Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/February 2013

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 not promoted by Hahc21 04:58, 14 February 2013 [1].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Aravinda de Silva

Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meet the criteria. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments Test and ODI should be linked on first use  Done "since his debut in 1984." This reads as if he is still playing. Just say during his career and mention when he debuted in the start of the next para  Done Why does the lead say he scored 122 on debut, yet the table says he scored 148?  Done "As of January 2013, he is the only player to score unbeaten centuries in both innings of a match." This is an interesting fact and needs to be expanded. Who was it against and when?  Done "The performance was the sixth-highest score by an Sri Lankan batsman in Test cricket." If you're implying IT IS the sixth highest score, then the sentence should be in the present tense not the past  Done "As of January 2013, he is thirty-fourth overall among all-time Test century-makers"  Done "De Silva's maiden ODI century was against India in 1990." Again, expand the sentence what did he score give the reader some context  Done "ODI cricket" no need to use cricket, just use ODIs  Done "His score led Sri Lanka to the highest ODI total at that time" context needed again. What was the score? A note needs tone added to say who beat it and it can be merged with the preceding sentence.  Done "He was named as one of the Wisden Cricketers of the Year in 1996." This seems like an afterthought with it being at the end of the third para. I would work it into the first para  Done The Lost, Won and Drawn cells need row scopes adding in the key table  Done Do we need the S/R column for the Test table? This doesn't seem to be done on the other lists and I'm not sure it has much value  Done When you have two centuries of the same score in the ODI table, they should be ordered by their strike rate when the sort button is clicked. See theGooch list for how to do this  Done Date ranges in the references all need en dashes  Done NapHit (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC) "] He repeated the feat in the same year when he scored 146 and 120 against India in another man-of-the-match performance." As this comes after the sentence about not out centuries, this needs revising, as it could mislead the reader. Especially when the table states he was out for both centuries. NapHit (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)  Done

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 04:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments "Known as "one of the game's best entertainers" attribution needed.  Done Link "man-of-the-match" in the lead.  Done The word "unbeaten" doesn't sound encyclopedic.  Done an Sri Lankan batsman -> a Sri Lankan batsman  Done FN 2 is messed up. "was beat", "Australia's record broke in the same match" bad grammar. Also the score was 434 and not 343.  Done scoring 11 international centuries; doesn't require the word international after explaining all these.  Done The second sentence of the last para seems too long.  Done "His total led Sri Lanka to the highest ODI total at that time of 398", total appears twice in the same sentence. Also a little bit clarity is required to say whether the score was Sri Lanka's highest total or a record for any team. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)  Done Link World Cup.  Done Pipe link "1996 World Cup final" to just Final.  Done You've used "Draw" in the key but represented the same as "Drawn" in the table.  Done Captained the Pakistan cricket team? (Key)  Done For his first two Test centuries add a note saying that the balls were not recorded. My idea is to remove the column altogether from the Test table, as we don't have many lists having that column.  Done You've not used the MoM templates in the table.  Done 104 (117) should come before 104 (124) in the ODI tablewhile sorting in the descending order.  Done The two scores of 107* are still not sorting properly. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)  Done His famous 107* against the Aussies during the '96 WC final came while batting second.  Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)  Done I was referring to the correction that has to be made in the table. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)  Done In the sentence "He was most successful against Pakistan, scoring 11 centuries in both Test matches and ODIs", add something like scoring 11 centuries in Tests and ODI formats put together. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)  Done

