona^(talk) 00:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed (the overlinking). Thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I fixed it. I still don't know who Antonio Guzman is, you've told us who everybody else is (in the lead) but have yet identified those who are unfamiliar with the topic on who he is. Best, jona^(talk) 23:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Order of battle in the Biscay campaign of June 1795

Nominator(s): Jackyd101 (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

An order of battle for an obscure naval campaign in 1795 in which a French admiral lost his nerve and failed to destroy a smaller British force and was subsequently defeated by a different larger British force, the admiral of which also lost his nerve at the last moment, failing to turn a minor victory into an annihilation. Its been several years since I nominated anything here and I've forgotten all of the niggling requirements for FL I learned back then, so just let me know what I've missed and I'll fix it. Best Jackyd101 (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Most of the notes and sources in the tables ends with full stops, but not all. I suggest choosing a consistent approach. Either end all notes with full stops or only those that are sentences (please see: MOS:FULLSTOP and MOS:LISTBULLET). –P. S. Burton (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Good call! Done!--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Lana Del Rey

Nominator(s): Littlecarmen (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. I nominated it three months ago but the nomination didn't get enough comments/supports and was closed. I would be thankful for any comments and opinions! Thank you very much, Littlecarmen (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Older nominations

List of public art in the City of Westminster

Nominator(s): Ham II (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Since this list's previous submission for FLC it has been completely reformatted in order to be machine-readable. Due to the number of templates being invoked by the new format, the sections on Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens, Paddington and St Marylebone have been split off into standalone lists. The scope of this list may now be narrower, but that's quite consistent with the Westminster volumes in the Public Sculpture of Britain and Buildings of England series, which cover the area of the smaller, pre-1965 City of Westminster (despite their 21st-century publication dates). I look forward eagerly to your comments! Ham II (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Nice list: many sources, many images, good structure.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Alexmar983: Thank you! Ham II (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Pigsonthewing

• Delighted to see this proposal, and happy to support it. Please note, though that {{Coord}} should not use |name=, when contained in {{Public art row}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Fixed. Thanks for the support! Ham II (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• "the five works that follow" doesn't sit well, in a sortable table. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Rephrased: This and the five works that follow → This is one of several works (There are more than the six in this list.) Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments Support from Jackyd101

• A phenomenal and fascinating list and an astonishing body of work. I have no vote at the moment, although I will once I've actually read through it all, but I do have a question and a two comments - apologies if these have been answered earlier, but I am curious.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• 1) Why is there a tiny box between grade and Notes?

@Jackyd101: This is a problem with {{Public art row}}; I'll ask for it to be fixed at the template's talk page.

@Jackyd101: Fixed. (Thanks, Frietjes!) Ham II (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• 2) I find the "Title / subject" column a little hard to follow - sometimes the link is to the art work, sometimes to the person it depicts. Sometimes it's in italics, sometimes its not. I originally thought that the italics indicated the artwork and normal text the subject, but this is inconsistent (James Cook / Florence Nightingale for example) so I'm not clear on why the italics are there. A simple solution would be to do what you've done with "Memorial to William Ewart Gladstone" right at the top and put "Statue of so and so" in this box, linking the whole thing when the link is to the artwork and the person only when its to the person.

If it's an individual's name, normal text indicates a link to the person, but if the name's in italics it's a link to the artwork. Otherwise, normal usage of italics is followed: italic for the titles of artworks and normal for anything else. "Statue of" would probably be helpful for any future transfer to Wikidata but would lose the functionality of {{Sortname}}—​unless some super-duper {{Statue of}}, {{Bust of}} and {{Memorial to}} templates were to be created to get around this...

I think I understand better - works of art like statues are in italics but memorials are not? Still doesn't explain James Cook though. Two potential solutions are to either just put "statue", " memorial" etc after the name, or to use the {{hs|Foo}} template to make them sortable. I can't deny that it bugs me that the links are inconsistent - not only are you not sure what kind of link you are clicking on, but it means that some links that should be there aren't: for example, there is a statue of James II in Trafalgar Square but as far as I can see there is no link to the man himself on this page.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, found a link to him, but its in a different section further down the page and I had to search for it, so I think my point stands.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you prefer something like Statue of James II? James Cook was a mistake and now links, as it should, to Statue of Captain James Cook, The Mall. Ham II (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I would prefer that yes. If you don't think its a good idea I'm open to discussing it though. I think on a list like this people want to known where they are going when they click on a link, and will expect to be able to access the articles on the artwork and the subject (assuming they exist) from the entry in the list.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Done @Jackyd101: It's taken all day but I did it! Ham II (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was looking for and I think it looks a lot better. Sorry to be a pain in the arse!--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• 3) This no doubt violates some FLC criteria and if so I'll withdraw it, but there are names cropping up in the list I would expect to be linked, but which aren't (Rodin for example). This is presumably because they've been linked earlier, except that lists aren't usually meant to be read sequentially and the sort function renders the sequence temporary anyway.

This is one that came up in the last FLC review, and I spent the best part of a day before this review removing duplicate links. Rodin is linked in his first mention in the text but that's not in the entry for the only sculpture by him (The Burghers of Calais). I could change this so that being mentioned in the "artist" field becomes in effect the "first" appearance of a name; as you've said, the sequential order is temporary (whereas the left-to-right order is permanent). I've done the same with the "subject" field, treating links there as the "first" appearance as that's where you'd expect to find them. Ham II (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - I'd certainly prefer overlinking than underlinking in a list, but I've experienced this sort of things before where one person says something, you spend the whole day fixing it and then someone else tells you to undo it, and I'm not going to be that guy. It is a little irritating though - just had to use the search tool to find the link to Jacob Epstein.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• 4) Is there a reason the statues at the entrance to Australia House on Aldwych are missing from this list?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean the ones on the building? These would count as architectural sculpture. Or the statue of Gladstone? JMiall₰ 23:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, makes sense.

