Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2018

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC) [1].

---

Wright Brothers Memorial Trophy

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Now the Laureus set is complete, we're back to a few more randoms, and this is one such list. A highly notable aviation award with a long history, hopefully you'll all agree I've improved it from where I found it, to the point of it being considered worthy of FL status. As always, I'll work my hardest and quickest to address any comments anyone may raise. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

;Comments from BeatlesLedTV Centered the years for you; I'll do the same for the ref col Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC) "ngaging" → "engaging" (Harrison Ford notes) Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC) "lgendary" → "legendary" (Norman Augustine notes) Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC) Capitalize "Former" (Robert Crandall notes) Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC) remove space between quote and contributed (Joe Sutter notes) Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC) "Cofounder" → "Co-founder" (Olive Ann Beech notes) Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC) If this is an American award, then every date in every reference needs to be American style → Month Day, Year (January 13, 2018) Not necessarily. As long as they're consistent, that's fine, and since when I found the list like this, there were no dates (and no references), it's first come, first served on date formats! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC) That's all I got at first glance. Great job to another great list! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2018 (UTC) BeatlesLedTV thanks, as always, I think I've addressed your concerns and, if not, commented above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – You're right I'm sure it's not that big a deal. I'll see if other editors mention it. As always, great job TRM! Care to check out my new FLC? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

I made a few basic grammar fixes ("myriad of" is not actually wrong). My only suggestion is to reword "cited" a few times; the 36 instances of the word feels quite repetitive as you read the winner notes. Reywas92^Talk 07:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Great. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support - can't see any issues. The lead seems a little short, but maybe that's genuinely all there is to say....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:43, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  Thank you ChrisTheDude. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support after two read-throughs and a perusal of the sourcing I found it necessary to... add a category. Nice work. Courcelles (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

;Comments from MWright96* "Marion Blakey, former administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration and chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board was honored in 2013; and the 2016 recipient was Colleen Barrett, President Emeritus of Southwest Airlines." - Shouldn't the semi-colon be replaced by a comma? The access date in the third source is written as 2017-12-11 when the rest are listed as 7 December 2017 e.g. Reference 11 is missing the newspaper field which should be The Washington Post I don't believe that Reference 59 should be linked to the stock market on Bloomberg's websites Refs 64, 66, 68, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76 do not have the publication date of the press releases Those were all the issues I discovered on a first glance. Nothing overly major here as usual. MWright96 (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC) MWright96 as ever, thanks for your review. I think I've addressed everything you've noted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Neat work as ever TRM. MWright96 (talk) 13:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

:Hi TRM, please find my comments below: Table 1954 – link aerodynamics 1955 – link fluid mechanics and acoustics 1962 – link Supersonic speed 1968 – add this image United States Senator whose link United States Senate 1971 – add this image and mention that he was Senator 1973 – link United States Congress 2001 – link United States Naval Aviator, Gemini 8 and Apollo 11 2007 – Last man to walk on the Moon link List of spacewalks and moonwalks 1965–1999 References Ref 25 – link Centennial of Flight Commission Ref 86 – link BBC News Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Ianblair23 Ian, thanks for your comments, I believe I have addressed them all. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Great job TRM! Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

PresN any chance of taking a look here? The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Giants2008, any chance? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC) [2].

---

Municipalities of Aguascalientes

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I used my previous nomination, Municipalities of Colima, as a template for this list, keeping similar format and sourcing. I believe it meets featured list requirements but I am very open to any suggestions for improvement. This list is part of a greater goal of creating a featured quality list for all municipalities, adding to my previous 16 promoted lists of municipalities all using similar formatting, making them look more consistent and encyclopedic. Thanks for helping me on this project. Mattximus (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Honestly can't find anything, basing everything off your other list. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "The largest municipality by population is Aguascalientes, the state capital, with 877,190 residents, whereas the smallest municipality by population is San José de Gracia with 8,896 residents." No need to repeat "municipality by population".
• Worth mentioning that Aguascalientes has over two-thirds of the population?
• Ref 6 is bare url.
• Looks fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your suggestions. I made all of them, but left in "by population" since I now broke it into two sentences due to your second point. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

30em. Done Are you sure all incorporation dates are on page 66 of ref 8? Probably needs to be a page range. Done In the refs, INEGI is linked thrice out of four. Either always, or once, the first time round. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Thanks for your excellent review! I've made most changes, and a few more remain. I will also make the suggestions on my previous nomination Municipalities of Colima to ensure consistency for wikipedia pages. Mattximus (talk) 15:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC) I've now completed all your recommendations. Thanks again The Rambling Man! One query above. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC) [3].

---

List of songs recorded by George Harrison

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Both of my current FLCs each have two supports and no outstanding comments so I think I'm safe to nominate this one. Next up in my "songs recorded by..." series is George Harrison. One of the best musicians of all time, I built this list from this to where it is now (with a little help from a couple other editors). Looking forward to any comments or concerns anyone has. Happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• Period missing at the end of alt texts.
  • Done.
• Remove 'as a musician' bit from the opening sentence, as its already mention.
  • Done.
• 'T' should be in caps while mentioning The Beatles.
  • Actually 'the' is lowercase per MOS:THEMUSIC as well as consensus per the closures from this RfC and this RfM.
• "Harrison released two solo albums: the mainly instrumental Wonderwall Music".
  • Done.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Yashthepunisher Responded to your comments. Thanks very much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Dudley

• "Backed by Harrison's successful rendition by James Ray's "Got My Mind Set on You"" I am not sure what this means.
  • Should be 'of'. Changed it.
• "the Beatles' retrospective "When We Was Fab"," retrospective does not sound like the right word to me.
  • I didn't think it sounded right either. Changed it to 'reflective'. Or should it be reflection?

• How about "tribute to the Beatles"?

• Put "the Beatles' tribute" so I'm not saying "THE tribute to THE Beatles" ('The' twice). BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• " that ultimately lead to his death" led to his death
  • Done.
• I get no link error messages for the Castleman and Christgau books.

• I have fixed the Castleman error but the problem with Christgau seems to be that you do not cite it. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Dudley Miles Hmm that's weird I thought I had used it. I removed it. Thanks for fixing the error! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Looks good. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Dudley Miles All fixed. Thanks very much for the comments! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments "were released." no, should be "he released ... solo" just to be sure. "After his death in 2001, a final studio album, two singles, two compilation albums, and four box sets have been released. " as of? " broaden the horizons of his bandmates and their American audiences." do you not think Harrison's impact affected English audiences too? "Before their break-up," reinforce who "their" is, it's got lost preceding this. "mainly instrumental Wonderwall Music, the soundtrack " -> "the mainly..., soundtrack..." "After the break-up" again, you need to reinforce this was the Beatles. "highly successful single" usually we discuss whether they are commercially and critically successful, which was this? "critical acclaim from critics." remove "critical". "hidden for years behind Lennon and McCartney" POV, if a quote, attribute. "organized" if this is BritEng (STRONGTIES), we say "organised", check throughout. "albeit slightly more positive than " this wording is awkward already, but at least it should be "positively". "the warmly received[26] " move the cite to the end of the sentence. "a hiatus for five years" -> "a five-year hiatus". "However, years of cigarette smoking caught up to Harrison..." unnecessary, just stick to the fact that he died. " was released in 2002" -> " was posthumously released in 2002" Link Harrison in every entry in the sortable table. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man All done. Thanks so much for the comments! Care to check out my new FLC? I'll check out your new FLC within a day or two. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Do we really need two different tables of contents? Everything else looks fine. Courcelles (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Courcelles You mean the beginning ToC and then the content box under the heading? I've seen both in most of the "song" lists that are featured. I've used both in the lists I've helped become featured there's been no complaints. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Exactly what I mean, it is strange to go from a lede, to a TOC, to a second, more specific TOC that still contains everything in the first TOC, to finally the list. Courcelles (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• I definitely don't see the second TOC as a table of contents in that regard, just a navigation aid. I see no problem here at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Same I don't really see a problem either. It's definitely more of a navigation guide. The ToC is automatically generated as well. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:43, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. Without any other issues, support. Courcelles (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC) [4].

---

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Leicestershire

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and is in the same format as FLs such as Suffolk and Essex. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• Make sure you spell out numbers in the lead per MOS:NUM. Mainly just seven and twelve.
• Put a period at the end of the caption in the opening stream image.

Not going to lie that's all I got for you. Another great list Dudley great job! Care to check out my other FLCs? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Both done. Thanks for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Support – Absolutely. Happy to support. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments I've reviewed quite a few of these lists and each time there are fewer comments to make as they are at featured quality already. Just a few quibbles:

• "15% of UK output". I think this could use rewording. For example: "15% of the total production of rock in the United Kingdom." Or something a bit more clear. Is "rock" the best term for the mineral extracted from this quarry?

• Revised but did not repeat "rock" as that would make three times in two sentences. The source says crushed rock used for the foundations of roads and buildings, so it is not one specific mineral. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Batenus livens and anthribus fasciatus... Capitalization should be consistent throughout the article

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• "have diverse butterflies" -> "have diverse species of butterflies"?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

These are just minor, I will alredy Support this list based on my review. Mattximus (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review and support. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments "Leicestershire is a county in the East Midlands of England. The area of the administrative county is 806 square miles (2,090 km2)[2", why not "Leicestershire is an administrative county in the East Midlands of England with an area of 806 square miles (2,090 km2)..."? Changed to "Leicestershire is a county in the East Midlands of England with an area of 833 square miles (2,160 km2)," I think I made a mistake giving the area of the administrative not the geographic county. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "57 of which are designated for their biology, twelve for their geology and seven" MOSNUM, 57, 12, 7, or "fifty-seven, twelve, seven". The way I read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Numbers as figures or words, numbers below ten should be in words, numbers above can be in either. Is there guidance anywhere which forbids mixing the styles? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Sure, same MOS page you link, Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: five cats and thirty-two dogs, or 5 cats and 32 dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC) I missed that. Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC) " is rich in sulphides, some of which are unidentified.[9]" ref 9 has no publication date, so it's possibly slightly dubious to claim that the sulphides remain unknown... Same comment for " their genesis is little understood and they provide great potential for research"... There are more of these further on, perhaps a quick discussion over how to best handle them is in order? This is a good point which applies generally. Many citations appear to date to the 1980s, but geological ones will rarely be out of date as they have not been examined for decades. The problem is bigger with biological sites, where the vegetation can change. How about a note to the description column: "Descriptions are mainly based on the official Natural England citations. Many of these date to the 1980s, and in some cases may be out of date." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Link oak, link ash, but not pine? Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Link "heronry" (or heron). Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "one which is nationally rare" link? Done for species. I found a definition and added it to Regional Red List#British reviews of conservation status ten days ago. I have not linked the nationally rare vegetation type as I do not know how it is defined. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "neutral marsh" is this as opposed to acid/alkaline marsh? Again, sorry to be repetitive, do we have a link? Done. According to the Wiki article marshes are normally neutral - as opposed to acid/alkaline - but I have stuck with the source. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "wigeon, teal, mallard and pochard" links! I think it is better to leave these as two of them go to disambigs, and it would look odd to have two linked and two not. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Ok, although only pochard needs to be resolved because mallard could be linked to Anatinae. Ho hum. Just noticed the ref for this is missing an "r"! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC) The other one is teal, which links to the colour, and the teal disambig covers different unrelated birds. Typo fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC) "are relicts of " -> I've never seen this, always "relic" for me, but I Googled it, and it seems okay, but not common. Changed to "the surviving parts" Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Link "asphaltite" Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "woodland.[150][149]" order. Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "Red Data Book of threatened species" why pipe to a redirect when you can just say "IUCN Red List"? Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC) "best wildlife sites in the county" yet only plants mentioned... Added moths. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Make sure consistent date formats are present in the refs, currently seeing DMY and YYYY-MM-DD mixed up. Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC) Thanks The Rambling Man for your thorough review. Replies and queries above. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC) Replied above. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC) Thanks. Replies above. Have I covered everything? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC) [5].

---

List of centuries in women's One Day International cricket

Nominator(s): – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

After successfully getting List of five-wicket hauls in women's One Day International cricket to FL status, I present to you the corresponding list for the female stars who wield the bat in the one day format. As always, I am happy to address any and all points raised. Thanks in advance to all reviewers. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments I know this seems de facto standard for this kind of intersection, but I just think it would be neater if, after the intro to the WODI format, you could then go on to say how many WODIs have been played since the first, and then how many centuries have been scored, for context of its notability. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Also, somewhere would be nice to know how many games into that 73 WC we were before the two centuries in an innings were made. So maybe link this version of the WC to the 1973 version, and say something like "in the match of the 1973 WC"? The opening match of the 1973 Women's World Cup was due to take match on Wednesday 20 June between New Zealand and Jamaica at Kew Green however your typical London weather prevented play taking place and the match was abandoned without a ball being bowled. Thus, preventing these 22 ladies making history in playing in what would of been the first ever Women's One Day International cricket match. The next three schedule matches all took place three days later on Saturday 23 June, the England v International XI was one of those matches. So, I have used the term "opening round". – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC) " being Nicole Bolton of Australia and " I would have a comma after Australia, to avoid "and and and" with no punc... Comma added – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC) " one of 22" MOSNUM doesn't like this, so 1 of 22 or one of twenty-two. Spelt out numerals – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "The most recent" probably needs an "as of" here. Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "11 times" et seq, I would start with "eleven" so you can go to "nine" and "eight", rather than "9" and "8" which look a little amateurish for me. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC) " the 2017 World Cup" you previously qualified all instances with "Women's" Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "from a total of 1,094 matches,[28] a total of 182 centuries" no need for the "a total of"s, just "182 centuries have been scored in 1,094 matches..." Reworded – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC) "12, ahead of the Bristol County Ground with 7" twelve and seven. Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Per your key, are they still referred to as "batsmen"? As per the Summary of changes to the Laws of Cricket 2017 Code released by the MCC in April 2017, "The new Code of Laws is written in language applying to all persons, regardless of gender. The new Code includes an increased use of generic nouns like "fielder" and "bowler" and uses "he/she" when required, together with a broadened disclaimer covering all genders. The term "batsman" remains, however." So, it seems that those who were consulted on the updated Laws were happy for term to apply to the fairer sex, so that is the term that we shall use. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC) When sorting date in reverse order, I'm surprised to see that the No. is very much not linear in reverse... Fixed using addkey=1 – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC) What's your rationale behind some venues having red links and some not being linked at all? None, just forgot to link them. Added links – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Outer Oval - the article says "while the Outer Oval also hosts domestic ODI and Twenty20 games." but doesn't mention WODIs, perhaps you could enhance that as a side benefit?! Done – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC) You'll hate this, but as it's ODI and susceptible to World Cups, I've often seen "Home/Away/Neutral" columns in these kinds of lists.... I would argue that that would be redundant, especially as I have listed the country in the venue column – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Not all notes are referenced? Refs added – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC) That's all I have on my first dive in. Nice looking piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Hi TRM, thanks so much for your review. I have addressed each of your points inline above. Let me know what you think. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• Spell out numbers one to twenty in the lead – MOS:NUMERAL. I know it only says one to nine but you have multiple instances of 11, 12, etc. that would look better spelled out. Also spell out 50. On top of that "one hundred" is spelled out once so make sure it's consistent.
• Why is there a large space in the International XI boxes? It's looks like there's supposed to be a flag but isn't.