• Support Good work with the list. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments Per MOSNUM, "scored seven of his 31" either 7 of his 31 or seven of his thirty-one.  Done You link us to the records page of Cricinfo about the two not out centuries but Da Silva is listed as P A Da Silva. No mention here that he's called P A Da Silva...  Done Good observation. man of the match should be hyphenated or not hyphenated but be consistent.  Done "He scored all of his twenty Test centuries against seven different opponents" what benefit does "all of" bring here?  Done "making eight.[1]As of" space.  Done "he is thirty-fourth among all-time Test century-makers,[α] and third in the equivalent list for Sri Lanka.[11]" -> perhaps note instead that he's 34th in the international list, and third for Sri Lanka. There is no "equivalent" list for Sri Lanka, there's simply a list of Sri Lankans.  Done Lost/Won/Draw -> why isn't Draw actually Drawn (otherwise the others should be Lose/Win, right?)  Done Test "Balls" col doesn't sort correctly.  Done Any reason to abbreviate the date?  Done Any reason why the date is abbreviated American format?  Done The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 12:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments – "man of the match performance" → man-of-the-match performance  Done when he scored centuries of 138 and 103 not out....  Done "His highest score in ODIs is 145 was made against Kenya in the 1996 Cricket World Cup." → His highest score in ODIs is 145, against Kenya in the 1996 Cricket World Cup.  Done "he is twenty-sixth in the list of all-time ODI century-makers...." → Actually twenty-sixth with G Greenidg, G Gambhir, V Richards, S Chanderpaul and M Atapattu.  Done both Test matches and ODIs formats → both Tests and ODIs  Done Zia Khan 23:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Meets the criteria, good work! Zia Khan 12:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• In the alt text, "be" and "also" should be reversed in order.  Done
• Note 2: Shouldn't "the" come before Netherlands?  Done Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Note I have my exams in March and there is a great possibility that I may not be back till 25 March 2013. Your patience will be highly appreciated as it won't take more than 2-3 days to resolve the comments once I am back. Thanks! :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

We can't really keep this nomination open for another six weeks if you're not here to deal with any comments. I suggest you request it be withdrawn and renominate it when you have time to deal with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:08, 10 February 2013 (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 not promoted by Hahc21 04:44, 14 February 2013 [2].

---

List of One Day International cricket records

Nominator(s): Blackhole77 ^{talk | contrib} 00:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets Featured List Criteria. I used List of Test Cricket Records, which itself is a featured list, as a model to base this article off of. Blackhole77 ^{talk | contrib} 00:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The lead needs a rewrite before it gets near FL standard.

• "Sachin Tendulkar, widely considered the most famous cricketer of all time"

Can't we use some other adjective instead of 'famous'. It is like Abraham Lincoln is the most famous president of USA

Done--Blackhole77 ^{talk | contrib} 18:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Please give a proper name to Reference 6, instead of just 'records'

Done--Blackhole77 ^{talk | contrib} 18:43, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fix ref 14

Done--Blackhole77 ^{talk | contrib} 18:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• The last four links seem irrelevant and can be removed, if CI links cover everything.

Done--Blackhole77 ^{talk | contrib} 18:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Use the same naming convention for references. There are several different formats like :

• "^ ESPNCricinfo.com "Records - One-Day Internationals - Batting records - Most runs in career"

  "^ Cricinfo.com "Records - One-Day Internationals - Team records -"

  "^ "Records - One-Day Internationals - Batting records "

  "^ "One-Day Internationals - Bowling records - Most five-wickets-in"

Fixed--Blackhole77 ^{talk | contrib} 19:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

All for similar links from Cricinfo

• "since then there have been over 3,000 Tests played by 25 teams. The frequency of Tests has steadily increased partly because of the increase in the number of Test-playing countries, and partly as cricket boards seek to maximise their revenue.[4]"

Tests ... ?

Fixed--Blackhole77 ^{talk | contrib} 19:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• " The duration of ODIs, currently limited to five days, has varied through Test history, ranging from three days to timeless matches."

Looks like a copy-paste gone wrong

Fixed--Blackhole77 ^{talk | contrib} 19:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• "Most consecutive wins"

I think this can do with some clarification in the footnotes. Does this include any abandoned matches ? If not, does the record change if abandoned matches are included.

It depends on what you mean by abandoned. If you mean abandoned as in abadnoned without a ball bowled, the ODI doesn't count as part of any statistical records (its treated as if the fixture never existed). If however, you mean abandoned as in no result, then the no results do get factored in. A no result is treated the same was as a loss for this particular statistic. Consider South Africa's 12 game winning streak. The first game in this streak was a win over england in the 7th and final ODI of a seven game series. The 6th ODI was a no result.[3]. South Africa won the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th ODIs of this series. Without the no result, their streak would have also included these matches, increasing the streak up to 16. --Blackhole77 ^{talk | contrib} 20:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ok, thanks. Tintin 00:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

• Fastest century

Boucher has retired, hasn't he ? So is Lara. Sehwag, Afridi and SRT are in bold in some places and not in some others. Better review the whole thing. Tintin 16:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed--Blackhole77 ^{talk | contrib} 04:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment

• In wicket-keeping, it's given that Moin Khan and Dhoni played 96 and 81 matches. Both have played 200+ games. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 15:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed--Blackhole77 ^{talk | contrib} 05:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Don't have time for a full review at the moment, but I noticed that many headings have improper overcapitalization; one example is "Team Wins, Losses, Ties, and No Results". Only the first word needs the capital letter, and I see several other instances where this is an issue in the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed--Blackhole77 ^{talk | contrib} 04:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Presumably you contacted the major contributors of this article before nominating? Done--Blackhole77 talk

Again, any and all constructive criticism is welcome.