@Jackyd101: The two sculptural groups on either side of the entrance are in this list. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• 5) I'm nearly ready to support, but I do have a question: does Bansky's sadly destroyed "One Nation Under CCTV" count as public art? --Jackyd101 (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it used to be in this list but is now in List of public art formerly in London. JMiall₰ 17:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jackyd101, JMiall: Yes, that's right. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you make it clear in the lead that this is only "current public art in the city of Westminster" then? You'll also need to remove the statue of Sir Walter Raleigh as under these terms it shouldn't be on this list. Once that's done I think I'm happy to support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. @Jackyd101: The idea was that artworks moved out of the borough but within London would be included, whilst those which were no longer in London would be in List of public art in the City of Westminster, but I now think that's too arcane. Ham II (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• 6) Actually I do have one other point and you're not going to like it. After some consideration I've decided not to make my support conditional on this, but I do think you should seriously consider it. This article has a lot of embedded co-ordinates, but none have the |name= parameter listed. This means that when someone looks at the wiki markup on a map, the link is titled "List of public art in the City of Westminster", when it should be titled with the name of the artwork the co-ordinates link to. This would actually be of considerable practical value to this article's wider functionality as a guide to public art.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just seen that someone above asked you to remove this so I've struck my recommendation. Does the template automatically do this name function? If not, then why remove it? --Jackyd101 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I assume that's the reason, but as {{GeoGroup}} doesn't work for Google Maps any more I can't tell. It's a question to ask at the template talk for {{Public art row}}. Ham II (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Rodw

An impressive list - I was playing a little game with myself about how many I had seen. I note the double line before notes and wikilinking in sortable lists have been highlighted above, but a few other comments:

• Lead

• It says there are more than "400 public artworks..." do we know how many (and therefore is this a complete list)?

@Rodw: I don't think a complete survey has ever been done (not since 1910, anyway), and recently there have been new additions every year so any figures would quickly go out of date. I got 400+ by adding together all the works covered in this category [correction: not the architectural sculpture list], all of which used to be covered by this list. Forking off two of the Royal Parks and the places which used not to be in Westminster was necessary as the templates wouldn't all show on one page. The tricky areas to find information about are Paddington and St Marylebone, but as those now have separate lists I'm pretty confident that nothing major has been left out of this list.

• Which of the Royal Parks of London are included (and should they be listed and named)?

All of Green Park, Hyde Park and St James's Park and parts of Kensington Gardens and Regent's Park are in the City of Westminster. (Only Green Park and St James's Park are covered in this list, though) I've listed the parks but dropped the bit about Charing Cross being the official centre as the sentence was getting too long. (It's still in the lede image caption.)

OK Hyde Park was a dab so I changed to Hyde Park, London.— Rod ^talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• I didn't know Charing Cross was the official centre of London - is there a reference for this claim?

Yes, in the relevant section: "Charing Cross was declared the official centre of London in 1831^[47]"

• Aldwych / Strand

• Should "Saxon" be wikilinked, and do you mean Saxons or Anglo-Saxons?

The source simply says "Saxons", but Pevsner has "Anglo-Saxons". I've linked to Anglo-Saxon London.

• Is Edmond J. Safra Edmond Safra

Aha!

• I know what LSE stands for but other readers might not, so could be written in full or wikilinked - I know this is done in the intro to the sub section but not on the entry for Mosaic or Eagle

All mentions in the |location= field now have "London School of Economics"

• Windsor Sculpture Park could be wikilinked - as above

Is the first wikilink to the Windsor Sculpture Park (in the section lede) enough?

Personally when I do sortable lists I wikilink once in each row, and I have asked for clarification of this - but never got a definitive answer.— Rod ^talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That's basically what I had before I spent a day removing the "overlinking". Do you have a link to the conversation you had? This sorely needs clarification.

@Rodw: I've decided to wikilink Windsor Sculpture Park. If you could find the discussion, though, it would be interesting to see how it went. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't find the discussion. I would suggest putting a new message on the FLC talk page about this for wider discussion.— Rod ^talk 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rodw: Will do. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Is it worth (somewhere) explaining or linking Grade I, Grade II to listed building?

Restored an earlier phrasing in the lede: "the most significant being the Grade I-listed Cenotaph in Whitehall".

• Should "painted stone flags" link to Flagstone or are they Flags?

They're flags, which unlike the ones on the Cenotaph are carved from stone and painted. I've called them "fictive" to clarify things.

• Again I know what RAF means in this context but worth a link for clarity (see RAF (disambiguation))

Is this necessary given that "Royal Air Force" is in the same sentence as the only appearance of "RAF"?

• Are Queen Mother, Cologne and Dresden worth wikilinks?

Queen Mother is linked further down but as my choices of where to link are confusing everybody I'll link it here too. Also linked the other two.

• Three Fates has a reference but nothing in Notes.

The reference only gives the basic information in the preceding columns.

I would add something into the notes section.— Rod ^talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a problem as if anyone's done the legwork to find more information it's going probably Philip Ward-Jackson writing for the Public Sculpture of Britain—​the source cited. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I would still advocate adding something.— Rod ^talk 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Done. I've gone for simply "Part of the Odette bequest". 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Some of the Artist/designer & Architect/other entries have references and some do not.

Usually the references in |notes= cover the whole entry; where there are refs in |artist= and |architect= that's because they only cover those what's in that particular field and the refs in |notes= don't have the information.

Looking at {{Public art row}} it says "Please keep all comments, annotations and references in the |notes= field." I'm not familiar with this template so I'm not sure why this instruction is there, but it looks strange to me to have references in those columns for some & not others.— Rod ^talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Would you prefer a string of footnotes at the end of |notes=, including for information not in the Notes field? Only asking, not being confrontational. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Personally I would prefer all the references which relate to that row in one place (but I can't quote any guidelines or anything for this).— Rod ^talk 17:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rodw: Moved all refs in {{Public art row}} to |notes=. Ham II (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Bayswater

• I'm now a bit confused is this in the City of Westminster or in Paddington?

It's now in Westminster as Paddington merged into it in 1965.