That's all I got. Great job to you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi BeatlesLedTV, thank you kindly for the review. I have spelt out the numbers. Also, yes the space is intentional as the International XI does not have a flag. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Support – Gotcha. All good for me then. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Honestly struggling to find anything to nitpick here. Courcelles (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC) [6].

---

England cricket team Test results (1946–1959)

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 10:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

The next in the series of these, this follows the same format as the FLs England cricket team Test results (1877–1914) and England cricket team Test results (1920–1939). I have hopefully applied all the comments and feedback from those lists into this one, but I'm sure you'll all find plenty to bring up nevertheless! I do have an open nomination, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Laureus World Sports Award for Sportsperson of the Year with a Disability/archive1, but that has two votes of support and no outstanding comments. Harrias ^talk 10:27, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

;Comments from BeatlesLedTV Based on your other featured lists you mentioned I'd say you got a pretty good list here. Personally, I think the summary table should be centered but both of your other lists don't have that so don't worry about it. One problem I notice off the bat is check ref 6 because there's a cite error with it. Resolved this now. Harrias talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC) In the lead, you have multiple uses of "by an innings". Is that how it's supposed to be worded because it reads awkward to me. If not, I'd change it but if it's worded correctly then leave it. I have linked this on the first use to Result (cricket)#Statement of result, which hopefully helps to explain it? Harrias talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC) That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Completely forgot about this one. Sorry about that. I offer my support now. Great job Harrias! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments I find that an odd opening sentence, you probably should contextualise it here by saying something like "Between 1946 and 1959, the England cricket team...." This remains odd to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Reworked this a little. Harrias talk 16:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Also I would explicitly state that cricket had been suspended for the duration of WWII rather than just leap in with its resumption. Reworded this. Harrias talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Strikes me that it's reasonably important to bring out all the Ashes results in the lead since that's the seminal cricket match-up.... Thoughts? The article does mention that "against Australia they won seven and lost seventeen"? Harrias talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Ok, you could at least link the "against Australia" to The Ashes I suppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Tweaked a little. Harrias talk 16:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Lord's is piped to a redirect back to itself. Fixed. Harrias talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC) "Start Date" -> "Start date". Fixed. Harrias talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC) I'm not familiar with a statistic that divides wins by losses. Is that used commonly? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC) I find it odd too, it's what ESPNcricinfo uses. Harrias talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Are there any English cricket publications that use a similar (odd) rating? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC) It's not something I've particularly come across elsewhere, no. Harrias talk 16:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC) No, it doesn't seem very helpful at all, unlike, say, an overall win%. By the way, I just checked and the W/L col doesn't sort correctly... Probably because of the blank cell instead of infinity... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:11, 21 December 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: I've fixed the sorting, but left the column in general. I agree that it is weird, and would similarly prefer a normal win%. However, I haven't seen a source with that statistic. I could obviously calculate it simply myself, but don't know to what extent that would be considered synthesis or original research? Harrias talk 09:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Note Sorry, as I've noted elsewhere, home-life has kept me pretty busy lately, but I think we're over the hill now. Got family around for Christmas, but I'm hoping to get some time soon to address these issues, and hope the delegates can be patient with me. Thanks. Harrias ^talk 12:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Replied to both BeatlesLedTV and The Rambling Man's concerns. Harrias ^talk 15:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Harrias couple of follow-ups... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

:Hi Harrias, please find my comments below: General I have centered the first two columns of the main table, expanded the key and placed in a table, centre aligned and fixed the data in the summary table and placed the correct ref in the Total matches column. Thanks. I don't like the centred text, but everyone else seems to be clamouring for it, so whatever. Harrias talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC) Lead Image needs alt text Added. Harrias talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC) link runs in the caption Linked. Harrias talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC) link all the teams in the second paragraph as you have done with Pakistan in the first Linked all. Harrias talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC) with their largest victory being by an innings and 248 runs against New Zealand in 1958 link New Zealand cricket team in England in 1958 Linked. Harrias talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC) was in 1956–57 against South Africa, when they won by 312 runs link English cricket team in South Africa in 1956–57 Linked. Harrias talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC) Also, if you get a chance could you please review my latest FLC, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of centuries in women's One Day International cricket/archive1. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC) @Ianblair23: Thanks for your review; I'll definitely take a look at your FLC. Harrias talk 09:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Great job Harrias, looking forward to see to rest of the series here at FLC. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• In the tiniest of nit-picks, I appear to need a subscription to read ref 5. Courcelles (talk) 05:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• As Harrias appears to be on a short wiki-break, I've just added the tag myself and can support this one. Sourcing looks good. Courcelles (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

• Courcelles Thanks! Harrias ^talk 17:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC) [7].

---

Grade II* listed buildings in Mendip

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 13:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Another in a series on listed buildings in Somerset. It uses the same layout as Grade II* listed buildings in North Somerset, Grade II* listed buildings in Sedgemoor, Grade II* listed buildings in West Somerset and Grade II* listed buildings in Taunton Deane. I have tried to take into account comments made during those nominations, but if I have missed any or you spot anything else please let me know.— Rod ^talk 13:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments " It has a population of approximately 11,000..." I would caveat this with an "as of". Added 2014 & new ref.— Rod talk 11:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "...Act 1990[3] rests..." nasty ref placement, and the rest of that sentence has nothing citing it. Moved to end of sentence.— Rod talk 11:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "some of which are Norman. Many of the rest are urban" - in this context "the rest" could be churches or other listed buildings, so be clear. Added "of the buildings".— Rod talk 11:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "the large and powerful" is this necessary? Removed - I think I was trying to say they owned lots of land & controlled trade.— Rod talk 11:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC) "1235-1252" en-dash. There are a few others. Ahhhh - as you know I always have problems with these. I have tried to fix but may have missed some.— Rod talk 11:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC) The Rib's "mid 15th century" sorts before the "Unidentified monument"'s "15th century". This was a problem where I had made an error with the formatting of the "sort" template - hopefully fixed.— Rod talk 11:49, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Otherwise looks good. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• "Ref." → "Ref(s)" (1 or 2 locations have 2 refs)
• Should the entry col be sortable? I personally feel like it shouldn't but if that's how you're other lists were then leave it.

Honestly that's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• These are both set by Template:English Heritage listed building header and is used on all the other similar lists, not just the Grade II* one I listed above, but all of the sub lists of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset which are all FA all those for other counties. I think the Ref. stands for Reference or References and someone could want to sort by Historic England entry number.— Rod ^talk 17:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• Ref 2 says the population is 110,844, not 11,000!

• Ooops - my typo - changed to approximately 110,000 (as it is an estimate).— Rod ^talk 21:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• I do not like the arrangement of para 3. You cover churches, then secular buildings, then "buildings are associated with the church", which seems an odd way to describe two churches and a former church.

• I have changed the order but by "buildings associated with the church I meant tithe barns, Bishops winter palaces, gatehouses, vicarages, churchyard crosses & almshouses run by the church etc.— Rod ^talk 21:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Conservative Club is described by the source as c. 1453, not 1453.

• Thanks - changed.— Rod ^talk 21:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Another first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

• "It had a population of approximately 110,000 in 2014.[2[[1]" Ref numbers should be in order. Honestly such a trivial criticism I feel fine just going straight to Support. Courcelles (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC) [8].

---

Billboard Latin Music Lifetime Achievement Award

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

My third list on a Latin music-related article. This time, we're looking at the Latin Music Lifetime Achievement that is presented by Billboard magazine. I based this article on the Latin Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award which was promoted to FL and am hoping to do same here. I'm looking for the comments. Thanks! Erick (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

;Comments from BeatlesLedTV Table needs scope rows and scope cols per MOS:ACCESS Some of the headers are centered and others aren't. They should all be centered. Are the ages of the artists needed? I don't really see the purpose are some recipients are bands and don't have "ages". Why are half the countries in "Nationality" linked but the other half aren't? Link Billboard in ref 1 Link The Augusta Chronicle in ref 6 Link The Hollywood Reporter in ref 8 Link Business Wire in ref 16 and unitalicize it. Link The Washington Post in ref 17 Add the website for ref 22 That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC) @BeatlesLedTV: I believe I have addressed the issues you brought up. Thanks for the comments. Cheers! Erick (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Couple more comments: The description of the award doesn't read well currently. I know it's a quote, but "Awarded for...given to an artist" doesn't read write. Just say "an exceptional career..." or "an artist's exceptional career" Italicize Billboard in infobox Fix spaced period in lead: "in 1993 . Gould" Sort Conjunto Primavera by last name. I would actually link all the countries in the Nationality column or at least the first instance of each country. Center refs 17 & 20 I checked over your coding and instead of having "style...center" in every box just put it at the top of the table. If you don't know how I can do it for you. Shouldn't Billboard in the article titled be italicized? Like the actual article title? I think that's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC) @BeatlesLedTV: Alright, I took care of just about everything that I was bought. I didn't sort Conjunto Primavera by last name as they are a musical ensemble and not a person. For the centering, yeah I could really use help in this one as I'm not too familiar with coding. Erick (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Took care of the coding for you. The list's good to go. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments Most recent winner could be listed in the infobox. "to an artist" well it looks like it goes to groups as well. ""El Premio Billboard (English" missing a closing quote mark after Billboard. "According to Billboard, the recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award is decided by their editorial committee" reads odd. You don't really need the "according to Billboard", I'd just say that "the recipient of the Lifetime Achievement Award is decided by the Billboard editorial committee". "The Lifetime Achievement Award was first given to Morton Gould..." this sentence needs merging with the next one to avoid repeat. If "ASCAP Latin Award" is so notable, where's its article? "Beginning in 1994, the Lifetime Achievement Award is given during the" awkward phrasing. And does that mean the 1993 award wasn't presented in that way? I would re-phrase the current sentence as something like "From 1994, the Lifetime Achievement Award has been presented during...". "but may also be present to" no need for "also" and should be "presented" not "present". "who has helped " have. "helped raised the" raise. Since para 2 of the lead makes a big deal out of the fact that non-performers could receive the award, I'd make that clear in the table too. Maybe a notes column for each recipient's contributions? " 2005 and again in 2016, to commemorate his 30th and 40th anniversary" odd that the awards were 11 years apart to celebrate ten years difference in his career? " into the Billboard Latin Music Hall of Fame.[9][6]" ref order numerically please. " Carlos Santana who won the Lifetime Achievement Award in 2009 was also given the Spirit of Hope by Billboard in 2015 for his humanitarian causes through his Milagro Foundation.[1][10]" not sure the point of this, especially since the "Spirit of Hope" award isn't even linked. And I would assume that other individuals on this list have received other honours from Billboard, why pick this one out? Everything that's linked in the table needs to be linked every time. That should be enough from a quick run-through. Let me know when you need a re-visit. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the comments TRM. I don't know why Billboard commemorated Solis career 11 years apart, but that's what the articles for Billboard state. Any suggestions? I'm not sure about a note column since the award is more of a trajectory achievement as Billboard only mentions that and expanding Latin music for the recent recipients. That is something I have for my next FLC after this though... EDIT: Forgot to mention I added a key to indicate non-performing recipients. Erick (talk) 13:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

*"From 1994, the Lifetime Achievement Award has been presented during, the Lifetime Achievement Award is given during the Billboard Latin Music Awards." This sentence needs work. Mention in the lede that the award is not always awarded, we have three years that no award was made. Ref 18 should be from "The Washington Post". Courcelles (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC) @Courcelles: Thanks for the comments. Has everything been resolved? Erick (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Courcelles (talk) 14:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC) [9].