• Comment looking good. I concentrated on the Lead, which I've copyedited for you. The information about the Asia XI is UNDUEly detailed. Footnote it in brief. The losing percentages are cute, but are they really what you'd expect of headline records? I would probably expect reference to ties and/or streaks, in their place. In the individual records, I'd expect the Lead to mention highest score, fastest hundred, most economical bowling (10 overs) and best figures for a bowler. The second paragraph, which is very short, seems entirely redundant to me. --Dweller (talk) 12:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have used it to fix up the lead. Hopefully it is to your liking. --Blackhole77 ^{talk | contrib} 04:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Any update on this list? I see no activity since 28 January 2013‎. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 23:48, 12 February 2013 (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 not promoted by Hahc21 02:21, 13 February 2013 [4].

---

List of Chicago Wolves seasons

Nominator(s): Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that it is comparable to other Ice Hockey season lists such as the List of Calgary Flames seasons. Cheers Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 17:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment beyond the bloated roster on the main Chicago Wolves page, this minimal season list would be easily at home in the main article, so I'm dubious about this list's ability to overcome the 3b criterion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if WP:NOTIMELIMIT would come into play on this one, but I am planing on expanding the Wolves main page to be more like the NHL articles, which all have pages like this one. It is somewhat of a daunting task to research the entire history and the various subsections and write them, so I began with some clean-up. I created this page and List of Chicago Wolves award winners (which is not quite complete) and figured if I was going to make them I would make them right. Cheers. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 04:41, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, there is _no_ time limit but if you're going to expand the main page, I would suggest you do that (to an extent) to ensure that this list is completely free to standalone. It shouldn't be too hard. Naturally you're welcome to keep the nomination going, after all, my opinion is just that, my opinion, but if you're game, withdraw this, do a bit of work on the main article, bulk it out so it's clear that a standalone list for the seasons is required, then renominate... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. My editing time is somewhat reduced right now, so I doubt I'll be able to expand the Wolves page significantly very soon. I have started something in my sandbox, but it will take longer than I anticipated. How about this, leave it opened for the rest of this week and if it fails to gain any new comments/support and I don' get the main page expanded just go ahead and close it. Once I do get the main page beefed up I'll bring the list back. Thanks, --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 15:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Thanks for letting us know. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

So, what do you reckon? Not sure the main page has been updated sufficiently... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

You can close this and when I get the main page further expand I'll bring this back. I feel that the list in this format provides more information that a smaller list that could go on the main page to prevent it from being disproportionate, but I understand where your coming from. No point in having people waste their time reviewing the list if it will fail 3b, I fully intend to expand the main page which should alleviate that concern, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there. Cheers --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 01:15, 3 February 2013 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 21:01, 9 February 2013 [5].

---

Russian Booker Prize

Nominator(s): Tomcat (7) 12:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it was recently copyedited and the table was expanded, now including all nominees. Regards. Tomcat (7) 12:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