So if it is in Westmintsre shouldn't it be included here rather than making the reader go off to another list? Does the same apply to Fitzrovia, Hyde Park, Lisson Grove, Maida Vale, Marylebone etc and for some eg Knightsbridge partial are included in this - I am confused and I'm a reasonably regular visitor to London - I suspect readers who have never visited may be more so - does this decision about inclusion and exclusion criteria need to be explained somewhere?— Rod ^talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion - would it be possible to get a map drawn showing the areas referred to in the list and use this as the lead image to enable readers to get some understanding of the areas, boundaries etc? The folks at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop are very good for advice and help in this sort of thing.— Rod ^talk 11:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Will request this at the Graphics Lab. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rodw: I've created my own map using Paint at File:Public art in the City of Westminster map.png, which is now in the article lede. Is this of high enough quality for a Featured List? Or should I still ask at the Graphics Lab? Ham II (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Impressive much better than my graphics skills. It says the areas covered by yellow are in this list - which leads me to come back to another comment about if the areas in red, blue, green etc are in the City of Westminster then they should be in this list. An alternative (and radical) approach, if there are too many for one list, would be to have one article with a brief overview of the art in each area & then seperate lists for each of the areas (similar to Scheduled monuments in Somerset or Grade I listed buildings in Somerset & 7 sub lists). This would also get over the issue of having columns different widths in different sections of this list.— Rod ^talk 17:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rodw: I'm open to List of public art in the City of Westminster being a set of links to the six subpages, basically like List of public art in London, but with a lede section. The rest of the content of this article would be at List of public art in Westminster (currently a redirect). It's a bit of a cheat as the "Westminster" in the article would not be the same as Westminster, but as I said right at the beginning of this review the relevant volume of The Public Sculpture of Britain, on "historic Westminster", does something similar. This would mean that I wouldn't have to re-draw the map, but I'm afraid the sections within lists (and so the difference in column widths) would have to stay. What do you think? Ham II (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking of each of the lists for different areas eg one list for Aldwych / Strand, one for Belgravia etc (with one table in each list) in the same way there is one for List of public art in Hyde Park, London, which I think of as in "Westminster" but I don't understand the semantics/policy/history of different versions of "Westminster" you are referring to above.— Rod ^talk 20:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

@Rodw: I'm open to this as a long-term future direction for the list to take, but if I'm honest it's too much work to take on now; there are 31 other London boroughs which need attention and there is already at least one vote in support of the list in its current form. I can see this list being broken up into another ten subdivisions in the distant future, one of which would be "Kensington"—​meaning that List of public art in Kensington and Chelsea would also have to be broken up for that subdivision to be meaningful. Before doing this I'd like to wait for the second volume of Public Sculpture of Historic Westminster, on architectural sculpture, to come out, so that architectural sculpture can be included in the new sub-lists instead of being segregated in its own list as it is now.

As regards "Westminster", the two books cited in the first here treat it as, basically, the City of Westminster before the merger in 1965. Pevsner, p. xvi: "Westminster—​that is, the area that was merged in 1965 with the boroughs of Paddington and Marylebone into the present, expanded City of Westminster..."; Public Sculpture of Historic Westminster Vol. 1, p. v: "The City of Westminster extends north into St John's Wood and west into Kensington... for reasons of space this volume can only cover the historic south-eastern core of Westminster" (i.e. a smaller area than in both Pevsner and this article.) As you can see, in both of these the full-scale "City of Westminster" is contrasted with a smaller "Westminster" which is, however, bigger than the true "historic Westminster" (i.e. the subject of our article Westminster) with the Abbey, Parliament, etc. What I was proposing in the last post was something similar to that: List of public art in Westminster being essentially the list currently under review, while List of public art in the City of Westminster, standing between List of public art in London above it and List of public art in Westminster below, would help navigation by listing the districts (e.g. Bayswater, Regent's Park, Soho...) covered in each of the six sub-lists.

Sorry for the long-winded reply, but this is nothing if not complicated! Ham II (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Belgravia

• Memorial to Richard Grosvenor, 2nd Marquess of Westminster - you have a ? for architect/other - this source has mosaics by Antonio Salviati

Thanks! Is it Antonio Salviati or his firm Salviati? I'll assume the latter. Is the source also implying that John Douglas was the architect? I also once saw Thomas Henry Wyatt as the architect for this somewhere, but I'll never remember where.

• General

• Why are the column widths different in each of the sub lists?

This is because of {{Public art row}}, and might not be fixable as it has lots of parameters which can be opted in and out of.

My guess (but I'm not a template expert) would be that {{Public art header}} enables the column width to be set automatically assuming it will only be used once in each article. I would find out if the column widths can be set as a percentage of screen width & then make them all the same. Also the template may have Owner/administrator as a compulsory column and even though there is no content still includes it therefore giving the double line.— Rod ^talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I've asked Pigsonthewing to look into this; I can't see anything in the documentation. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

It is possible to set the width in the template, this can either be hard coded in the template, which will do it for every article that uses the template, or by a parameter for each column on a per-table basis, which will create extra work and potential for error. For these reasons, I'd prefer not to do it, unless it's causing a major problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

If these sort of comments are useful I will come back and do some more.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Please, keep 'em coming! Ham II (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Belgravia (con't)

• Was it laid out with "with a high concentration of embassies and diplomatic buildings" in 1820 as this is what the lead implies or did the embassies etc come later?

I've rewritten this section's lede to address this point and the next one down but one. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hercules - you have (erected) after the date, but this is not included for other statues etc.

Removed

• Statue of Robert Grosvenor, 1st Marquess of Westminster is described as "developer of Belgravia", but in the section lead Cubitt and Cundy are credited.

See above. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Charing Cross / Trafalgar Square

• Hubert Le Sueur could be wikilinked

@Rodw: You mean in the lede? Done.

• Trafalgar Square, is desceribed as "one of London’s most famous public spaces" I think that is probably true but "most famous" is always controversial.

Would this page from london.gov.uk be an acceptable ref? It calls Trafalgar Square "London’s most famous square". It does seem worth stressing the fame for this of all things.

I see "one of the city’s most vibrant open spaces" on that page but not "one of London’s most famous public spaces". Fame is very subjective.— Rod ^talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The relevant quotation is "London’s most famous square", at the end of the page. I've added the ref now so please let me know if you object. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Nelson’s Column could be wikilinked

Again, in the lede? If so, Done.

• I can't work out if the description of the plinths quite matches Trafalgar Square#The plinths?

I think so...

• I have been discouraged from using q.v. and similar codes.

Should the relevant text (e.g. "statue of Edward Jenner") link to the anchor then, or is it best to keep links to sections within articles to a minimum?

I don't quite understand.— Rod ^talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I've removed all q.v.s; they're more trouble than they're worth. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Kensington Gardens could be wikilinked

Done

• Nelson's Column - is "unidealised" a word and what does it mean? Portland stone could be wikilinked

"Not regarded or represented as better than in reality; true to life" (oxforddictionaries.com). I've wikilinked "Portland stone" for the first of its five mentions, in the Belgravia section, but not afterwards.