---

List of songs recorded by Daft Punk

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Now that my Barrett list has been promoted and my Beastie Boys FLC has no current outstanding comments and one support, I think I'm safe to nominate this one. I created this list in late November and have solely brought it to where it is now. I was surprised to see that Daft Punk didn't have a song list, as they are incredibly influential and extremely recognizable. I think this list meets the FLC criteria and is quality enough to become featured. All comments and concerns are appreciated. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• Why have you mentioned the ISSN number in the second reference?
• Ref 3 is missing the publisher's name, also is doesn't seem to qualify WP:RS.
  • Replaced it.
• Pitchfork shouldn't be in italics.
  • Pitchfork as a website goes in italics; the publisher Pitchfork Media does not go in italics.
• cartoonnetwork.com --> Cartoon Network
• Mention Amazon only once.
• These two links should be archived.

The rest seems fine. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher All fixed; couple comments above. Thanks very much. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

;Comments from Hameltion Daft Punk is or are? Is Why is the bibliography there? No clue moved it Duo could be replaced with band at least once Used synonyms like "group" and "band" This is pretty solid. I've additionally made made these tweaks which are hopefully all good. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 03:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Hameltion Thanks very much for your comments! Made some additional ones above. And thanks for your edit! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:33, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Daft Punk is still referred to as plural a few times. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 16:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Hameltion Should be good now. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Great now, just check I didn't miss any plurals :) --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:53, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much!! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments "the French house and dance genres of" I would reverse this, simply as this could be misconstrued as "French dance" and DP's influence far transcended the French genres. "Its next album" reads really odd to me. Maybe "The band's next album" or something that isn't simply "its". "continued Daft Punk's array of success." reads like a fan review. Items in the table which are linked should be linked each time as the table is sortable. I personally don't like having an overabundance of links but I see your point. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Any chance of linking from this page to the Daft Punk discography, and vice versa? Table caption doesn't need a full stop. "Indo Silver Club" shows as 1996 in the discog FL and 1997 here, why the discrepancy? "Revolution 909" as well, slightly different. I think what we're seeing is that you're using the release date of the album, not the singles themselves, right? Yeah "Indo Silver Club" was released as a single in early 1996 but was again released on Homework the following year. Same with "Revolution 909". I only write "single" if the song is a non-album single that doesn't appear on an album. If a song does appear on an album I just use the album's release year. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Otherwise looks good. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man Thanks so much for your comments! Should be all good. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support looks like a fine list to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you so much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "After beginning in 1992 as the band Darlin' with Laurent Brancowitz,[2] the group disbanded". This does not sound right to me as it seems to say that Daft Punk started as Darlin'. Maybe "The duo started as Darlin' with Laurent Brancowitz in 1992, but the group disbanded in [date]"
  • Done.
• "The band's next album, the concept album". Repetition of "album" Maybe "Next was the concept album">
  • Done.
• "Since 2013, the duo has collaborated with multiple artists, such as Jay-Z and the Weeknd, being a featured artist on the latter's songs". I am not clear what you are saying here. Who was the featured artist. If the duo, can they be a featured artist, and if Jay-Z, what was it to do with the duo?
  • Daft Punk was the featured artist on two songs by the Weeknd, one being "Starboy" (featuring Daft Punk). And basically, Daft Punk and Jay-Z collaborated on an unreleased song called "Computerized" when they were recording Tron: Legacy. I added it to the table.

• You might leave out Jay-Z from the lead as "being a featured artist" might be taken to refer to him, and they only collaborated on an unreleased song. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Dudley Miles Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Looks good but I think the lead still needs a bit of work. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Dudley Miles All done. Thanks so much for your comments! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Giants2008 PresN There's now three supports and a source review done. Is this one all good now? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• "alt=Daft Punk at the premiere of Tron: Legacy in 2010" - don't use the apostrophes here.
• "the duo has been extremely influential" - I think this point can be made just as well without the weasel word extremely.
• "Their next single, "Da Funk", was its first commercial success" - its or their?
• "After the success of "Da Funk", Daft Punk released its first studio album Homework in 1997." Same as above
• "Next was the concept album Discovery, was released in 2001." Remove the second was.
• "The album received mixed reviews, with critics mainly focusing on the album's repetitive and minimalist nature" - with noun verb ing is best avoided at FLs.
• One general criticism: I think the list is a little single-centric. It needs to mention non-singles (I currently count none); this isn't supposed to be a singles discography. FrB.TG (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• FrB.TG All done. I mentioned some non-singles in the lead; if you think there should be more just say so. Thanks very much for the comments! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Support. Much better now. FrB.TG (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC) [10].

---

List of Presidents of the New York Public Library

Nominator(s): Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list of all presidents of the New York Public Library. My apologies if the article doesn't meet the criteria. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

;Comments from BeatlesLedTV All tables need scope cols and rows per MOS:ACCESS (specifically MOS:DTAB) All tables should be centered with names left-aligned You don't have the years in which they served under the dates in the lenox library table Put "Image" and "President" into their own columns If no image is available, put an en dash Change "Ref" → "Ref(s)" in New York Public Library table "On February 14, 1849 the" → comma after 1849 Change the dates in every ref to American style dating, meaning 'Month Day, Year' "Lenox library" → "Lenox Library" "Astor library" → "Astor Library" That's all I found off the bat. If you need any help just ask. Very good job so far! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC) BeatlesLedTV I believe I have addressed all of your issues. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC) I made some edits that reflect the scope rows that I mentioned previously. Couple more comments: Date in ref 1 still needs fixed Link the website in every ref if it has it's own page. For example, HathiTrust (which shouldn't be italicized btw), The New York Times, etc. In the New York Public Library table, some of the terms you have exact dates down to months and days but others don't have that. Everything else is good with me. Good job on this list! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC) BeatlesLedTV. I have fixed everything listed above but two. HathiTrust is in Italics because the publisher in the {{[[Template:Cite Web|cite web]]}} auto-italicizes it. In addition, anthony marx is not precise to the day because of the template it uses to keep time current. Thank you so much. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:11, 22 December 2017 (UTC) Eddie891 Actually the publisher doesn't auto-italicize the website does. To counteract that you put italics in the website itself. I'll do it for you. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support – It's all good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Hameltion (talk, contribs) 14:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

* A link in the bold isn't great (MOS:BOLDAVOID), so I've changed that Lenox Library is linked twice in the lead; Astor Library once No space should be between year dashes (MOS:DATERANGE) Is the lifespan graph necessary? or sourced? The articles is an orphan: link to it from the NYPL page and possibly individual presidents' pages I've additionally made these tweaks, which are hopefully alright. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 03:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Hameltion, I've addressed all of your concerns save the lifespan graph. I personally feel that it is a nice alternative to having a 'living presidents' section. However, if consensus emerges that it should be removed, I will happily do so. Additionally, I have sources to the lifespans, but am not sure where to put them, so if the graph should remain, could you please tell me where to put the sources? Thank you. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:22, 24 December 2017 (UTC) For what it's worth, I'd prefer the living presidents table (maybe the graph could be collapsed?). It couldn't hurt to put the sources in hidden comments (see WP:HIDDEN), and if it were to be a table, just make a Ref column. I also just noticed that some of the references have both YYYY-MM-DD and Month D, Year formats, so just make everything like the latter for consistency. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 13:49, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Oh also the date span is only between years, not between full dates. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 13:57, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Hameltion Better? Eddie891 Talk Work 14:27, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Looks good now. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 14:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments Once you've abbreviated New York Public Library, use the abbreviation! Fixed Can I just clarify one thing, are these individuals elected, and then re-elected every single year? That's a good question. The NYPL bylaws say nothing about term length other than "The President shall be the chief executive officer of the Library and shall exercise general supervision over its affairs and have the usual powers and perform the usual duties pertaining to his or her office. The President shall be ex officio a member of the Board of Trustees and all Committees of the Board and of the Corporation and shall be counted in the computation of a quorum and entitled to vote in the same manner as other members of such Committees, except that the President shall not be a member of the Compensation Committee or the Audit Committee. The President shall have the power to appoint, suspend and remove all employees other than those elected or appointed by the Board of Trustees pursuant to these Bylaws. and The officers shall be elected by the Board of Trustees at each annual meeting and shall hold office for one year So I'd assume yes,and have edited the page accordingly. "The trend ended in 1971, when Richard W. Couper became" well you probably need to tell me a little about Couper to help me understand how his election meant the trend ended. Turns out that he was fairly prominent, and all presidents have been "Robert Lenox Kennedy succeeded him. After Robert Kennedy's " consider merging these sentences to avoid the repeat of the name. yup, done It's a shame there are three separate tables for this, although I'm struggling to imagine a format that would suitably merge them into one... yeah, I tried to think of a way, but couldn't find one Suggest term duration could be a separate column, and tables could be sortable. done Duration doesn't sort correctly I'm afraid, probably needs {{hs}} to be used. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Oh, and we need to use {{sortname}} for the names to sort by surname correctly.... sorry! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC) I did sort name, but does hs still need to be used, with your recent edits? No, I think, including that new "age" template, we're almost there! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC) "1981-1989" needs en-dash. changed Not convinced that the former living presidents needs a gallery, especially with only one of the two members having an image, looks a little odd to me. removed. I'd like to note that this was added at the request of Hameltion (not saying they did anything wrong), but it did take the place of a previous timeline. Ref 20 I would expect United Nations to be a publisher so not in italics (and no The). fixed Ref 14 - SHOUTING could be tweaked. done Ref 18 too. addressed Salary is mentioned in the infobox and, in passing, in the lead, but I'd add the current salary to the lead too. mentioned The Rambling Man (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man I believe I have addressed all your issues. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Anything else? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

*Feels weird to have a list when President of the New York Public Library goes nowhere. Are we sure this is the right title? Still unclear who elects the President. The NYPL itself doing the electing seems nonsensical? I suppose there is a board of governors or some such and that they elect the President? Clarified. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC) First paragraph seems to be lacking in references. Merged in 1895? One year term? One year term is referenced in the NYPL Bylaws themselves. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Maybe a better description than "millionaire" can be found for John Stewart Kennedy, given we're talking about a job that in modern times pays 3/4ths of a million dollars a year, this seems insignificant when you don't realise he died in the early 20th century. Changed to Businessman, couldn't think of anything else. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Courcelles (talk) 21:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Courcelles I believe I have responded to all your comments except the first. I'll happily move the page to President of the New York Public Library, or redirect that page to this page. Whatever you think. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC) Pinging BeatlesLedTV, Hameltion and The Rambling Man for more opinions about the name of the article. Courcelles (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC) To me it feels that the page merits its current title, so a redirect is certainly in order. An article at the proposed title, I imagine, would contain more about the president's responsibilities and election than the few sentences about that there are now. (P.S. I noticed that Alexander Hamilton Jr. (1816–1889) should be disambiguated.) --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 03:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC) I'm honestly a little confused on what the problem is. Are you wanting to have President of the New York Public Library redirect to this list, make that page an entirely new page, or what exactly? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2018 (UTC) I think this article should be moved to that title. Perfectly possible to have an FL at a "base" title, and I suspect this is all we'll ever see written on the position. Courcelles (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Oh I mean I think it's fine how it is now. But because that page doesn't exist I think it would be good to create that page and redirect it to this page. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC) Fair enough. I'll create the redirect. Courcelles (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Courcelles (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC) [11].

---

List of international goals scored by Lionel Messi

Nominator(s): Saksapoiss (talk), The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I fell over this article which was in an awesome condition, thanks to the hard work of Saksapoiss, so I suggested he nominate it at FLC. After a few tweaks of my own to try to get it into our usual "house style", we're co-nominating it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

;Comments from BeatlesLedTV Stats tables need scope cols and rows per MOS:ACCESS Good spot, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Any way goals, caps, and refs can be centered? I'm sure, by adding copious amounts of extra markup, be my guest! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC) There are a couple blue and green links that should be fixed Nothing else. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC) Archive links added. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC) All comments addressed and/or responded to above BeatlesLedTV, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support – All good for me. Happy to support. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:20, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
• Comment – I would recommend a copyedit to first few sentences in the lead to:

"Lionel Messi is an association footballer who plays as a forward the Argentina national team. Since debuting for Argentina in 2005, Messi has scored 61 goals in 123 international appearances, making him the country's all-time top scorer, surpassing Gabriel Batistuta's record, with a free kick against United States in the semi-final of Copa América Centenario on 21 June 2016. He made his debut for Argentina in a 2–1 away win over Hungary on 17 August 2005 and scored his his first international goal a year later, in his fifth appearance for his country, against Croatia."

I think this directs the reader's focus on the international goals and flows well with the rest of the lead. Hmlarson (talk) 01:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Hmlarson, I've revised per your suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – I made some additional copyedits to the lead added alt tags to two images. References and list format look good. Hmlarson (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

  Hmlarson thanks for your edits and your support. If there are any such lists related to women's soccer that we could work on together, or even ones I could just encourage you to nominate on your own, don't hesitate (e.g. List of international goals scored by Kelly Smith...) ! Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Funny, I was just exploring other players to work on. List of international goals scored by Christine Sinclair is the only other one I'm aware of currently. On quick glance, the table needs some formatting work and the lead needs expanding - let me know if collaborating on this one might be of interest. One for Smith would be a great addition; Mia Hamm and Marta also came to mind. I'll add them to my list of things to work on. Thanks The Rambling Man. Hmlarson (talk) 20:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Hey Hmlarson, they all sound cool to me, I'm sure you can cope with each nomination on your own though! But if you'd prefer a co-nom (I've got a bit of a clue at FLC), then that's great too. And I love researching the goals etc, for independent RS. Pick one (maybe Sinclair?) and let's go to town on it. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• Sinclair it is! Hmlarson (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

References

• Support – The text reads fine, table looks good, and the references all appear concise and appropriate. I did one very minor edit (swapped over the sequence of two references above the list of goals table), but I don't see anything now to hold this back from getting FL status. ShugSty (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

*"He has scored five times in the FIFA World Cup finals,[1] once in 2006 and four times in 2014, when he guided his team to the final" I'm a bit confused here. Argentina didn't reach the final in 2006? They did in 2014, which is what that sentence is saying. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC) The first clause says they did, however, saying he scored once in 2006 in the finals? Courcelles (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Courcelles Ah, by "finals", FIFA and the rest of us don't mean "the final", we mean the final actual tournament at which only those who have qualified from around the world participate. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Well, that's just plum confusing using it in two different contexts in the same sentence. Suppose it works in BritEng, though. Courcelles (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC) No, it's not really, well not for me... finals and final are very specifically different. There's only one "final" in each set of World Cup "finals", distinguishing those matches from "qualifying". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC) FWIW, I changed "finals" to "tournaments", but face the wrath of those who would suggest that qualifying games are all part of the bigger "tournament". Oh well, can't please all the people all the time... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC) "As of match played on 11 November 2017[5][1]" Refs in order. Removed the NFT so this problem disappeared. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Why is "National Football Teams" an RS? See above. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC) SHouldn't the portals be in "See Also", rather than "External Links"? Courcelles (talk) 04:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC) Courcelles, thanks, I've addressed and responded to your comments above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Courcelles (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2018 (UTC) [12].