User pushes his personal bias, ignoring guidelines and other user's comments. It was noted that he had a number of bad-faith contributions.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Oppose I think the article is great and Tomcat7 has done a lot of good work on it. However, I disagree that this is a list, rather it is an article. It should be considered for FAC. If it were a list, it would be called List of Russian Booker Prize winners, placing the emphasis on the list. By making it a list article, it falls under the rules of lists which limits what can be done with it per the list MoS. It restricts the future growth of the article by future editors who may want to expand it in currently unforeseeable ways. To see how this should be done, see List of Nobel laureates in Literature (featured list) and Nobel Prize in Literature (primary article). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I fully disagree. We have a lot of lists that have more prose than list, for example Marine Corps Brevet Medal and Boden Professor of Sanskrit. I don't see how this should be an exception for that list. The second section is just a summary of the table.--Tomcat (7) 19:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC) And there is no reason to create a separate article if it can be easily merged with the actual article. List of Russian Booker Prize winners would be incorrect as nominees are also included. --Tomcat (7) 19:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC) 1. Take a look at the MOS for lists: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#List_articles. It says "List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list". That's it, a block of text at the top and then the list. There are no sub-sections in list articles, if you strictly follow the MOS (which a Featured List should do). Ok not every featured list article strictly follows the MOS, but they are not great examples to follow. Further, look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists, it says "list articles.. the main components of which are one or more embedded lists.." What is the "main component" here? It seems like the text itself is a pretty large portion, as you said yourself, "more prose than list". And the prose could be expanded (controversies etc) and will continue to grow year on year. Arguably the main component of the article is not the list of winners, but the history, background and other information about the award itself, which deserves its own full-fledged regular encyclopedia article. Per the MOS for lists you link, I advise you to re-read it: "List articles are encyclopedia pages consisting of a lead section followed by a list (which may or may not be divided by headings)". Please stop deceiving our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC) It's says the list may be divided. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC) It also says that to assist the reader we can add a "separate introductory section" if required. Read the whole page (for instance, the section entitled "Lead sections in stand-alone lists" where a helpful example is provided!), not just cherry pick from it to suit your postition. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC) Per WP:SAL, the nominator is not to blame if there is no main article. He has created a very good main article. It's up to you (or others) to trump it with a featured article to supersede this attempt. Do something about it or just enjoy the fact we have people making high quality articles, just called FLs rather than FACs. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC) There's a main article worth of content here. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Prove it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC) 2. I'm not saying this to be a stickler about the rules. It can create a real problem down the road, once a list becomes featured it's difficult to change without de-featuring because the consensus of the featured decision holds weight in keeping it as it is. So, if an editor wanted to greatly expand the prose content in certain ways, they might be prevented from doing so because it must conform to certain list MoS guidelines as a Featured List (main component being the list, the single lead section, etc). By making it a list article, the list portion is given priority and over the prose portion which then suffers under the yoke of list MoS. This is not a problem in many cases because the prose portion is static or doesn't need to be very long, but for some subjects it is a problem. The solution is simple and well established, follow the Nobel Prize example. BTW the "winners" in the title is no problem, titles are just placeholders, the lead section can say it also includes shortlisted authors (and other stuff). We'll cross the bridge when we come to it. Alternatively we create a naff main article (like Orange Prize) and then link to the featured list. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC) 3. Looking at the list portion there are some problems and areas of improvement. There could be pictures of winning authors (see for example List of Women's Prize for Fiction winners), lists of judges for each year, and a notes section. When I click on what links here it doesn't look like every author and book links back to the award page, for example Leonid Yuzefovich mentions he was shortlisted but there is no back link - I assume no one has systematically gone through and added back-links and references. I also think the format of the table isn't very good (for featured content), and might recommend following the format at List of Women's Prize for Fiction winners. Finally and most serious, the references in the table are all primary source to the award website itself. Wikipedia relies on reliable secondary sources. All winners and shortlisted need secondary sources to newspapers, magazines unconnected with the prize itself. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Could you move this massive block of text to the talk page of this FLC and summarise it here? This is seriously prejudicing any genuine review against the criteria this list may get (as opposed to this kind of "standard" oppose). Sure, have your say, and please do so effusively, but perhaps just "oppose" here and then link us to your essay on the talk page. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC) This discussion of the article's status as a list is relevant to the FLC. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Not when you provide no suitable alternative. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC) I do note that this para is the only one which actually includes assistance to improve the list, perhaps we can work on these items. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Comment User:Green Cardamom really doesn't like these kinds of lists (previous experience at the Orange Prize goes to show that, where a really weak, stub-like article was created for the sake of it, just to then link back to the featured list which covered most, if not all of the aforementioned stub). It's a shame. My opinion is that until a FAC quality article about the prize exists, there's absolutely no reason to preclude a list article which meets all our criteria from being nominated. I'd also like to understand what being classed as a list "limits what can be done with it per the list MoS"? Specifically. There is no restriction whatsoever to future editors, if someone can expand it to FA quality, we'll happily stand by and let it be done. This list is hardly of the prominence of the Nobel Prize mentioned. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC) That's not true, in fact you did great work on the Orange Prize, and I continue to use that as an example of how to make a literary list (the list portion), see my recommendation above. The problem is the article's prose section (a 4000 word 6 paragraph lead!) is too long and should be merged into the main encyclopedia article, but that will require de-featuring first, a separate issue. Anyway, what does any of that have to do with the Russian Booker Prize FLC? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC) So we should just make additional sections. Easy. MOS allows it. No problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC) I could respond but it has nothing to do with the Russian Book Prize FLC. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Pretty much none of what you've written has anything to do with the FLC, it has to do with the fact that you keep claiming there's a main article worth writing, but then don't do anything about it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as Rambling Man pointed out, the Nobel Prize should not be compared with a national award. The Novel prizes are quite simply THE awards, and we should not be surprised when they receive so much coverage around the world. The Russian Booker Prize was recently established, after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and Russia is slowly recovering from totalitarism, and new authors are little-known, which is why there is an additional winners section, a good suggestion proposed in the last nomination. The Nobel prizes were awarded since 1900 to people worldwide. Information for the Russian Booker Prize is limited, even in Russian sources. What I could find were newspaper articles that have a few more information on its first ceremony. I could not find any more information on its creation, history, judgement, etc. What I may add is a criticism section, but it not only specializes on that award. I don't think the Orange Prize is a good example, as List of Women's Prize for Fiction winners has more prose and is more comprehensive than the "main" article. A merger would be a good option, and I may propose one in future (but that is now irrelevant here). I agree that it can be delisted from featured status anytime. I hope Green understands the situation. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I plan to nominate other lists in near future, so it would be nice if the opposer would re-review his vote to avoid having a stalled page. Other people are free to suggest what they think. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the fundamental question "is this a list, or an article" can come up during FLC's, it has come up before in other FLCs unrelated to me, it is a basic issue with how we structure things. TRM says it's my burden to prove it is an article by writing it as such. And I could do that, easily, just move some text around so it looks more like an article, it would take 5 minutes. However I don't think your opinions would change. But look at the first sentence of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists which defines what a list-article is: "Stand-alone lists are articles the main components of which are one or more embedded lists". So is the list here the main component? I don't believe so - the main component is the prose section, which is about the award itself. The article is about the award, not the winners. They are not the same thing. The list of winners is an ancillary and even optional section. The description of the award is the main component - not the list of winners. It's backasswards to make the list of winners the primary component of an article about the award! -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this dreary pointed attempt to whack us with picking-and-choosing one or two odd sentences from one specific guideline of the MOS is really tiresome. Like the Orange award, we managed to prove that we'd end up with a really weak main article and a decent list. That doesn't benefit anyone. Nor does this. Write your own Russian Booker Prize article, we'll keep this article going at FLC as a featured list candidate. After all, you are the expert in these matters, right? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