Perhaps "true to life" then.— Rod ^talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Rephrased to the following: "Nelson is shown without an eyepatch, but his portrayal in this statue is not idealised by the standards of the time." I don't think this is asking too much of the reader; "idealised" is quite a common term in art history. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Edith Cavell Memorial - presumably Queen Alexandra is Alexandra of Denmark but a link would help

Added. Again, the link was already further down the page, but I've added another here.

Yep I believe 1st mention (outside the lead) should always be wikilinked (and as I said I would link once per row in sortable lists).— Rod ^talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Beatty Memorial Fountain again nothing in notes

Added more.

• Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope not an issue but I'm intrigued by "The bust contains a half-pint bottle of Guinness"

It was Franta Belsky's trademark; I think he did the same for the statue of Earl Mountbatten.

• Platform murals - I don't understand "Gentleman" in this context - is it David Gentleman?

Yes; isn't that clear enough? Ham II (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

More when I get some time.— Rod ^talk 12:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I will look again at the other subsections later, but many of the issues I see are similar to those listed above.

• References and Bibliography

• Shouldn't all (recent) books have isbn numbers?

@Rodw: Added for the ones in the Bibliography; will follow up with the others.

Done all the remaining ones. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Where NHLE data sheets are used sometimes English Heritage is given as the author (eg 64, 102, 112, 182, 290, 322, 364, 367 ) and sometimes it has EH as the publisher (eg 26) this should be consistent (I always treat EH as the publisher)

16 was the only one that didn't use {{English Heritage List entry}}, so it's now been changed.

All of these now don't have a publisher.— Rod ^talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather keep the consistency and convenience that comes with using the template, so this would have to be raised at {{English Heritage List entry}}. However, this usage is consistent with treating Westminster City Council as the corporate author for other refs—​which for ones using {{Harvnb}} is a technical necessity. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• 15 What makes London details a reliable source (self generated & uploaded content)

The only other source I can find for this is Geograph. Can anyone with access to JSTOR or similar help?

• 27 What makes Slide Share a reliable source (self generated & uploaded content)

Changed to a PDF published by the Grosvenor Group; the SlideShare page was the only available source at the time.

• 31 - is a redirect & I can't see the claim supported

Fixed. Retrieved from the Internet Archive.

• 48 ? a book could be moved to bibliography

I've only put books which are used more than once in the bibliography. Should they all go there?

That is how I would do it, but I don't know if there is a specific guideline to follow.— Rod ^talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

All books but one now moved to the bibliography; Glinert 2012 (ref 168) doesn't have page numbers, so I'll get this from my local library. That one wasn't added by me! Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@Rodw: Done the last one. Ham II (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• 49 possible doi error

Removed the DOI.

• 157 has URL showing - format issue

Fixed

• 261 needs a publisher

Fixed

• 290 includes the NHLE ref number in the title - the others don't

I don't see this; as far as I can tell they all have the number.

• 339 ? a book therefore should it be in bibliography

See 48 above.

Done. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Some conservation area audits by Westminster City Council are in bibliography but others are in the reference list.

Again, the same reason as 48 above. Perhaps conservation area audits could be a separate section of the bibliography as they're webpages, not books? The ones in the Bibliography are needed there as page numbers are cited.

Personally I would put them all into bibliography. I guess this is personal choice however consistency is generally good.— Rod ^talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Done—​given conservation area audits their own section. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've just realised that a PDF from Westminster City Council, "Guidance for the Erection of New Monuments", has always been in the Bibliography section, so I've decided to merge the conservation area audits back into the main bibliography. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hope these are helpful— Rod ^talk 16:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much for going through this. I've run out of time for tonight, so sorry for not getting to the older questions. I've also got a very busy week ahead so the replies might be thinner on the ground till Friday. Ham II (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

This is looking much better than when I last looked at it and I have struck some of my comments. A couple more:

• Ref 86 shows on my screen as "Template:Ward-Jackson" without a page number - I think sfn or similar is missing

@Rodw: Fixed.

• Ref 87 "Bardley & Pevsner 2003" doesn't link to the bibliography details properly (not sure why)

Fixed. Ham II (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You have put a lot of work into this list.— Rod ^talk 20:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from JMiall

I reviewed this previously and was basically happy with it. Since then it has improved although sadly got shorter as well. I didn't ask that all duplicate links be removed - I only objected to the same thing being linked many times in a row.

@JMiall: Sorry for my outburst about "overlinking" earlier on. It really hasn't been clear what best practice is for this.

Anyway, a bit of random sample fact checking between this list and the linked articles on dates that don't match:

• Duke of York Column

1832–4 goes from the completion of the column to the erection of the statue. It seems as if the design was ready by 1829 (Ward-Jackson 2011, p. 387), so I suppose that is the start date. Changed to 1829–34.

• Shaftesbury Memorial Fountain

1885 here was the date when the commission started. The unveiling date was 1893. Changed to 1885–93 here and at Shaftesbury Memorial Fountain.

• Boadicea and Her Daughters (although it explains why)

Dates now corrected at Boadicea and Her Daughters (formerly 1902–3; now 1856–83 (executed); June 1902 (erected)), with citation. That is now consistent with this article.

• Buxton Memorial Fountain – only mentions 1865

Completion date (February 1866) now mentioned at Buxton Memorial Fountain, so that supports the date here (1865–6).

• The Burghers of Calais

1895 date here was incorrect; changed to 1884–9 (cited and consistent with The Burghers of Calais).

which means there are probably more to find. A bit of clarity on what date it is in the date column might be useful. JMiall₰ 21:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

In general I think the dates should go from conception to completion, where those dates are known.