---

List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 2002

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The list for 2000 was promoted, and the list for 2001 now has multiple supports, so guess what is next.....? ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Comment from BeatlesLedTV

• I think the lead's third paragraph should have more references. The second paragraph has 6 while the third only has 1.

Other than that everything looks good. I got no complaints about the table. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• The third paragraph consists almost entirely of content that can easily be verified simply by looking at the table, for example no reference is needed to prove that Toby Keith had three number ones, or that George Strait ended the year at number one, because you can clearly see it in the table. The only reason why the paragraph above has so many more references is because it consists of content which can't be verified simply by looking at the table..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support – You got it. All good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments I'm not made keen on piped redirects, which you have for airplay (piped to heavy rotation, redirects to Rotation (music)). Same for "The Long Goodbye", "My List" (piped back to itself!)... "Courtesy of the Red, White, & Blue (The Angry American)" our article uses "and", not "&" "Veteran performer George Strait ended the year at number one" needs a full stop. " "Tracy Byrd - Biography". " needs en-dash per MOS:DASH, check others. Otherwise good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC) All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support all my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support Not finding anything, which doesn't surprise me on an established list format like this. Courcelles (talk) 17:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC) [13].

---

List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number-one singles of 2001

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The list for the previous year now has two supports, so I figured I would bring this one here next......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments very good. "total of 8 weeks" eight. Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Didn't think about this before but the table could be sortable so we could see all the hits from specific artists next to one another... Done. For good measure I will add this functionality to the 2000 list as well shortly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2017 (UTC) Minor point but there's clearly a copy-paste issue with the retrieval dates because they are claim to have been retrieved before the sources were written. Which ones? I'm not seeing that (unless I am missing something blindingly obvious, which is entirely possible) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 09:04, 12 October 2017 (UTC) Blame me, I was reading this as being the 2011 charts, mea culpa. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 12 October 2017 (UTC) No worries :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support my issues addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment by BeatlesLedTV

• All I got is unsort the ref column. Other than that I got nothing else. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support – Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:10, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose I'm sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but I don't feel that this article represents Wikipedia's best work just yet. My main (only) issue is the sourcing – with the exception of a solitary reference from The New York Times (which isn't even about the 2001 chart), all the references come from just one publisher: Billboard. The problem here is that, in any other article, having all the references coming from a single publisher would open up questions about bias and raise doubts about its neutrality – literally the entire article is based off of what Billboard alone has said about the chart. Obviously, this isn't such a massive deal in this case (it's not like we're discussing List of leaders of the Soviet Union or anything), but, if it's going to be featured on Wikipedia's front page some day, are there any non-Billboard sources that discuss the chart for this year? I have added a load of non-Billboard sources covering individual number ones/chart feats...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC) "had the most weeks at number one of any act during the year". How many exactly? Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC) ''Billboard'''s -> ''Billboard''{{'s}} Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC) I'm a bit confused by the sentence about Jessica Andrews. It begins "In contrast...", but who, exactly, is making this contrast? Is it the author? Because, if so, then it's skating a little close to original synthesis for me, i.e. "Keith Urban has had fifteen number ones, but Jessica Andrews has only had one!" The following sentence (about number ones from first charting singles) is fine because it's a third-party source (written by Silvio Pietroluongo, Minal Patel and Wade Jessen) that's making the contrast, but I'm not seeing that in this case. Amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC) What's the source for the info about "Where Were You (When the World Stopped Turning)" being written in response to 9/11? Reference added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC) You could probably get away with replacing "Artist(s)" with "Artist", since every number one was only by one artist. Well, Brooks & Dunn are arguable two artists..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Dates in references switch between mdy and dmy formats. Since the subject of this article is American, they need to be in the former. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Not a FL criterion, but it might be worth considering adding archive-urls to any weblinks to prevent WP:LINKROT (according to Checklinks, a lot of them currently have connection issues). Billboard changed their URLs - I have fixed them now..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC) Just to note that I have addressed (hopefully satisfactorily) all of the comments above, but A Thousand Doors hasn't edited since making the comments over a week ago..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

• Spaced hyphens ( - ) need to be spaced en dashes ( – ).
  • I may be being dumb, but I can't see any examples of that - could you point me in the right direction.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    • You had "Jessica Andrews - Chart History" originally, but you've obviously removed that reference. You do now have a spaced em dash ( — ), which also needs to be a spaced en dash ( – ). Also, you repeat "during the year" twice in the same sentence. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Both resolved -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - it's nearly two months since the last remaining issue was raised, which was very minor and I resolved it almost immediately. Is this FLC going to be closed at some point.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• According to the next list in the series, "Where Were You (When the World Stopped Turning)" stayed at No. 1 for a while. Perhaps mention that in the lede? Other than that, I'm finding nothing. Courcelles (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Support. Courcelles (talk) 03:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments – Just a couple of nit-picks from me.

• Lonestar doesn't need multiple links in the lead.
• The publisher of reference 5 (USA Today) should be italicized as a print publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Both done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Support – Everything looks good now. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:01, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:46, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC) [14].

---

List of songs recorded by Beastie Boys

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I created this list last month because I believe the Beastie Boys have enough songs to have a "songs" list. I modeled it after the Rise Against songs list in terms of the table. I have another FLC at the moment that has one support and many comments so I think I'm safe to nominate this one. I believe this list meets the criteria and is well-written enough to become featured. All comments and criticism are appreciated. Thanks and happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments Could link "released" in the opening sentence to Beastie Boys discography. Done. What's NYU? New York University. Changed. Sometimes you use "the Beastie Boys", sometimes you say just "Beastie Boys", why the difference? Fixed. I thought it would sound weird without the "the" but their official name has no "the" in it. "success[11] and" avoid this kind of thing. The readers can probably wait to the end of the sentence for the ref. See others. Done. " return to their hardcore punk roots with the EP Aglio e Olio.[13] The return would be short-lived however, as, in 1998, their next studio album, Hello Nasty, returned t" return, return, return... return; recurrence; reverted Link Billboard, shouldn't it be in italics? Fixed. Ref 2 needs pp., not p. Check others with multiple pages. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man Fixed everything you commented upon. Thanks very much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• Alt text missing from the images.
• NYmag.com --> New York (magazine)
• Ref 11 and 18, billboard.com --> Billboard
• Allmusic Shouldn't be italized.
• These green links should be archived.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Yashthepunisher I think I took care of everything. Thanks very much for your comments! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Agree, I Support this nomination now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you so much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

• "which marked a style change to a more hip-hop oriented sound" - a change in style?
  • Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• you can wiki-link rap.
  • Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• "With Rubin's help, Beastie Boys released the singles" - help is a little vague.
  • How about "assistance on writing and producing"? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• "Beastie Boys broke away for Def Jam and moved to California " - from.
  • Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• "where they signed with Capitol Records" - might want to rephrase this bit too.
  • This one is very hard for me to reword. How about "and signed with Capital Records in California"? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Again the "help" bit isn't really the best way of putting things.
  • How about "with production aid from the Dust Brothers"? This one was a little hard as well because I want to avoid using "assistance" again. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

You could simply say: "Produced by Dust Brothers...".

• "While initially unsuccessful commercially, Paul's Boutique's reputation has grown significantly, with Rolling Stone in 2013 calling it "the Sgt. Pepper of hip-hop"" - Reads awkwardly, especially the "initially unsuccessful commercially" and the "with Rolling Stone in 2013 calling it " bits.
  • How about "commercially unsuccessful on release" and "with it being called the Sgt. Pepper of hip-hop" by Rolling Stone in 2013"? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• "More diverse than their previous albums, the album was a..." - repetiton; you can use it instead.
  • Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• The lead uses the phrase "received positive reviews from critics" too much. See if you can vary the text a bit.
  • Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
• Not sure if "in respect" is right choice of words.
  • How about "out of respect"? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The rest looks​ good to me. Fine work BeatlesLedTV. VedantTalk 18:22, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

• Numerounovedant Thank you so much for your comments! I really appreciate it. I reworded a lot of phrases based on them. Let me know if they're good or not. Care to comment on my other FLC? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Everything looks good; i support the nomination. I'll try and take a look at the other nomination too BeatlesLedTV. Good luck with this one! You could request a source review at the concerned help page. VedantTalk 07:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• The only thing I can find is that the repetition of "A Musical Biography" is an error in the source. See Worldcat at [15].
• Looks fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Dudley Miles Done. Thank you so much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Giants2008 PresN There's now three supports and a source review done. This one good to go? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC) [16].

---

Laureus World Sports Award for Breakthrough of the Year

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

The last one in the series! I'll do the speech later, but many thanks to everone who's helped with the project so far. I know there are two other Larueus lists at FLC now, but both have four supports and have gone throw the rigorous review of those I trust to leave no stone unturned, so I'm happy to run this review concurrently. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• "Ref(s)" → "Refs"
• Link Sports Illustrated in ref 8
• Link ESPN in ref 42
• Do you have a ref to back up this specific award's previous name or is it mentioned in ref 1?

That's all I got. Huge congrats on bringing the whole series to featured status! If you nominate the Laureas Awards for featured topic I'll definitely offer my support. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

All done BeatlesLedTV. Thanks for your help and reviews. Once the remaining three lists are promoted, hopefully, there'll certainly be an WP:FTC nomination! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – All good for me. Again huge congrats to you, great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

:Hi TRM, please find my comments below: Lead As of 2017 add comma British sportspeople have won more awards than any other nationality Should mention that Brits have won 4 followed by Spaniards with 3 Table Change the 14 instances of soccer to football to be consistent with the other lists in this series 2006 – sharper link to American open-wheel car racing 2008 – sharper link to Road bicycle racing 2009 – Zou Kai (CHN) – athletics change to Artistic gymnastics 2013 – sharper link to Artistic gymnastics 2014 – sharper link to Road bicycle racing I have fixed the sorting issue in the winners column (re Yao Ming and Liu Xiang) Winners by sport table Change soccer to football as per above Link all the sports to be consistent with the other lists As per the Zou Kai mistake listed above, the number of nominations for athletics drops to 13 and gymnastics increases to 2. References Ref 33 – add agency = Associated Press Ref 39 – link Reuters Also, if you get a chance could you please review my latest FLC, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of centuries in women's One Day International cricket/archive1. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Ianblair23, thanks Ian, as ever. I think I got all your comments sorted, please let me know if there's anything more I can do. I'll certainly review your list, if not tonight then tomorrow. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Fantastic job on this series TRM. Bring on the featured topic nomination! Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

;Comments by MWright96 "prior to 2007, this award was named Laureus World Sports Award for Newcomer of the Year" - perhaps you could reword this piece of text so it reads known as Laureus World Sports Award for Newcomer of the Year prior to 2007 Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC) "was the Spanish golfer Sergio García." & "German Formula One driver Nico Rosberg." - again some consistency is would be nice when refering to the an individual with or without "the". Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Moto GP should be worded as "MotoGP"; this is the common way to spell the sport per its official website and countless media articles Gah, I was trying to follow the official website but they use "motorcycling", "Moto GP" and "motor cycling", so I've gone for "MotoGP" per your recommendation. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC) The link in the eighth reference is broken and will require attention Ref 8 (BBC "Schumacher wins sporting 'Oscar'") works fine for me, did you mean a different ref? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Doh! Should have typed that the reference that is dead is the Sports Illustrated source from 1999 (Ref 9). MWright96 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC) As in the other instances Ref 11 is used, it needs the author and news agency filled in Hmm, I have a feeling the refs have changed since you reviewed it, could you specify the text in the ref for this one, the previous comment, and the next comment? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC) I meant to say Reference 14, the IAAF one. MWright96 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Reference 43 is missing the news agency See above? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC) That's all that I found from my end. Nothing too major was found during my read-through. MWright96 (talk) 13:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC) MWright96 as always, my thanks. I have some queries over which refs you found fault with, could you clarify if possible please? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC) MWright96 got the first two, the "ref 43" one, could you expand? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2018 (UTC) The Rambling Man Certainly, Reference 43 ("Novak Djokovic wins Laureus for sportsman of the year". ESPN. 15 April 2015) is missing the agency which is Associated Press. MWright96 (talk) 21:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC) MWright96 I think I got 'em all?!! Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Support – Yes, everything is now sorted. Can now lend my support as always. Nice work as usual! MWright96 (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

Infobox

• awarded for: Laureus has updated. Should be (or part of):

Awarded to the sportsperson or team whose performance as a newcomer suggests the greatest potential for an outstanding career or to an established sportsman or sportswoman who produces a significant step-up in class to a considerably higher level of sporting achievement.

• Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Prose

• "...although seven teams have been nominated..." - should be eight, is missing Switzerland Davis Cup team 2015

  Oops, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I swapped the "seven" to eight. JennyOz (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 9 (Shipnuck sports illustrated) supporting Garcia v Tiger does not work for me. This does.

  Odd one this, the link was noted above as being dead so I changed it. I wonder if your viewed a cached or old version of the list? I replaced it and tried the link I replaced it with both at work this morning and at home this evening, seems fine to me, could you confirm? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Ah, that fix happened after I'd started my notes, sorry. I'm not sure how Sports Illustrated/Golf works. Shipnuck originally wrote that piece in 1999 (per SI url above, with a longer title, and per new Golf cite intro) but I'm only confused, not fussed. Verifiability works either way! JennyOz (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Main table

All pics, names, nationalities and sports good.

Poss better pipes - really helpful to readers

• 2003 Jochem Uytdehaage - Long track speed skating
• 2005 Liu Xiang - Hurdling
• 2005 Xing Huina - she's both middle and long-distance but could pipe to Track and field
• 2007 Xavier Carter - Sprint (running)
• 2008 Tyson gay - Sprint (running)
• 2008 Pistorius - Sprint (running)
• 2010 Cavendish - road and track but his achievements in 2009 were on road, so Road bicycle racing?
• 2011 Lemaitre - Sprint (running)
• 2011 Tamgho - Triple jump
• 2012 Pisorius - Sprint (running)
• 2012 Farah - Long-distance running
• 2012 Blake - Sprint (running)
• 2013 James - Sprint (running)
• 2014 Holzdeppe - Pole vault
• 2017 Ayana - Long-distance running
• 2017 van Niekerk - Sprint (running)

Other

• 2017 Leicester City - you used the F.C. in other Laureus list

  Added F.C. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I added it in table at 2017 as well. Okay? JennyOz (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• National teams - I notice you added a "men's" to the Ghana national football team at 2007, and to Fiji sevens and Iceland football teams at 2017. Fully agree with this as their countries also have national women's teams. Was it intentional to not do same for Afghanistan national cricket team (2014) and Chile football (2016)?

  No intention actually, I've clarified (I think) the men's teams where applicable. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

(Interesting re Pistorios - his 2007 nom for breakthrough in para sprints but his second 'breakthrough' (2012 nom) was for breaking into non-disabled events in 2011. So he was nominated in both Breakthrough and Sportsperson with a Disability (won) in 2012. Nothing to change on this list, just mentioning:) Fascinating fellow.)

Fascinating, tragic, ..... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Statistics

Winners by nationality:

Winners - all good

Nominations -

• add Croatia with 1 nom

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• add Italy with 1 nom

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Germany 7 - 6?

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Winners by sport:

Winners - all good

Nominations - all good

Refs

• Ref 30 2009 noms - Anthony Kim, usa golf, is not on Laureus noms page. Appears to be a Laureus website error? He is sort of mentioned here. Found it also here. Swap ref to the AIPS if it's RS?

  Added a reference from Dawn. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 36 Laureus labels McIlroy UK - matters only in Stats / Winners by nationality table?

  Meh, the GBR vs UK debate can rage on for millennia. He would be a GBR competitor in sporting terms. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 43 ESPN date 15 April 2015 should be 16 April

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Template - matches list

That's it. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 05:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

JennyOz I think I've got to every one of your points, please don't hesitate to correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks so much, as ever, for you generosity in your time to review this list (and all the others), nearly there!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

G'day TRM I've made 2 tiny changes to the List page itself and added 3 tiny follow-up comments above. Everything now fine so I am very pleased to now sign for my support! Great job! JennyOz (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting (a bit early, but I'm going to hit all 3 of yours in one go instead of waiting the full 10 days for this.) --PresN 17:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC) [17].

---

Laureus World Sports Award for Sportsman of the Year

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

We're nearly there! This one has suffered the benefit of all the preceding FLCs so I'm hopeful that there's not much to do here. Naturally I will work until my typing fingers are raw to fix any issues that are brought up, and I thank you all, each and every one, for your time and and effort in showing even the slightest interest in this candidate. Happy New Year! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• "Ref(s)" → "Refs"
• Link websites in refs (their first appearances) such as CNN, BBC Sport, ESPN, Reuters, etc.

Honestly all I got. Great job bringing this series to featured! Can't wait for the next one! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV, I think I got them all. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

:Hi TRM. Happy New Year! I have already made some minor changes to the list so please find my comments below: Winners by sport table Formula One has won three time not two link to Rowing (sport) References Ref 8 – link Golf Digest Ref 9 – add agency = AP Ref 11 – link The Guardian Ref 12 – link Cyclingnews.com Ref 18 – link CNN Ref 35 – link The San Diego Union-Tribune Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Ianblair23 Hi Ian, all done I think, thanks for the review. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Hi TRM, thanks for making those changes. The final thing that warrants mentioning as a note is that Bolt's Olympic gold medal tally has now been reduced to eight after his 4 × 100 metre relay gold from the Beijing Games in 2008 was lost because his teammate Nesta Carter was found guilty of a doping violation. Cheers Ianblair23 (talk) 08:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Ianblair23 removed that altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Great job TRM! Looking forward to reviewing the final two to complete the series. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

• Infobox awarded for - Laureus website now says: Awarded to the sportsman who best demonstrates supreme athletic performance and achievement - such as consecutive or multiple world, continental, international or national and major championship titles or the establishment of world records or best performances.

  Updated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Prose

• Laurus site no longer speaks of 2000 journalists, says: "A NOMINATIONS PANEL OF THE WORLD’S LEADING SPORTS EDITORS, WRITERS AND BROADCASTERS VOTE TO CREATE A SHORTLIST OF SIX NOMINATIONS" (sorry, their caps not mine.) (And the six nominations would seem to mean 'up to six nominations'.)

  Updated, let me know it's okay as I'll need to change all the other Laureus lists accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, your update is spot on. - the panel of editors, writers, broadcasters is for Sportsman, Sportswoman, Team, Breakthrough and Comeback. Action and Disability noms are by "Specialist Panels". As for the discretionaries, Lifetime, Spirit and Exceptional - they seem purely Academy decisions. (Hey, where'd Exceptional Achievement come from, brand new? (Maybe it's to recognise TRM for the upcoming set? Will be a list of one:) When you update the others, check for the select/selects too? JennyOz (talk) 07:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks JennyOz, take a look at the summary tables on Laureus World Sports Awards, they tell you about these curious new(ish) awards... not enough for their own lists, so covered in the parent article.... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I was aware of those Discretionary awards, except for Exceptional. Somehow hadn't noticed that one before. Now, talking of Laureus World Sports Awards did you notice that Laureus have also updated their photo of the statuette? It is more colourful (the gold band is more visible) and has much better contrast. JennyOz (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Eeek, I see you've swapped the new noms panel bit to the other lists but... "As of 2017, a shortlist of six nominees for the award come from a panel composed of the "world's leading sports editors, writers and broadcasters" So sorry but it needs to be "comes". (Sportsman, Sportswoman, Team, Breakthrough, Comeback) JennyOz (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

No bother, all fixed now. I'll take a look at the new trophy image and see if I can upload it to supersede the existing fair use image. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Fabulous! JennyOz (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

JennyOz, you're right about that trophy image. I've replaced the existing one, it looks "right smart". Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure does! My cache finally let me see it. It's bewdiful. Thanks for doing that. JennyOz (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• "The Laureus World Sports Academy then select the winner..." - selects

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• "...while athletes have won four times..." - athletes plural sounds weird when all are Bolt, meh

  Yeah, meh... Any suggestions? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I s'pose it could say 'while an athlete has won four times' (deliciously ambiguous) but not important. JennyOz (talk) 07:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

• "... the latter being the most recent winner.[13] The 2017 winner of the Laureus World Sports Award for Sportsman of the Year was Bolt..." - repetitive?

  Yes, removed the final sentence which ...... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• "...Bolt who won three gold medals at the 2016 Summer Olympics, taking his overall tally to nine." - The BBC ref (Aug 2016) says 9 but his article says 8 and IOC says 8 Gold. The discrepancy is the 2017 disqualification of the Beijing 2008 4x100 Jamaican team. So change to 8 and swap ref to this BBC piece of Jan 2017?

  ..... means this is no longer an issue. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Table - winners photos - all correct person winner - wlinks all good nationalities - all good

• Cycling - maybe further dab to Road bicycle racing (They are all road racers Armstrong, Contador, Evans and Wiggins.)

  Already happened. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

• Athletics is so broad, maybe pipe to Track and field or, seeing all are Bolt, to Sprint (running) (ie his events 100, 200 and 400m.)
• 2014 Vettel - is it possible to trim bottom third from his photo or use another?

  All done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Table - nominees all names, wlinks, nationalities, brackets, dashes all good

• athletics - Greene also a sprinter per Bolt
• Hicham El Guerrouj - pipe athletics to Middle-distance running
• Asafa Powell - another sprinter
• Tyson Gay - ditto
• Kenenisa Bekele - Long-distance running
• Mo Farah - Long-distance running
• Renaud Lavillenie - Pole vault
• Marc Márquez - Grand Prix motorcycle racing

  All done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Statistics mutiple titles table all good

multiple nominations (includes wins) all good tho I'd omit armstrong

• That's why the asterisk is there, isn't that enough or am I missing something? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha! You're not 'missing something' except ability to read my mind! What I mean is that the asterisk in the main table is indicating a person whose noms and wins were retrospectively rescinded, whereas in stats/multiple noms table, the asterisks are referring to current recognised totals. Those totals exclude counting his noms and wins. By including him (and the asterisk against his name per its original use) it seems to me to re-recognise him.

For stats purposes, his noms 2002-2006 no longer exist.

(In Sportswoman, you didn't include Marion Jones in equiv stats table nor Earle Connor at Disability.)

Sorry if that is clear a mud? JennyOz (talk) 07:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

JennyOz got this one (which I missed earlier), plus the typo. Thanks!! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic! JennyOz (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

winners by nationality Spain noms 8 - 7

• Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

winners by sport

• winners Formula One 2 - 3
• Rowing - dab to rowing (sport) per Redgrave

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Refs

Rory Carroll - authorlink

• Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

That's all for me JennyOz (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Oh drat! just realised Ian addressed some of these whilst I was doing notes. JennyOz (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

JennyOz, I think I've addressed almost all of your concerns, a couple of comments above could use your response. Thanks again for the comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

As everything has been addressed and none of my follow-ups above are pertinent to my support, I am happily signing for it now. Another fine job sir. JennyOz (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

;Comments from MWright96 What do you think, should the ass of template be changed to 2018 at this point in time, or wait until after the current year's ceremony? Not sure what you're getting at here? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Think this a non-issue "was the American road cyclist Lance Armstrong." - think it should be written as to was American road cyclist Lance Armstrong for consistency Actually done it the other way around and fixed the false titles of all the others in the lead. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Very well. MWright96 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC) The Ref 8 should have the date set as January 2005 Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC) As I've noted in past reviews, the author and agency for Ref 15 are missing Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC) CNN needs to be delinked in Ref 17 as it is already linked in Ref 2 Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Refs 35 & 44 are missing the agency which is Associated Press 35? That's direct from Laureus... 44 done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC) Looks in good shape overall. As usual, not too much from me. Just the minor quibbles. MWright96 (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC) MWright96 thanks, I've raised a couple of questions against your comments but have resolved (hopefully) all the rest. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Support – Have redacted the first query. Other from that, I am more than happy to lend my unconditional support. Great work as always! MWright96 (talk) 13:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

*"The inaugural winner of the award was the American golfer Tiger Woods who finished the 1999 season with eight wins, including the PGA Championship, a feat not achieved since 1974." What;s the actual feat here? Eight wins? Eight wins including a Major? Eight wins including specifically the PGA? Good catch, rephrased. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC) Should the 2003 winner field say "none", rather than Armstrong? No, that's what the asterisk and associated text in the prose are for. And it matches the format of the other articles, all of which have been considered clear enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC) "Monaco (2017)" being the location of the most recent awards needs citation. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC) I'm happy with the sourcing of the article. Sources are reliable, with the one exception everything is cited I feel needs to be, and well-protected against link-rot. Courcelles (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC) Courcelles, thanks very much, I've responded to each comment inline. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Good work. Courcelles (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review pass, promoting. --PresN 17

45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC) [18].

---

Laureus Spirit of Sport Award

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Penultimate nomination in the Laureus World Sports Awards family, probably the shortest, but still just about sustains a list format. As always, I'll endeavour to address each and every concern raised as soon as practicably possible, thanks in advance for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Tone 18:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

(I can finally to a QPQ review ;)) Good work with the list, I have the following comments: Remove the 2017 winner from the intro, it is already in the infobox and in the table below. I've worked quite hard to be consistent across all these articles (and many dozens similar), and this for me is our kind of "house style". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC) Ok, that's fine with me - the article will just need annual updates. --Tone 17:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC) Yeah, I kind of commit to that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC) Link 2004 World Series instead of World Series in 2005, probably. I didn't link World Series at all, so I've done so and linked the specific season. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2018 (UTC) I meant the note in the 2005 year. --Tone 17:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC) Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC) Most of the notes are sentences, a full stop at the end is in place. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC) 2007: Agreement with UNICEF would benefit from some explanation. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC) 2011: Mention who the Europe team defeated, in line with other similar entries in the list. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC) That's it from my side. --Tone 15:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC) Tone, all done I think, thanks for your review. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support. --Tone 18:11, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Link BBC Sport in ref 7. Other than that nothing. Great job! Can't wait for the rest! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

  Done, thanks BeatlesLedTV, just one to go! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

;Comments from MWright96 "was the American baseball team Boston Red Sox " & "was English Premier League football team Leicester City F.C." - again like in other articles, some consistency is needed with refering to the teams without or without "the" would be nice. The url error in the tenth reference needs to be rectified Ref 11 is missing the agency which is Xinhua News Agency That's all from me. As always, it's just the minor points that need addressing. MWright96 (talk) 21:47, 6 January 2018 (UTC) MWright96, all done I think. Thanks for your comments as always. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Support – Neat work as always! Just the solitary one left! MWright96 (talk) 07:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hi TRM, just a few...