It's the first sentence in the primary MoS for standalone lists: it's the very definition of what a stand alone list is! If calling that an "odd sentence" is your best response you clearly don't have a response. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said to you before, the MOS also uses a very handy example of List of compositions by Franz Schubert by genre to demonstrate that your assertion is entirely incorrect. It's not your fault the MOS is inconsistent but you really should know better than to just use one truncated sentence to try to prove your own position. Bad form, dreary and a waste of a lot of people's time. Please write the main article, we'll go from there, and then we'll see another stubbish main article and a well-written featured list to accompany it. After you. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I don't need to write a main article, it already exists. It's up to you or whoever to create a list article under a different name, if that is what you or anyone else wants to do. Also, using the example article in the MoS to trump the explicit wording of the MoS doesn't fly. The MoS is quite clear defining what a list article is. If the example contradicts then a better example should be found, though I'm not sure the example even contradicts in this case - most of the material in those sub sections is about explaining the list. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Green Cardamom, where does this main article exist, other than this list? By the way, by "main component", what do you think MOS means by that? The number of bytes? The number of words? The amount you have to scroll down the page? What part of the MOS is contravened here? Your oppose is noted, now we'll just crack on and continue with the FLC. The MoS contradicts itself, but it clearly allows for additional paragraphs of prose to be added to assist in describing the content of the list, that's the end of it. Thanks for your expert contributions here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