Also I don't think the lead image is very good. I can see why a photo of that statue is being used but I'd prefer a better image of something else, or a map (as mentioned above). JMiall₰ 21:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of replacing the lead image with, hopefully, a better depiction of the same statue. Prioryman (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@JMiall, Prioryman: That is an improvement overall. Although the previous pic was better composed and didn't have the long side of the plinth in shadow, this has more striking colours. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Alien (sculpture)

I've just across Alien (sculpture) and wondered why it isn't included in the list - although initially temporary it seems to have become more permanent.— Rod ^talk 18:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

It has only been given planning permission to be there until next month. Westminster planning portal don't seem to have any applications to extend again, and they are running out of time, so I'd assume that it really will be going soon. JMiall₰ 19:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

J. Gordon Edwards filmography

Nominator(s): Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... it is a comprehensive filmography of J. Gordon Edwards, a once-lauded but now nearly entirely forgotten director of the American silent film era. Although he's been compared to Alfred Hitchcock and D.W. Griffith, the bulk of his work (like most silent films) simply no longer exists. But that doesn't stand in the way of preserving information about his oeuvre, and presenting it to our readers. I'm no stranger to Featured Content, but this is my first trip to FLC; hopefully everything is in order. Disclosure: This is a WikiCup nomination. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Support − Looks much nicer now. Sources look good, too. Jimknut (talk) 22:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

National symbols of Sri Lanka

Nominator(s): Anton^Talk 17:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the list received peer review and archived. Also, it is a well-written and well-sourced. I see it as an interesting list since it gives a nutshell view about a country. The feedback that it is going to receive, would help to work on more lists, and these might help to start new lists of National symbols. Anton^Talk 17:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Azealia Banks discography

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This list is about the discography of American hip hop artist Azealia Banks. A concise and well-sourced list, it meets all the criteria for a featured list. HĐ (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

• "Broke with Expensive Taste, which attained moderate success". Needs a source even if it is available in the section(s) as it's not mentioned elsewhere other than lead.

• Fixed. HĐ (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• "yield" does not sound encyclopedic. How about "spawn"? --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 15:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Thank you for your review! HĐ (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support — FrankBoy _(Buzz) 16:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Very good so far, here are my comments:

• I think simply "American rapper" can be used rather than "American rapper and singer"

• Done. HĐ (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Nothing on the worldwide sales for Broke with Expensive Taste?

• I have found nothing on it. Sorry. HĐ (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• In "Guest appearances", remove the period following "II. Earth: The Oldest Computer (The Last Night)"

• Done. HĐ (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Overall, a fine list. Well done! Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your review! HĐ (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

My pleasure, and I can now support this for FL. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

List of Bermuda T20I cricketers

Nominator(s): Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 21:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets FL criteria. The list is formatted according to other Featured Lists of cricketers. The Bermuda ODI list is already a featured list, so for sake of completeness, I want to get this list to Featured Status as well. Since, Bermuda doesn't currently have Twenty20 International status, the information in this list is unlikely to significantly change for the foreseeable future. Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 21:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment

• I think prose is not as good to meet the FL standards for example the first sentence repeats the same thing (same for the last two sentences). There is no proper use of abbreviations and dashes etc. Take a look at what we have done in List of India Twenty20 International cricketers, List of Sri Lanka Twenty20 International cricketers and List of Pakistan Twenty20 International cricketers for different approaches. --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I believe your issues have been fixed. Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 00:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• • These are all fixed. Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 06:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support, nice work. I've made a minor tweak to the article, but otherwise all good now. Any chance you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tied Twenty20 Internationals/archive1? Harrias ^talk 13:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support – meets the criteria. --Khadar Khani (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Junior Eurovision Song Contest winners

Nominator(s): Lucky102 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating the List of Junior Eurovision Song Contest winners for featured list because of the high-importance it is to the Eurovision WikiProject. It gives a quick brief of the competition at the start, to those who may get onto it randomly. It features the list of all the winners, along with the song, performer, points, margin and the runner up (in columns beside it). It features also a list based on the countries who have won it the most often (along with a map), and winners by languages. Queries are welcome. Lucky102 (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Danish Kaneria

Nominator(s): Vibhijain (talk), Khadar Khani (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The list of Danish Kaneria's fifers was created by Vibhijain. I worked on the list and now I feel this is according to the FLC criteria. Appreciate your comments and suggestion. Regards, Khadar Khani (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per criterion 3(b). The size of the parent article hovers around 4.3k chars —Vensatry _(ping) 09:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Vensatry: the parent article is now over 7.5k characters (over 1250 words). I think your concern is addressed! --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think it still needs expansion. Though others might have different opinions, my rule-of-thumb is 12k chars. —Vensatry _(ping) 16:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• OK, I'll try to expand this a little more. --Khadar Khani (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Parent article's size is now 12k chars! --Khadar Khani (talk) 01:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment:
  • "As of 2015, he is seventh in the list of five-wicket haul takers for Pakistan, all formats of the game combined." --> "As of 2015, he is seventh in the list of five-wicket haul takers for Pakistan in all formats of the game combined."
    • Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Use the Template:As of for the above sentence.
    • Stats for the list change with time, so no need of this. --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I would center align the values for the Inn, Overs, Runs, Wkts, Econ, and Result columns for aesthetic reasons.
    • This is for consistency reason since the plainrowheaders' rowscopes align to the left. --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Need to add column scopes to the table per WP:ACCESS#Tables
    • Done. --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Link all instances of ESPNcricinfo in your references.
    • No need of this, the first one is already linked. --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't put rowscopes in the middle of a row as this will confuse screen readers. They should ideally be put at the beginning of a row.
    • Yes, they should be in the beginning but in this case the list is about "five-wicket hauls", so I rowscoped the corresponding one. --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, I disagree with Vensatry that this is a 3(b) violation. This list is long enough that it would be awkward to merge it back into the parent article. Plus, Chaminda Vaas has only 16 five wicket hauls, one more than Danish Kaneria, and it is a featured list. Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 21:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
    • @Blackhole78: thanks for the review, I'll do your list ASAP! --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• It's not about the length of the list, but about the size of the parent article. And yes, the Chaminda Vaas list shouldn't have been promoted. Nevertheless, the issue is now resolved as the parent article has been expanded. —Vensatry _(ping) 11:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Vensatry: have you had a chance to have another look at this list? Harrias ^talk 18:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Not much to say about this one. I've made some consistency fixes to the references, but otherwise it is a pretty solid list. Nice work. Harrias ^talk 20:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! --Khadar Khani (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

List of nearest exoplanets

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting list I've worked on which I believe passes WP:FL? I hope reviewers will check it out. Thanks for any feedback! Nergaal (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Huh, the ping didn't actually ever send anything to me. You might try it again for the others. Anyway, I supported last time, so I Support again. Thing I noticed this time:

• "A total of seven planets has been suggested for Gliese 667 C (but only two have been confirmed)" - the aside sounds better to me without the "but"
• If this review (hah) is helpful, consider optionally reviewing my World Fantasy Award for Best Anthology FLC down below. --PresN 20:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Planets d, f, and g for Gliese 581 are not simply unconfirmed, but have been basically disproven at this point, so I would remove them completely. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I would be fine removing f and g, but if d is indeed retracted, wouldn't e become the new d? Nergaal (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There was an extensive discussion about this earlier on Talk:Gliese 581 and Talk:Gliese 581 e. The consensus was that, due to the fact that scientific studies still refer to the planet as "e", the article should stay at "e". Anyways, I've made the change, so now I support this nomination. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

@StringTheory11, Dudley Miles:

Comments. This is an interesting list but I have some doubts about it.