Infobox

• first awarded 2000 - 2005

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Prose

• "...Boston Red Sox who won their first World Series in 86 years" - slightly ambiguous, I had to search to find if they had won it 86 yrs ago or had been in comp 86 years and this was their first win. Only fix I can think of is 'first World Series since 1918'

  I'll replace "in" with "for", hopefully that'll do it? Most RS seem to favour that kind of approach. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfect! JennyOz (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• "Since its establishment, the award has not been awarded four times, in 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013." - Maybe 'The award was not given in the years 2009, 2010, 2012 and 2013.' And maybe move to end of first paragraph ie where you already speak of its discretionary status?

  Have reprhased, not exactly per your recommendation, but let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Rephrase fine, might look better at end that para? JennyOz (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Aha, I misread, done, how does it look? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• "...comprise five individuals and four teams..." - four individuals and five teams

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• "...was the English Premier League football team Leicester City F.C." - could insert 'winning' between League and football.

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Table

• Strange to see the Sports not wlinked in this one - intentional?

  No, all linked now. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• 2007 FC Barcelona Notes - insert 'children's' before AIDS?

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• 2008 Dick Pound - Ref says Chairman but his and WADA articles say President

  Replaced, but refs are lacking, added another ref. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

David E Newton book this online is better ref? Bio starts p198, 199 says president and 200 mentions Laureus. (Weird that lots of places on web double up the "A Reference Handbook" in the book's name but inside front cover at this link shows it definitely only appears once in title.) JennyOz (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ok, used that reference, thanks for digging it out! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• 2014 Afghanistan cricket - ref doesn't mention Kenya, more swift rise, almost insurmountable odds (ie spirit)

  Used the Cricino quote. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Refs

• Ref 11 chinadaily - needs separator before date

  Don't get this one, sorry. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem. Keith D fixed pipe in between your edits. JennyOz (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 15 - title Winners 2013 - 2012

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ref 16 Winners 2013 - giving me 404 - swap to newer version? (Or do we just rely on archived copy in this situation?)

  Normally that's the point of the archive.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Template - fine

NB The table for Discretionary awards on Laureus World Sports Awards has Raí winning in Spirit for 2012 but should be Sport for Good. Magic Bus in 2014 is swapped with Afghan cricket team.

Fixed, thanks for that. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

That's it I reckon. Can't wait to 'break through' last one! JennyOz (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

JennyOz, I've done my best to get to all your concerns, there are just a couple of issues that need clarification for me. Many thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The Rambling Man I've added 4 follow-up comments above. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

JennyOz I think I'm done, if you don't mind having a quick check? Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

TRM, Everything looks fine. (I figure you decided to keep the duplication in the title of the Newton book.) Happy to sign support to this list. JennyOz (talk) 12:38, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

:Hi TRM, please find my comments below: Lead Dutch former footballer and coach link to Manager (association football). In Australia, we use the term coach but I believe in the rest of the world and especially Europe uses the term manager. Happy to either change coach to manager or keep as coach but the link should be included either way. Kept as coach (per the reference from Laureus themselves) and linked the position. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Two sentences in a row begin with As of 2017, could one of them be changed. Ditched the second sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Hi TRM, you have removed four individuals and five teams in the process. This is good information worthy of inclusion. Anyway of re-adding this? – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Ianblair23, I've re-added it with a little text juggle, what do you reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC) Hi TRM, ah much better. Happy to support now – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC) Table 2011 – Europe retained the Ryder Cup link Ryder Cup Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC) 2016 – as per above re "coach" Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC) References No issues Cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC) I have also sorted all the articles in Category:Laureus World Sports Awards and Category:Laureus World Sports Award navigational boxes and have added {{WikiProject Sports}} and {{WikiProject Awards and prizes}} to all the relevant article, category and template talk pages. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC) Ianblair23 Thank you. I hopefully have addressed all your concerns, please do let me know, and cheers for all your help and support in this minor endeavour! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support – And that is last one TRM! Well done and bring on the FTC nom. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• Infobox: "Location Monaco (2017)" Citation?

  Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

• "despite being 5,000-1 outsiders" A) Not sure a hyphen is right there, and B) "Outsiders?" I may be letting my American ears work here, but that word sounds wrong given they were one of the 20 teams in the Premier League that year. Courcelles (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

  Replaced with "to". And no, they were very much considered "outsiders" in the "outside bet" sense. Try Googling it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Courcelles thanks for your comments, responses inline above. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed, kicking out this last one. --PresN 17

43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [19].

---

List of BioWare video games

Nominator(s): The1337gamer (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

BioWare is one of the most notable Western development studios in video games industry. They've been around for almost 22 years and are widely known for their work in the RPG genre. After putting together List of Valve Corporation video games, I decided recently to start working on another developer's list: BioWare. The list is comprehensive, reliably sourced and I think the opening prose explains the company's history and work relatively well. Therefore, I'd like to nominate it for Featured List status. Thanks. The1337gamer (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Hooray, another video game list! --PresN 19:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The game was a modest success, however it was BioWare's second title Baldur's Gate (1998) that achieved overwhelming critical praise and defined the company's future direction." - the "however" is implying an unexpected shift that isn't there; the first game did ok, the second did great. Try "The game was a modest success, but BioWare's second title, Baldur's Gate (1998), achieved overwhelming critical praise and defined the company's future direction."
• "Baldur's Gate—a role-playing video game (RPG) based..." - you just said that you were talking about Baldur's Gate, no need to repeat this close or wedge in a double aside. Try "A role-playing video game (RPG) based on Dungeons & Dragons, Baldur's Gate sold more than..."
• "... which alongside other games that made use of BioWare's technology..." - unclear, try "... which along with the use of Bioware game engines in RPGs such as Planescape: Torment"
• " on another coveted intellectual property" - "coveted" feels wierd, maybe just "popular"
• "Whilst" is fine in British english, but sounds pretentious in American english; not sure about Candian english. Consider using "While" instead
• "however the BioWare branding was later removed with these projects being cancelled and the studios being shut down in the following years" -> "but the projects were cancelled and the studios shut down in the following years"
• If you add "multiplereleasedates=yes" to the video game titles/item templates, it will change the awkward "Original release date(s):" to confident "Original release dates:" (Or, for Mass Effect Galaxy, etc., make it "multiplereleasedates=no" to get "Original release date:")
• Feels weird to say "Published by Electronic Arts" on cancelled games that were never published; might be better to say "Planned to be published by Electronic Arts"
• "Project designed shifted" -> "Project design shifted during development", and actually maybe combine the first two lines of C&C: "During development, project design shifted from a standard real-time strategy game (RTS) to a free-to-play, multiplayer-focused RTS rebranded as Command & Conquer"
• 4Gamer.net (in references) has a capital G (you have it lowercase in a few)
• Did not do a full source review, but it all looked good at a glance.

Thanks for the feedback. I think I've made all these changes but let me know if there's anything else to fix or improve upon. --The1337gamer (talk) 00:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Support --PresN 15:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments "a mech simulation action game " any suitable links for the non-video-gamers around here? "game engine" and for this? "property—Star Wars, when" odd punc, I'd either use two en-dashes, or two commas. " it wasn't BioWare's" avoid contractions. Am I safe to assume those templates you're using for each entry in the table provide appropriate MOS:ACCESS? I would have expected to see DOS, Mac OS and Windows linked the first time round. Along with all the other platforms first time... Otherwise no major quibbles. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:06, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Thanks. Made those changes. I'm pretty sure those templates provide appropriate MOS:ACCESS. PresN updated them a while back to meet accessibility requirements. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support all good for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:39, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references appear to be sufficiently reliable, and all of them work according to the link-checker tool. The only formatting issue I see is that ref 114 has improper all caps in a couple of places in the title. Spot-checks of refs 56, 94, and 113 showed that all of the content sourced to those citations was adequately supported. Fix the instances of all caps in that one ref and this should be good to go. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing that out. --The1337gamer (talk) 10:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC) [20].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Serbia

Nominator(s): Tone 15:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Following some related FL examples, such as the List of World Heritage Sites in Slovenia, I believe this list meets all criteria. Some prose tweaks may be required but I expect this to be sorted during the nomination process. Tone 15:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• As I mentioned for the Croatia list, there's no need for a 'Shared with' column. The description of the graveyards already has the other countries in the description, and the frontiers of the Roman Empire could easily include it. Reywas92^Talk 01:21, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Probably it's for the best if this part of discussion continues at Croatia list, the outcome should be of course applicable to both. --Tone 06:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment as I noted at the Croatia list, this can't be sorted chronologically. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• • As a side note, the list has now been adjusted to follow the style of Slovenia and Croatia. --Tone 19:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• Center the year columns.
• Center the image columns, or at the the Start Ras image. Looks weird left aligned.

That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:31, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• • Done! --Tone 22:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Support – Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments Lead is a little too short for my taste. How is the UNESCO data column supposed to sort? Is it "transnational" or "trans-national"? Check all ref titles for MOS:DASH fails. A singular dependency on the primary source here, not a major issue, but any other sources available? Note needs referencing, it makes a lot of claims. Link tetrapylon. " gorges, Karst reliefs" no need to capitalise Karst. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC) Tone, it's a been a week, any chance of progress? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC) Let me take care of this in the following days. (also, I was planning to go through the lists you mentioned but realized they had been promoted a day before :/) --Tone 11:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man, I think I fixed them all now. I expanded the situation regarding Kosovo in the intro and therefore removed the note (introducing several 3rd-party references). The UNESCO data column should ideally sort by the serial number of the site, I do not know why it does not work. The year has been moved to a separate column for that purpose already. --Tone 21:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Check this out, it may well solve the issue and could be used on other such lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC) Ha, perfect fix :) --Tone 21:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Hameltion (talk, contribs) 14:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

* Change "Currently" in lead to "As of" with {{As of}}? I see you already fixed it. I agree. The Stećci sites aren't linked in the map True. My rationale is that the links would lead to articles about the settlements that actually say nothing about the Stećci sites, as opposed to other articles that are about the sites themselves. Several names begin with "The" and should be sorted by the second word. Fixed using data-sort-value. I've additionally made these tweaks. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 16:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC) Hameltion, please check. And thank you for fixing the typos that I somehow missed... --Tone 09:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support—I also added one more as of template for good measure :) --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 14:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Comments – Remove "has" from "and the government has decided to postpone future bids in 2017", as it interferes with the past tense that this is intended to be in. Fortified Manasija Monastery: Minor point, but in the 1406/7 date range, there should probably be an en dash instead of a hyphen for style purposes. This one still needs to be turned into an en dash. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:43, 2 January 2018 (UTC) Done. --Tone 18:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC) The publisher of reference 7 (The Guardian) should be italicized as a print publication. Refs 5 to 8 all have YYYY-MM-DD formatting, unlike the others. These should be changed to the style used in the other citations, for consistency. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC) Giants2008 Fixed, than you for pointing those out. --Tone 09:53, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support – All of my concerns have been addressed and I believe this meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed; I'm not a fan of including the website address in the references but you're using it consistently and also have the organization name, so it's not opposable. Promoting. --PresN 14:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC) [21].

---

Municipalities of Colima

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I aim to create a template for which to apply to all other Mexican list of municipality pages. I did nominate this list before, however due to lack of interest it was not promoted. I understand that the list is small, but it is complete, and am very open to any suggestions for improvement. I've made all recommended changes in the previous nomination and used previous municipality lists as a style guide in an attempt to standardize these types of lists in wikipedia. Mattximus (talk) 23:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "it is the least populous state" This is obviously accurate but to me it implies a low population density, whereas it has double the Mexican average. How about "has the smallest population"?
• "Municipalities in Colima are administratively autonomous" I do not understand what "administratively autonomous" means in this context.
• How is the municipal council chosen - elected?
• "the cleaning and maintenance of public parks" Cleaning of a park does not sound right to me. I would leave it out as maintenance covers cleaning.
• "Since 1984, they can collect property taxes" This also does not sound right. Maybe "they have had the power to collect"
• ""than from their own collection efforts" "efforts" seems odd to me. Maybe "from their own income"
• A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for your review and your suggestions, all have been made. Please let me know if it flows better now. Mattximus (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Cobblet

• When were the municipalities established? You may find this source somewhat helpful.

• I've searched everywhere for a source on this and have not been able to find one. The link you provided only gives the date for 1 municipality unfortunately, unless I'm reading it incorrectly. If we can find a source I'm very happy to include it. In most list of administrative divisions I do this.

• This information is usually available in each municipality's entry in the Enciclopedia de los Municipios y Delegaciones de México. I should've mentioned that. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Actually, take a look at this comprehensive historical report on the territorial division of Colima, especially page 67. Cobblet (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• I changed the dates to reflect this source. Do you think it is the best one? It contradicts the previous one. I will mark as complete unless you think there is a better source for dates.  Done

• I don't mind checking the sources myself if you can point out other discrepancies you saw, but for Colima proper, I think you have the correct date now – I'd distinguish between the mere founding of a settlement and the establishment of a municipal administration within a legal framework. Cobblet (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• I'm happy with using the last reference you cited. By the way, I just want to thank you for such a thorough review. The article is becoming much better thanks to you. I will be away for a few days but will return to complete the rest. Mattximus (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Don't mention it. I'm very happy to see someone else taking an interest in Mexican municipalities as I myself have just started creating articles on the missing ones. Cobblet (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• What is/are the enabling statute(s) for the municipalities of Colima? Is the Ley del Municipio Libre del Estado de Colima all there is (I have not checked whether that link contains the most recent version of the law), or are there also other relevant statutes?