"Main component" is not a mathematical count, there is no way to quantify it that way. What is meant is the main focus of the article, the main point and idea of the article. I don't believe MoS contradicts itself because most of the prose in List of compositions by Franz Schubert by genre is specific to the list, it's meta information needed to understand the list. Unlike this article where the prose section is entirely independent of the list, it's about the Award. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, enough is enough. You complain about the scope of the article yet you refuse to do anything about it. This is for discussing FLCs, it's not a soapbox for you to expertly demonstrate your personal preference to pick and choose parts of sentences of guidelines in the MOS to promote your particular position, so I suggest we leave it here. Thanks again for your interest. Incidentally, your "interpretation" of the MOS has potential ramifications for the whole FL process, not exclusive to this list. I suggest you bring the issue up at WT:FLC to allow the community to help you, rather than focus on just this one list. Having said that, once again looking at other text in the MOS regarding standalone lists, it says "A well written lead section is of particular importance to stand-alone lists featuring little or no prose in their article body.", which strongly implies that standalone lists can (and maybe even should) have more prose in their article body. Hmmm...... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a list article can have multiple sections, if required. So long as the list is the "main component" of the article. Main component meaning conceptually the primary focus and purpose of the article. There's no contradiction in the MoS. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Phew, so the only issue you have here is that the list isn't long enough to be, in your mind, the "main component"? How odd. Still, we got to the bottom of it eventually didn't we?! Moving on now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, where did I say that? I said: a list article is one where the primary purpose and focus of the article is the list. It's a conceptual question - ask yourself: what is this article for? The length of the list doesn't matter. The length of the prose doesn't matter. The number of sections doesn't matter. It's simple common sense supported by the MOS. Here's an example of two articles: Charles Dickens bibliography and Robert Louis Stevenson. Both contain lists. One is a list article. One is not. Can you determine, and how come. I realize you would like to "move on" and even close this FLC down, but the fact is I am arguing from a rules-based position, supported by the rules, a rule which is supported by other people as well. I opened a rules clarification question at the MOS and have received one reply so far that supports this position. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying (or otherwise?) the FLC project of your discussion at the MOS talkpage which clearly may have a significant impact on FLC. As I said before, you argued this position with the Orange Prize, and we ended up with a really pathetic stub-like main article and a featured lists of the winners. There seems no benefit to our readers to have this split, despite your assertions and pick-and-choose rules approach. Now you've started your discussion there, I suggest this side debate is capped and we can carry on improving Wikipedia's lists, and you can carry on picking particular sections of sentences of the MOS to further your expert position. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Orange Prize is a separate issue and I'd be happy to discuss strategy for that elsewhere but this is a FLC for the Russian Booker Prize. As for wider implications that is not my concern, my concern is this FLC. Why do you keep trying to discuss things unrelated to this FLC? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Because your point is a general one. And the Orange Prize is a good example of where you got your expert opinion enshrined in a poor "copy-and-paste" main stub article and a featured list which still contained most, if not all the pertinent points. You're trying to do the same here. Why not knock up a sandbox of your vision of the potential FA you see in the Russian Booker Prize and then we'll discuss whether it merits its own stub or should, for the benefit of the reader, be encapsulated here until such a time that the main article would make a decent standalone article? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't trust the process. Because you say things and keep changing your position. On the Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Stand-alone_lists discussion you said the prose has to "move beyond a stub". Well the text we have is already beyond a stub. Then above you say it has to be a "potential FA".. but then go on to say it has to be a "decent" standalone article. So the bar keeps changing .. and it's not backed up by any rule, it's sort of like your the authority who decides. When I actually looked at the MOS rules, it says something entirely different from what your saying. There's nothing in the rules that says any article can be a list article so long as it contains 1. a list and 2. a stub prose section. Where does it say that? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The text we have would be a stub on its own. We need to introduce subjects fully so a lot, if not all of the current text would be used in the list to introduce the subject. By the way, you're at "featured" lists here, not just "lists", so you need to understand we want these lists to be excellent, comprehensive and informative to the reader without having to pop back to a main stub (or, if you wish, C-class article) to read a couple of paragraphs they could quite easily cope with at the start of this list. Do you have a sandbox with the standalone Russian Booker Prize knocked up or are you just here to cause trouble by saying "no, it can't be a featured list and the reason is, it should be a stub and a crappy list, and no, I'm not writing the stub, I'm just telling you it should be a stub and a crappy list per our MOS"? Not quite sure what you're trying to achieve other than a degree in wiki-lawyering. Have you stopped for a moment to consider what is actually better for our audience right now? Honestly? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The whole reason I'm arguing this is what is best for our audience, it is not wikilawyering for the sake of it. I'm not going into here since this is a FLC for the Russian Booker and you keep changing the subject and we already have separate discussions going elsewhere. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You are wikilawyering for the sake of it, there's no benefit to our readers to create a stub main article and then reducing the lead of this FLC to nothing just because you think it should be that way. Solution (1 - yours) allow a reader to switch between a stub main article including a blank section pointing a featured list, and a featured list which, by the current standards, has to have a comprehensive lead etc with quality control (2 - mine) allow a reader to get everything in one place as long as there's insufficient decent prose to justify a main article. By the way, you're the one who started the discussion at MOS without notifying anyone here, and you're the one who broke the terms of Creative Commons by copying-and-pasting all over other editors work and, by default, claiming attribution for it. That's why it's now become a forum shopping outing..... Bad form. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Look if you're going to take that form that I'm operating in bad faith it's pointless to have a discussion. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You're pushing MOS fragments to ensure we get stubs and lower quality lists. You want to do that? Carry on, but not in this garden. RFC it so the world can join in and see that you're not actually helping our readers in your pursuit. And hopefully you can stop using various forums to do it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Lol no, I am arguing from the rules, unlike yourself who makes stuff up as you go. You still haven't provided any rules to back up your position. That's not wikilawyering, it's a defense against people like yourself who treat Wikipedia like their own private garden to do whatever they want. There's no "fragments" being pushed, it's the first sentence of the MOS and a core concept. It's is you who are creating a lower Wikipedia and pushing people around with unnecessary levels of bureaucracy. For example telling me we can't have this conversation here and we have to start an RFC to decide the issue - that's bullshit. This topic has come up before and it's been decided in FACFLCs. It's not complicated for consensus to emerge in a FACFLC if a particular article is a list or not. An RFC is not needed. If you think there is some larger issue that's your truck to carry, maybe you need to start an RFC. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC) (edit: fixed FAC -> FLC typo after TRM's comment below - GC)