• I am not clear why nearest is taken as 50 light years and I do not see any explanation. Why not 100 light years or 20 parsecs. I think you need either to justify the limit or change the name of the article to "List of explanets within 50 light years".

I wanted a round number that contains a manageable number of planets. I think 50 ly is round enough, and at around 100 entires is a manageable list. Going to 100ly I think is a bad idea since it would have around 8x more planets which is way too much for the scope of the article, while 10 ly would be too little for the list to be relevant. A parsec is a meaningless value to a layperson so I strongly prefer using ly increments. List of nearest stars for example contains only up to 5 ly and does not say "list of stars within 5ly". Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

List of nearest stars redirects to List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs. This is out to 5 parsecs, not ly, and List of nearest bright stars is to 15 parsecs. Neither is an FL. I think the article name should be "List of explanets within 50 light years". Dudley Miles (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what would be gained my the title change. What do others think? Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• There is a good deal of 'recentism' in the article. The opening sentence "Astronomers have identified a total of 65 exoplanets within 50 light-years of the Solar System," will become outdated when the next near exoplanet is found. It should be "as of date..." This also applies to many statements in the lead and note d. I would suggest a note stating that all statements in the article are "as of ..."

Good catch. I tried to put a year by each count. Nergaal (talk)

• There are no references for much of the lead and note d.

Which parts of the lead? For note d there is a sentence in the criteria section: "For the purpose of this list, an exoplanet is regarded as unconfirmed when there is only a single (primary) report which presents its discovery, but there are no follow-up papers discussing their existence." Many of reported objects sometimes even are confirmed by some other scientists only to be later disproven or reclassified. Basically I don't want to inflate the count with planets that only are reported in xarchiv until at least some review later discusses it (or better said, somebody with knowledge in the field took that xarchiv report seriously). Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

There are no refs at the end of the first 3 paragraphs. Note d says "This recently-discovered exoplanet is regarded as unconfirmed as there is only a single (primary) report discussing its existence." You need a ref for this specific exoplanet, not just the general principle. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Each time note d is used there is a reference to one of the databases, which seems to list all the papers pertaining to that planet's entry. Note d comes only when there is a single link in that database. As for refs at the end of intro paras I don't think it is necessary. I put refs only for specific measurements, while for "counting" of things done in this list I did not put one. Most FLs have statements like "there are x many things" (implying that they are listed below) that are not explicitly referenced. That works fine, but the only real disadvantage for this list is that it gets updated a few times a year, so whoever makes the update has to change this count without having an easy reference to cross-check the updated number. Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• The only ref for the number of 65 exoplanets in the opening sentence is a list of visible stars within 50 ly, which is not the same thing, and it is not clear that this source is WP:RS. Out of the 4 sources listed in note a, the first two do not appear to list distance (although I may be missing something due to lack of technical knowledge), and 3 is a dead link. In 4 the list of confirmed planets in the NASA source has the distance column blank for half of them. If you are assuming that any where the distance is unknown must be over 50 ly away this must be justified.

note a is the ref for the number 65, and is a RS in the sense that they do not have thresholds for specific distances. What I did is go through all those 4 links and comb for items within 50 ly. For 1 you have to click "all fields", so I added that link too. For 2, you have to click "+" on the right side to get the "DIST", but that option is only saved as a cookie (so I cannot have a direct link to it). I could try to put a note to the ref entry if you think that is what it needs. 3 was live less than a month ago, but fixed it. Same for 4. Nergaal (talk) 00:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand "is a RS in the sense that they do not have thresholds for specific distances." On the other points I think you need to spell them out in the note. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

None of the 4 databases split their entries by distance from the Sun. They all contain some 1k+ entries with all the known exoplanets. This list is a trimmed version of those lists, containing only 65 + 35 entries, so in that sense it is a RS. Updated each of the 4 links. Let me know if there is anything else.Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

• I do not understand the table 'Systems visible with the naked eye'. How can they be visible when half of them are listed as not having a visible host star? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The column is "Visible host star?" and split by Yes and No. Nergaal (talk) 00:21, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

If you showed the table heading with a question mark as 'Systems visible with the naked eye?' it would be clearer. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. @Dudley Miles:. Nergaal (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: sorry for late replies, I somehow missed your review in my watchlist. Nergaal (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Nergaal (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

@Mattximus: and @PresN: I would appreciate any feedback. Nergaal (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

As to the article's name/scope? I'm persuaded by your argument that 50 ly gives you on the order of 100 entries, while 100 ly would be ~800 and 10 would be ~5. Any cutoff point would be arbitrary; I'm fine with where you've chosen it and I don't think that you should make the title needlessly complex, since that doesn't change the arbitrary nature of the cutoff point. If you meant you wanted feedback on something else, let me know, since I already supported. --PresN 22:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't find any non-arbitrary cut off in the literature, so there is nothing wrong with 50ly. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Mattximus (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2013 Pacific hurricane season

Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The 2013 Pacific hurricane season was an above average year, featuring 20 named storms. In addition, it was very deadly and destructive, with 135 deaths and $4.2 billion in damage overall. This timeline documents the life-cycles of all the tropical cyclones that formed in the Central and East Pacific in 2013 and now, in my opinion, adheres to the characteristics of a featured list. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Support. I had a good read and I didn't detect any problems that I know of, although a more experienced editor may pick up a few. Detailed, well sourced, well written, it is a list of good quality. Burklemore1 (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• Looks fine to me. Just a few queries.
  • Sorry for the late responses, @User:Dudley Miles. Anything else? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• "The hurricane season officially began on May 15, coinciding with the formation of Tropical Storm Alvin, in the East Pacific—defined as the region east of 140°W—and on June 1 in the Central Pacific—defined as the region west of 140°W to the International Date Line—and ended on November 30 in both basins." This seems far too detailed for the lead paragraph. I would have something like season began 15 May in the East Pacific and 1 June Central..." and put the rest in an nb note. BTW does the Pacific only have east and central regions - the Philippines is in the central Pacific?
  • Comment from another user: There is western Pacific, but over there, they are called typhoons rather than hurricanes. The Philippines is in the Western Pacific. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • As suggested. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• tropical depression - I would link (or better still define in an nb note).
  • Linked. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• "state of Sinaloa" I would say in Mexico.
  • Changed. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• "a storm that was not operationally warned upon" warned upon sounds wrong to me - is it correct AmerEng?
  • As far as I know. :) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
• Degenerates sounds odd to me. Is it a technical term and does it mean something different from weakens? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The dictionary definition of degenerate reads, "lacking some property, order, or distinctness of structure previously or usually present, in particular." It's commonly used when advisories are stopped on a tropical storm or depression because that cyclone lacks the requirements to be considered such. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