• See also Title 7 of Colima's state constitution (Articles 87–96) which also deals with the establishment of municipalities. Pages 89–90 of the territorial division report I linked to above seems to suggest that the Constitution and the Organic Law are the two controlling provisions. Cobblet (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Putting that statute into Google Translate, I notice that it translates regidores as "trustees" and síndicos as "councillors." An OECD publication also does the same. Any translation we provide should be cited.

• Great suggestion.  Done

• Article 45 enumerates the powers of the municipal councils. Can you check that what you wrote and cited regarding Mexican municipalities generally also applies specifically to municipalities of Colima?

 Done Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Articles 60 and 61 provide for the existence of local auxiliary authorities (autoridades auxiliares), and a quick Google search and browse through the Enciclopedia de los Municipios y Delegaciones de México indicates that these are operational in several (if not all) municipalities in Colima. These seem worth mentioning to me especially if it is true that not all municipalities of Mexico have them, as is claimed in that article.

 Done Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• I have noticed that every major source on Mexican municipalities seems to have a different set of land area statistics. For instance, your source gives Armería's area as 341.6 km²; the Enciclopedia gives 408.38 km²; and SEDESOL's Cédulas de información municipal gives 410.051 km², citing INEGI's Marco Geoestadístico 2010. I would prefer to use the last of these sources as it was adopted for the 2010 Census and the underlying GIS data is available.

• I was frustrated with this problem as well. It's surprising how hard it was to find data on the area of a municipality. I clicked on the link you gave me, but it just links to shape files. Would you be able to point me to the area numbers? If so I will update the list and correct the densities as well.

• Sorry, I should've been clearer – each municipality's entry in the Cédulas de información municipal (click on their names) gives their land area, citing INEGI's 2010 data. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for finding the source. It was way off of previous numbers, but searching around they are all over the place. I've updated all area figures and densities to the reference you suggested, it seems like the most legitimate of all options.  Done Mattximus (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• The current arrangement of the gallery seems a little awkward as its title "Largest municipalities in Colima by population" might be perceived to apply to the table as well as the gallery. Maybe put the gallery under the table, or even arrange it vertically to the right? Cobblet (talk) 04:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• I used to agree with this, and this was how I organized the images when I first started making these lists. However after over a dozen featured lists, the unanimous advice was to place them in this gallery style format, and not to the right as I originally had it. Their reasoning was that placing images on the right of a table causes issues on screens with low resolution. So for accessibility and consistency reasons, they are formatted like this. Mattximus (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• OK, but I don't see anything wrong with my other suggestion of placing the gallery underneath the table. It's a minor point though. Cobblet (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review, I'm waiting on a few points above before moving on to the remainder of the points. Thanks again for helping bring this article up to featured status. Mattximus (talk) 16:40, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Just an update, I think I've reached my ability to update this article. Cobblet is absolutely correct in the comments above, however I tried to use their links but since I can't read Spanish I think I will have to give up. Thanks again to Cobblet for the excellent review, and if they are willing to help with some of the actions above that would be fantastic and the list can be featured. Despite the other supports I have to agree with Cobblet in that the article needs a bit more technical information on local municipalities before becoming featured. Hopefully he/she can help! Mattximus (talk) 02:41, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

That's too bad – the article wasn't far off. I might have time to work on it about a month from now. Cobblet (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cobblet, I'm also still willing to support the completion of the lead, I just couldn't read the Spanish references you gave me, so I felt I had to take a pause. I'm happy to wait a month and we can bring it up to featured list. Mattximus (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Support – Looks good to me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Mattximus am I reading the above correctly, you'd like to wait a month before completing this? Should I withdraw it on your behalf at this time? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:37, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I did my best on the article and did receive several supports. Some of the actions mentioned above by Cobblet are good suggestions, but I can't follow through with them since I can't read Spanish. I would love to see the article promoted, but not all suggestions can be completed due to the language barrier. What do you think the proper procedure should be? Thanks The Rambling Man for your input! Mattximus (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I think if you believe it's not comprehensive then it would be the right thing to do to withdraw it and maybe request some Spanish-language assistance with expanding it accordingly, then re-nominate? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe Cobblet's suggestions are valid. Perhaps they can assist in incorporating those changes when they return in a month? And re-nominate then? Mattximus (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

I should have time to do some work on it this weekend if we can wait till then. Cobblet (talk) 01:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, there's no rush to close this, I just wanted to ensure it was still active. Let's see how the work goes over the weekend and decide afterwards if a re-nomination is necessary in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

All the issues from my review are now resolved except for the placement of the gallery, which I still find somewhat odd; but that alone does not stop me from supporting the list's promotion. I welcome further input from others on that issue or on any of the changes I've made. Cobblet (talk) 22:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Cobblet! I just rearranged the paragraph, but your changes all look good to me. I no longer need this review put on pause and believe it's now at featured status. Mattximus (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 21:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC) [22].

---

Moortidevi Award

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

My first literary award attempt. It is well written and sourced. Looking forward to feedbacks. Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• Any reason a third of the table has ! scope="row" and the other two thirds is | scope="row"? Change one or the other; make sure it's consistent.
• Every note you have has "Awarded for ...". Could there be a separate column just for "Award"? If not I'd put the notes next to the names and leave the ref column by itself.
• "Refs." → "Ref."; only have 1 ref per year.
• Are there any more pictures you could use that are relevant?
• In external links, use a bullet point.
• Could we put the book references in their own bibliography section and use sfn referencing?

That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@BeatlesLedTV: Done. Thank you for your comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support – All good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your support BeatlesLedTV. Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

• Refs 18, 19 and 20 do not point to any citation. Fix them.

I still can't figure out the problem here, maybe its because these refs don't mention the authors name. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: I have resolved the problem now. Try to implement it in the future next time.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The Moortidevi Award is an India literary award annually presented by the Bharatiya Jnanpith, a literary and research organization to an author for their "contemplative and perceptive work". — the second part after the comma doesn't look right. Perhaps a comma like "...by the Bharatiya Jnanpith, a literary and research organization, to an author for their...". BTW, its "organisation", not "organization" (as the article is about an India-related topic, Indian English usage is better here.)

Done.

• "In 2003, the award..." — Do you mean "Since 2003"?

Done.

@Yashthepunisher: Thats about it from me. Interesting list this.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 13:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: I will now support this article's promotion.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Thank you so much for everything. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: De Rien! De Nada! Koi Baat Nahi!  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Any image we could use in the infobox under fair use for the statue, or plaque, or shawl, which is presented to each winner?

Sorry, I couldn't find any.

• "only to the Indian" either lose "the" or replace it with "those".
• "Since 2003, the" -> "From 2003,..."
• Link ₹ in the lead.
• "in the year 2011" no need for "the year".
• Ditto for 2013.
• Link Kannada first time round in the lead.
• "first recipient of the award was the Kannada writer C. K. Nagaraja Rao who received the award " recipient .. award ... received ... award... repetitive.
• "Out of twenty-three eligible languages the award has been presented for works in nine languages:" Reverse this, "Works have been presented the award in nine of the twenty-three eligible languages"
• "given in the year 1985 and " no need for "the year" again.
• " one women author. In 1991, Odia " replace the full stop with a colon as the two sentences are intrinsically linked.
• "The most recent " see WP:ASOF.
• "the year 2016" - again, ditch "the year".
• "Later in November," either "In November that year" or just "Later that year", but not both.
• " Jain along with" comma after Jain.
• "and Lakshmi Chandra Jain presented " comma before presented.
• " the then President of India" hyphenate.
• "was first held in 1983." the award wasn't "first held", it was first "presented" or the ceremony at which it was presented was "first held".
• "The recipient for a particular year is announced by the Selection Board, which has final authority in selection.[3]" seems nugatory to me.
• Row scopes need a "!" rather than a "|".
• "Awarded forMrityunjay." space needed.
• Why isn't the winning work named in the table rather than those various footnotes?

It's because we don't have information about some awardee's winning work and listing the rest in the table won't be appropriate.

It would be better to list the info we do have in the table with "not known" for those we don't. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, Is it okay now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• The list has two "philosophy" categories yet "philosophy" is not mentioned at all in the list or the lead.

I have removed those categories, since the award is not directly related to them.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Thank you for your comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

• The lead has the "contemplative and perceptive work" bit mentioned twice. The second instance should suffice.

Done.

• Not sure if "bestowed [...] to" is the correct use of prepositions.

Rephrased.

• Not sure why Kannada, Gujarati, and Odia and not mentioned together of all have won 2 awards. Also, if so mention them in a chronological order.

Fixed.

• "As of 2017, Bengali poet Joy Goswami is the recipient of the award." - the latest? most recent?

Done

• "The language of the most recent recipient's work is not eligible for consideration for the next two years." - How have Hindi writers won 16/30 awards then?

The sentence is self-contradictory. I have removed it now.

• You could put up a picture of Pratibha Ray as well as she is only woman to have won the award?

Done.

That's it for now Yash. NumerounovedantTalk 06:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• I do have an additional comment​. Is there any information on the 1962-83 period about how the award materialised and what went took so long? This seems like a leap from 1962 to 83 as it stands now. NumerounovedantTalk 08:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Numerounovedant I'm afraid the only information I could find is that the Bharatiya Jnanpith had first started the 'Jnanpith Award' in 1965 and the Moortidevi Award began in '83. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

In that case, I can support this nomination. Great work Yash, it's a gem of a list that you have here. NumerounovedantTalk 18:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments and support, Vedant. Really appreciated. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Forceradical

• Resolved Comments, I support this nomination — Force Radical ( Talk • Contribs ) 06:59, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The sentence in the lede " As of 2017, Bengali poet Joy Goswami is the most recent recipient of the award. "lacks a citation Done Please use consistent ISBN's Done Some of the citations lack access dates PDF files don't require access dates, the rest seems fine. The "not known" in the works section sound akward please replace it with some other wording or with the appropriate book Appropriate books of some of these awardees are unavailable. Can you suggest a better wording? Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2017 (UTC) You could simply use a dash and a footnote explaining the reason for the anomaly.- — comment added by Force Radical«talk🎄contribs» 15:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC) Force Radical I have provided dash for the unknown works, but a footnote seems redundant to me as a dash is self-explanatory that its not known. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC) If these are done I'll certainly support the list .Happy Holidays and keep up the great job. — comment added by Force Radical 🎆talk 🎄 contribs🎆 09:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Force Radical Thank you for your comments and support. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 21:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC) [23].

---

List of West Virginia state parks

Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this list because it gives possibly the most comprehensive summary of West Virginia state parks available. It gives a broad overview of the state parks' governance, a history of the state parks, and a list of both current and former state parks. I look forward to working with the FLC editors throughout this process, and I welcome your expertise, guidance, and suggestions. Thank you. -- West Virginian (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