SupportTA, three qualms here:

• Maye add Barbara to the lead? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Barbara is already included in a sentence. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• "This timeline includes information that was not released in real time, meaning that data from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center, such as a storm that was not operationally warned upon, has been included. " Also note the CPHC here, since it warned on 5 systems. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Add when the CPHC season first started to the timeline. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
• Look at: http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2013/SONIA.shtml? After November 3, Sonia's events should be in PST, not PDT. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

• Only one qualm here. "This timeline includes information that was not released in real time, meaning that data from post-storm reviews by the National Hurricane Center and Central Pacific Hurricane Center, such as a storm that was not operationally warned upon, has been included." - I'd nix "such as a storm that was not operationally warned upon, has been included". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi, @Crisco 1492. I disagree with this change. I think it's important to note that the NHC/CPHC can add additional storms, which weren't included in real time throughout the season, so that people aren't asking "where did this come from?" while reading. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
    • That's not what "Operationally warned upon" reads to me. For me, it comes across as later analysis of data is being included here (in general) and not just storms which may not have been declared at the time. At the very least a reworking is in order, preferably with a simpler structure; remember, FLs have to be accessible to everyone, and the current wording is not the clearest. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for removal

List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not currently meets the criterion established at WP:WIAFL, especially regarding notability. The cutoff is arbitrary and no outside sources seem to support the notability of 100 triples. Also, the prose, FWIW, is way too short and is not detailed enough to be considered FL quality. It's a nice little list, but just doesn't meet the standards of today. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This article on Fangraphs from 2013 discusses the 100-triple plateau. This one, from Hardball Times, also discusses 100 as a significant number of triples. In this book, the author discusses a player narrowly missing 100 triples for his career, implying that the number is a significant one. I can find more, and I'd be happy to incorporate the significance of the number into the article's prose. I understand it's not something that you're going to read about in the sports pages every day, but that is likely because it's an increasingly rare achievement. In short, 100 triples is not a common thing to talk about, but it's more common than any other number of triples.

If we can agree on that, I'd be happy to improve the prose and upgrade and technical aspects of the table that may have changed since it was featured. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep: Really? Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases/archive2 fails its nomination as you argued against everything you're saying here in your nomination. But since the article you were working on failed it's FLC, you're going to in turn nominate a similar article at FLRC. Nice. Gloss 01:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

That's not at all why I nominated it, Gloss. Thanks for assuming bad faith though. It was because of notability concerns, of which was mentioned there. The milestone of 300 stolen bases was also mentioned in various sources and a book, but it doesn't necessarily indicate notability. That said, I'll let Coemgenus improve the lead so it meets standards for prose and see where we are with notability. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to waste my time and effort improving the prose until we can decide if it's notable. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to say it isn't notable, per your earlier comment. Gloss 01:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I ought to elaborate on my notability concerns. I had an article similar to 100 triples (300 stolen bases) recently, but it did not pass FLC. The main issue was notability concerns. 300 stolen bases was discussed in secondary sources, but notability wasn't necessarily demonstrated. I feel as if the issues at this list echo the ones at 300 stolen bases. 100 triples is mentioned in some secondary sources (including a book), but is not considered a notable milestone outside of Baseball-Reference. 100 triples is mostly notable because it's a round number and is mentioned in sources. As I said, it's certainly a nice little list, but it just isn't there with notability and prose. You're right, Coemgenus, that we ought to wait on addressing the prose until we can address notability, but the prose will also be a part of this. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

And yet you nominated that article, so you thought it was notable enough then. Why the change of heart? This seems like you're trying to make a point and dragging this innocent article through the mud to do it. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This is turning into a bit of a back-and-forth WP:ABF. I realized that fighting for my nominated list was a lost cause and that it probably wasn't notable. It had been suggested, especially in the first nomination, that this article might be of concern. This isn't at all me trying to make a point. I'm trying to be helpful and see if we can have this article as a keep, but the concerns were great enough that further review was needed. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I actually assumed good faith when this began, but you've essentially admitted to playing the dog in the manger. I'm sorry your article didn't pass, but that's no reason to degrade someone else's work. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