;Comments from BeatlesLedTV I'm not a huge fan of the npte style you've used. It makes it to where you have to click on the note to see the note itself instead it showing when hovering. Could we change it to efn style instead? Just a personal suggestion. Fix the disambiguation link for "Rhine Creek" in the first table (Cathedral row). Fix the disambiguation link for "Mill Creek Historic District"in the second table (Morgan Morgan Monument row) Capitalize both uses of "near" in the second table (streams col) That's all I got right now. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2017 (UTC) BeatlesLedTV, thank you so much for taking the time to review this article and provide your suggestions! I modified the footnote structure to efn style and I also made the three corrections mentioned above! Please let me know if you have any further guidance in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC) Found a couple more things. the former state parks table isn't currently alphabetically sorted correctly and put an en dash in the empty box in the Booker t. Washington row. (make sure it's centered) BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC) BeatlesLedTV, thank you for your additional suggestions! I have added the en dash to the Booker T. Washington end year column, as I have not been able to find a definitive year for when the park was shuttered. I have also modified the alphabetization of the former state parks list, per your suggestion. I had originally sorted the parks named for people by the first letter of their surname, but Watters Smith is always sorted by Smith's first name of Watters, so sorting by first name will do! Please take another look and let me know if there is anything else I can remedy in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Normally when sorting people you do sort by last name but because in these instances they are monuments and parks named after people I'd say sort by first name. Anyways, everything looks good to me. Happy to sign support. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Note (a) should be a regular citation; no need to put the duplicative info in a footnote. The first sentence of note (c) is also redundant to the text preceding it - just put the citations in the text. Don't reference note (d) twice; leave the lead as just a summary and have the note or the info it contains only in the Overview section. There is an entire section for Former state parks, so note (e) is also redundant and unnecessary.
• The images are rather small if you want to make them bigger.
• An awful lot of the descriptions begin with "The park..." but any content would be assumed to be describing the park anyway. "The park is named for the 3,100-foot (940 m) tall Pinnacle Rock sandstone formation." could for example be written as "Pinnacle Rock is a 3,100-foot (940 m) tall sandstone formation."
• Booker T Washington needs a date of disestablishment in the table.
• Explanatory notes are not references; they can be in a separate Notes section. Reywas92^Talk 22:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Reywas92, thank you for taking the time to review this list and for providing your feedback and suggestions here! I provided footnote [a] to explain that the two rail trails are considered state parks and thought a footnote would allow me to also place multiple inline citations versus crowding all three citations after the first sentence. I will assess some alternative options in the meantime. I also removed the previous [d] citation per your suggestion. I increased the image sizes from 100px to 150px. Let me know if this will be large enough. I also removed the former [e] citation per your request. I separated the explanatory notes and reference sections. As for Booker T. Washington, I have not been able to locate a definitive date for its closing due to a lack in available data about the park. I have placed an en dash there until that date can be verified. I will also be incorporating your suggestion to pare down the size of the description, but I will be holding off for the time being until I receive a few more reviews so I can make all those changes together at once. Please let me know if you see anything else that needs adjusting in the meantime! -- West Virginian (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Looks pretty good! The Remarks column would also look better left-aligned rather than each line being irregularly centered. I don't see a problem with having three citations together, that's pretty common. Thanks for your great work here, it's nice to see more progress on park-related pages! Reywas92^Talk 04:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Reywas92, thank you again for your further guidance and for taking the time to improve this list! It is much appreciated. I attempted to only left-align the remarks column, but alas, I haven't been able to do so without re-aligning the other columns. I concur that the remarks look so much better aligned to the left, so I've modified the sortable table so that the info columns are all aligned left. This is actually consistent with other featured lists of state parks, like Louisiana and Pennsylvania. Please let me know if you think this works! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• Reywas92, I wanted to let you know that Corinne just completed a phenomenal copyedit of the remarks in both lists, thus paring down the descriptions per your suggestion above. Please let me know if you see any other issues that would preclude this from becoming a FL! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, Support Reywas92^Talk 18:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support –Well researched and referenced, article is greatly improved in formatCoal town guy (talk) 14:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments Too many numbers for me in the opening two sentences, perhaps replace the last "36 of them" with "all but one of them"? " ten are lodge/resort state parks, 25 are cabin, camping, and day-use state parks, and two" MOSNUM, all numbers or all words. " four acres (1.6 hectares) to 10,100 acres (4,087 ha)" similar. Shouldn't "kilometre" be spelt as "kilometer" if it's USEng? In the table (because it's sortable), USACE should be linked each time. Buffalo Creek is piped to a redirect. Jacob Prickett Jr. no longer takes a comma. "By 1960" doesn't sort correctly, use a {{hs}} template or something to force it to (say) 1959. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man, thank you for taking the time to review this list! I appreciate your suggestions and guidance and will be addressing each of these as soon as I have an opportunity. Thanks again! —West Virginian (talk) 13:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man, thank you again for providing your guidance and suggestive above! I've incorporated all the suggested changes listed. Please let me know if you see anything else outstanding that requires further tweaking and I'll make the necessary changes as soon as possible. Again, thank you for taking the time to review this list! It is much appreciated. -- West Virginian (talk) 05:29, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 21:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC) [24].

---

List of National Defence Academy alumni

Nominator(s): Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list. I am nominating this for featured list. The list has recently passed an A-class review from Military history project. Before nominating the list I resolved all the outstading comments from previous FLC nomination as far as I could. Looking forward for suggestions on any improvements required to meet the FL criteria. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 12:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• These links needs to be fixed.
• "NDA is not only the officer training academy in India." I guess it should be "not the only.."
• Fullstop missing from all the alt texts.
• I'm not sure if "Thaindian News" is a RS.
• Be consistent with Rediff's name. It is changing with every reference.
• www.tribuneindia.com --> The Tribune
• Times of India --> The Times of India
• Economic Times--> The Economic Times
• indiatoday.intoday.in --> India Today.
• Ditto for Indian Express.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Hi Yash, thanks for the comments. I have added an archive url to the dead link. I've fixed the rest, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 03:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

There are still some green links and one dead link, fullstops are missing from alt texts and the rediff issue is still unresolved. Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Thanks for the reply. I've fixed the red link (added an archive url), it should be fine now. Coming to the green links, I think the tool is picking something wrong, if the links are checked individually all of them work. Regarding the alt texts, as per the examples on WP:ALT, I see that very short phrases, something such as names, don't require a full stop. However, consistency is to be maintained. With regards to the rediff, I've maintained consistency over the mention, I has been mentioned as Rediff all through. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support I have performed some minor edits. Good luck! Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

;Comments from BeatlesLedTV I think the number and course number columns should be centered. I think the number, course number, and name columns should be sortable for every table. You have scope cols but not scope rows and these are needed per MOS:ACCESS Fix redirect links. Ex. in first table, PVSM → PVSM Normally references have their own column but almost every individual has at least 4 refs so I think you're good with keeping them in the notes column. Having their own columns in this case would make it way too large. Other than that great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC) @BeatlesLedTV: Thanks for the comments. Fixed the issues, please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 14:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support – I got no other comments or concerns. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Couple of comments Publication dates appear to be missing from several online newspaper sources. Row scopes should be the names of the alumni, not the "number" they are. Sortable tables should have everything that's linked linked every time. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the comments. But I am sorry that I'll not be able to work on these until 20 December 2017, as I will be out of station with limited internet connectivity. I'll get to back to these as soon as I come back. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 10:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC) No problem, thanks for letting me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: I've added publication dates wherever possible. Row scopes corrected, and linked everything as required. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Force Radical

• There are too many references which are linked in all the places in some lists, causing it to become an eyesore maybe it could be added in a general row at the bottom(Like those done under Maha Vir chakra)
• Expand the first instances of all abbreviations(CAS,CNS,COAS)
• Use † to denote those who have died posthumously and footnote the same at the bottom

Otherwise this list is pretty good and I believe it to be close to FL class .Support — comment added by Force Radical (talk • contribs) 08:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Force Radical: Thanks for the comments. References have been removed/adjusted to avoid duplication and excessive mention. The abbreviations have already been defined in the introduction para of section 1. Added a footnote for all posthumous recipients. Please have a look. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 15:05, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@Force Radical: I hope your comments have been resolved, are there any more? Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:45, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Nope Support- — comment added by Force Radical 🎆talk 🎄 contribs🎆 11:50, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 21:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC) [25].

---

List of Local Nature Reserves in Leicestershire

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the latest in my lists of Local Nature Reserves, and is in the same format as FLs such as Suffolk and Cambridgeshire. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• Remove the extra period after ref 24 in Lucas Marsh row

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• I'd put an en dash in every box in "other classifications" that is empty

• I prefer not, mainly for consistency with other lists, but also because I think it looks better without. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Everything else is good with me. I checked the sources and they're all good is well. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review BeatlesLedTV. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support – You got it. Happy to support. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments I've just recalled my "writing great proposals" two-day course which talks about writing great image captions. Suggest you embellish that lead caption to tell me a little bit about Snibston Grange... Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC) I missed this every time I guess, but what exactly do you mean by "second tier"? Of what? Of local government - e.g the county council covers main roads and the district counil minor ones. Changed to "Leicestershire County Council at the top level, with seven district councils in the second tier". Is that clearer? "December 2017 there " comma after 2017. Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC) "300 species of flowering plants, 250 fungi, 100 birds, 20 butterflies and 15 damselflies... " I know what you mean, but this literally reads as the fact there are 20 butterflies there, not 20 species of butterflies.... Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC) You don't appear to actually link Leicester in the Description col. I assumed that it should not be linked as it is in the location column. Link Overseal? Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Shouldn't Morley Quarry be a "RIGS" in its "Other classifications"? I have never included RIGSs in the classification col and I think it would be misleading to do it in this one case. "Common and Soprano pipistrelle bats" bit WP:SEAOFBLUE and in any case, in this construction, Soprano need not be capitalised. Capitalisation corrected. I am not sure how to get rid of the sea of blue. Any suggestions? Dudley Miles (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC) Ref 33 for example, MOS:DASH violation. Check others. Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:40, 26 December 2017 (UTC) Thanks very much for the review The Rambling Man. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support the tiny outstanding quibbles aren't deal-breakers, nice work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:55, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Rodw

Another interesting list & most of the issues I might have spotted have already been addressed. A few minor quibbles:

• In the description of Burbage Common and Woods "Semi-natural woods ... are" this could be interpreted as being about all Semi-natural woods rather than this one in particular

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• (Technical query) Glen Parva says "An arm of the Grand Union Canal" - an arm is generally a navigable waterway away from the main line of the canal. Having taken our narrowboat along this section of the GU I don't believe there is an arm at Glen Parva - perhaps "the line" of the canal rather than "an arm". The reference given just says "A canal runs along the western side of the site."

• Changed. I said an arm because I thought that it was on The Leicester Line rather than the main canal, but you would obviously know better. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• The GU is massive so different "lines" relate to different sections (rather than arms - see Saltisford Canal Arm, Buckingham Arm, Slough Arm etc).— Rod ^talk 14:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

I can't find any other issues.— Rod ^talk 13:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your review Rodw. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks. I can now support this list as meeting the criteria.— Rod ^talk 14:45, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 21:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2018 (UTC) [26].

---

Laureus World Sports Award for Action Sportsperson of the Year

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk, The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Based off the other similar lists here, I present Laureus World Sports Award for Action Sportsperson of the Year for your perusal. Harrias ^talk 12:44, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment: Amusingly, despite the fact that I just edited it, I completely forgot that I already had Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1946–1959)/archive1 open, and so shouldn't have initiated this. Got myself tangled up while trying to tidy myself back up! Harrias ^talk 12:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

It's okay, between us I think we can handle any comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from magiciandude

• "formerly known as the Alternative Sportsperson of the Year" comma after "year"

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The awards are considered highly prestigious and are frequently referred to as the sporting equivalent of "Oscars"." Please specify who. I assume its sports journalists and if so, just mention that.

  No, it's more general than that. Of the three references I used to cite that claim, one was CNN (not specifically "sports journalism"), one was the IAAF (so the definitive global body for athletics, not journalists at all) and one was a sports writer in Die Welt, so it's more across the board, so coming up with a specific statement to cover that would be too clunky. That's why I used the "frequently referred to" styling. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• The disambiguations and external links checker came out clean.

  Thanks for checking. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

That's all I got for now. Great job you two! And if either of you have the time, would you care to comment on my FLC for Billboard Latin Music Lifetime Achievement Award? Erick (talk) 15:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Magiciandude thanks for your comments, I've responded inline above. I'll add your review request to my queue of jobs! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. Not really much to say except the list is looking great and I wish you both good luck on this FLC. I now support this article. Erick (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Support – Honestly got nothing. Great job to the both of you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from MWright96 "in 2006 to the Italian hang glider Angelo d'Arrigo" - think it should be written as to Italian hang glider Angelo d'Arrigo for consistency in the paragraph its in. Reference 5 lacks the author and the agency which is Reuters The ESPN citation (11) does not have the author and the publisher should be ESPNcricinfo Reference 15 is missing the agency, which is Associated Press There's no access date to Reference 32 That's all I noticed during my read-through. It's only the minor queries from me. MWright96 (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2017 (UTC) MWright96 thanks again for your review comments, I've addressed them all. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Support The pair of you have forged one fine list here. Now eagerly awaiting the remaining three lists! MWright96 (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hi TRM and Harrias, HNY!

Infobox

• awarded for - quote marks and ref per other Laureus FLs

Prose

• ...formerly known as the Alternative Sportsperson of the Year,..." - could replace "formerly" with 'prior to 2007'
• "The Laureus World Sports Academy then select the individual winner..." - selects?
• "It has been award posthumously..." - awarded
• "...while surfers have been recognised most often..." - insert 'of any sport' after often?
• "...and Stephanie Gilmore (2009),..." - 2010

Table

• 2002 ref 13 - better (more timely and in English) refs this or this?
• 2005 Ellen MacArthur - dab Sailing to Sailing (sport)
• 2005 Mike Horn - swap ZAF to RSA (per 2001)
• 2007 Kevin Pritchard - wlink is not same bloke? At Windsurfing he doesn't even have redlink. See here for Kevin bio, no mention of basketball.
• 2011 - winner Sherwood? Is the NZ Herald in error saying Sherwood won one? It and other Kiwis got carried away? This says Slater. Current Ref 22 xgames.espn says 2012 was Slater's 4th ie 07, 09 and last year (2011). This and this say Slater. and this and this and photo of Slater holding statuette. Laureus World Sports Awards winners by year still has Slater.
• 2011 Sherwood - dab his sport wlink to Freestyle Motocross?
• NB If 2011 was Slater, will need to:
  • change template and
  • remove template and category from Sherwood article.
  • and in lede, this sentence "Americans are the most successful with seven awards, while surfers have been recognised most often with five awards." - will need to change to eight awards for US and six for surfing
• Maybe mention Slater in lede prose as the only multiple winner with four action wins?
• 2014 Mick Fanning - is an Aussie pls!
• 2015 Sage Kotsenburg - skateboarding should be snowboarding
• 2015 Gabriel Medina - is Brazilian
• 2016 Mick Fanning - is an Aussie pls!
• 2017 Pedro Barros - not the priest, dab to Pedro Barros (skateboarder)
• 2017 Tyler Wright - dab to Tyler Wright (surfer)

Refs - all live

Template

• 2011 - Slater as above?
• 2016 - should be Jan Frodeno

That's me for now. Best wishes, JennyOz (talk) 05:30, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

JennyOz Hi Jenny, thanks for all the comments, I believe I've addressed them all, but you know me....!! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Fantastic TRM! just one little problem...

• Infobox - we can't use that new NZ Herald ref to cite the "awarded for" bit - that news article replicates (in same sentence, no less) NZH's previous error that Sherwood won in 2011. How about this or Laureus itself or this? JennyOz (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

JennyOz done, just used the Laureus official site. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Perfect! Very happy to sign my support! JennyOz (talk) 10:04, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Giants2008, PresN hi guys, any chance of a source review and then closing this nom out? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Source review passed (with a small tweak), promoting. --PresN 21:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

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

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.