You were AGFing at the start of this, but Gloss's ABF comment was quite extreme and I think it had a rudely chilling effect. Regardless of whether or not my list had passed, I would have brought up the concerns I'm bringing up. Honestly, this is a problem across a lot of these MLB lists: arbitrary cutoffs and no chance at FL. If this list were to run for FL for thr first time ever, it would fail. It's quite similar to the 300 stolen bases one. But that doesn't mean I'm "degrading" your work at all. In fact, I found that remark offensive, as I put a lot of hard work to improve the 300 SB list just like you improved 100 triples. But your list passed FLC years ago, back when the criterion were much different. I want this to pass, so can we please address the concerns. Also pinging @Bagumba:, @EricEnfermero:, and @Go Phightins!:. More opinions might be needed. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:48, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't tell me I was assuming bad faith when I had every reason to say what I said, confirmed by your comment "I had an article similar to 100 triples (300 stolen bases) recently, but it did not pass FLC" - this is here as a result of your failed FLC. And I also don't want to hear that you're trying to keep this article as a featured list. If notability was a concern of yours, you could've easily brought it up on the baseball WikiProject talk page, or this article's talk page. Gloss 02:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Gloss, I used my FLC as an example of why notability might be a concern, but you assumed bad faith by giving off the connotation that this is pointy. I will definitely be bringing up these lists in general as a concern for WP:BASEBALL. We continue to set up arbitrary numbers for these lists. We can perhaps make leader-boards for each statistic, but choosing an arbitrary number makes it an automatic FLC failure, which isn't fair to anyone. But in the meantime, we're focusing on this list and my concerns about notability were great enough that a reassessment was necessary. Now, I just want to help out. This isn't in bad faith, and this isn't to prove a point. Can we all please collaborate like decent human beings? I offer my hand as a gesture of respect and collaboration, and you? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:12, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Keep - As others have noted, there are independent sources that have lists of players with 100 triples, and even more have lists of all time triples leaders. So I don't see any issue with notability. And besides being used by others, 100 is a rational place to end a list of all time triple leaders, as it is a round number that produces a reasonably sized list. Rlendog (talk) 00:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Round numbers have resulted in failed FLC's recently, including a nomination of my own. Also, there were leader-boards for 300 stolen bases as well (just like 100 triples), as well as being mentioned in secondary sources, but it wasn't enough to prove notability and my article failed. Concerns are no different here IMHO. There are a lack of secondary, outside sources that demonstrate notability of 100 triples as a milestone. But the real issue does not lie in my list or this list, but at WP:BASEBALL as a whole. There seems to be a custom of naming these lists based on an arbitrary cutoff instead of actual milestones and as a result, none of these articles that aren't currently FL's don't stand a chance at FLC. Let me put it to you this way: if this article were to go through FLC today, it would fail for almost the exact same reasons mine did. But I guess this is an issue that the Baseball WikiProject needs to figure out in general, I guess. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:46, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Your list failed because you withdrew, incase you've forgotten. Yes, you had two opposes, but that didn't mean it was automatically set to fail. We were still discussing and other editors could've easily joined in there. Please stop bringing "your" list up. Gloss 03:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I withdrew because based on the comments by you and another editor, the chances of the article passing were slim to none. It was highly likely that your comments would've merited more opposes. I bring "my" list up because it's a good example for why this article may have issues. Unless you have anything useful to add, it would be nice if you quit commenting here because all you've done thus far is whine like a five-year old does when they don't get their favorite candy bar at the convenience store. Can we please actually try getting somewhere without yet another review turning into a screaming match? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 03:17, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably not, when you dish out personal attacks in your edit summaries and your comments. But wow, that's probably the worst analogy I've seen in my entire wiki-career. Good try, kiddo. Gloss 03:26, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Aside: I'm surprised FLCR doesn't require issues be brought up at the article talk page first. The Fangraphs and Hardball Times references mentioned by Coemgenus above are the type of sources that help establish WP:LISTN: they talk about the significance of the grouping, and mention some of the members. The book reference from Ghosts of Baseball's Past would be the type that I consider a random mention that I would discount for LISTN purposes. To justify FL status, I would like to see content from Fangraphs and HBT incorporated into the lead. Frankly, references based on stats sites always feel more WP:OR-ish to me, relying on Wikipedia editors to cull random "interesting" tidbits from massive stats site, as opposed to reliable sources whose experts note them in prose. One or two other sources that support LISTN fort he 100 club would seal the deal for me.—Bagumba (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I'll be glad to incorporate them into the lead over the next few days, and to look for other sources, as well. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Here's some more you might be able to use: Houston Chronicle, Journal Sentinel ... and this one from Rocky Mountain News (needs HighBeam Research access). I'm confident enough that the 100 cutoff is notable. The prose just needs to be expanded and sourced to explain more on the significance of 100. —Bagumba (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Additional Concerns: Thanks Bagumba for getting this discussion back on track, BTW. These are mostly just minor tidbits that should be addressed with no issues at all and are easily fixable.
  • Remove the Rankings column on the table. It just doesn't have a place in the article IMO.
    • I'm not sure I agree on this one. Why would this be inappropriate?
  • Please add a Key like there is at the 300 SB article. This is mostly for the convenience of the reader.
    • Done.
  • The addition of one more image might be helpful (but this is far less pressing than the rest)
    • Done.
• Other than that, expand the lead and incorporate those secondary sources, then I'd say that all of my concerns have been addressed. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
  • • OK, other than the rankings issue, all should be in order now. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Coemgenus: I guess the rankings column isn't necessarily deleterious to the list's quality or anything, but it doesn't add anything either. I'm going to make a few more changes later this evening (i.e add a few more sources to the lede, clean up, etc), and then I think the list will be able to retain FL status. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Coemgenus: Have you made any headway in the past 5-6 days with addressing the notability concerns and fixing the suggested changes above? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 02:10, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• • Sorry for the delay, real life work has gotten in the way. I hope to address this this week. --Coemgenus (talk) 02:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• No problem! Take as much time as you need for this. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 11:08, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

List of post-confederation New Brunswick general elections

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it appears to lack all citations. Being nominated so long ago, I don't think it ever had citations. The citation warning has been on the page for 5 years, and about a month ago I posted to the talk page and Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums but nobody has come forward. This nomination may set a precedent, as there are 10 or so more featured lists in this series that all fail to meet citation guidelines and probably should be delisted. I also think that given it is a series (for each province) they should be standardized before considered for featured list status again. Mattximus (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delist, no references at all for anything later than 2006, multiple prose and MOS problems (e.g. the opening sentence "This article provides a summary of results for the general elections to the Canadian province of New Brunswick's unicameral legislative body, the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick" has random bold links as well as being an awful start to an FL by current standards; the tables should run in chronological not reverse chronological order). Way below the standards of our best work. Bencherlite^Talk 10:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Have a look at the opening paragraph of this featured list List of Manitoba general elections. Can I nominate more than one article for delisting? Mattximus (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

List of schools in the Marlborough Region

Notified: Gadfium, WikiProject New Zealand schools

This is a six-year-old list, and it's showing the sign of earlier standards a little too much, unfortunately. There is unsupported information in the lead, and only one reference in both tables. Seven references for any featured page is insufficient, and the fact that one of those is a dead link is concerning. There are inconsistencies other more minor MoS fails too, but the lack of supporting citations is the main worry. (Please note that this FLRC wuld be running regardless of whether the column of external links was in the table or not: that was also an MoS fail). SchroCat (talk) 06:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

List of schools in the Northland Region should probably also be considered here as it was promoted at a similar time and has a similar history.-gadfium 07:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

• Both the nominated list and the Northland Region list need some work, delist as I agree with the nominator's rationale. Gloss 18:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)