Seriously, I'm asking you politely to now centralise any such discussion you wish to have on this. Calling "bullshit" is unnecessary, maybe you need to remove yourself from this discussion and relax a bit. You seem to be confusing FACs with FLCs. Please, what is wrong with giving a reader the best thing right now, a fully comprehensive article with a list of winners? This encyclopedia isn't about you or me, it's about the readers. You've lost the plot, creating stub main articles just because that's what MOS suggests is pointless. I'll leave it to you now here, I'm done. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to repeat Rambling Man's proposal to discuss this elsewhere if needed. Clearly the MOS is outdated, and no need to stick so heavily to that guideline (remember, WP:IAR and WP:PILLAR). Cardamom, you state that this list should be about the winners and a different page should be created for the award, but clearly there is no reason to create a separate list because it fits under one article. Also I am curious why you took particularly this nomination and not other similar nominations. I suggest making an RFC to make a final decision for all such lists. Just a reminder that a split won't never happen. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 11:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"and not other similar nominations" .. because I don't follow FLC. This is the first FLC I've ever participated in. Also I've been editing this article on and off since 2009 - its been on my watchlist and so I saw your update on the article talk page about it being nominated for FLC, so I came over and voiced my concern - do you have a problem with people objecting to your FLC? Your response has been that we should ignore the MOS because the consensus that wrote it is "outdated" (though certainly not in my view). However I don't believe the MOS is outdated I think there is wisdom in what it says and that certain editors are flagrantly and systemically ignoring that consensus. Editors like myself have the right to object to an article being classified as a list, and the FLC is the place that objection is voiced. I agree with you it is logical to keep the winners and prose in the same article under normal situation, however if you're going to escalate the list to the level of featured content then there are additional factors that come into play that need to be considered.

Also, I listed half a dozen other problems with the list, unrelated to this topic (see #3 in the collapsed section above). You apparently have decided to ignore those things thus far. Apparently you are not only ignoring the MOS, but ignoring the core rules of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:PRIMARY. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've been editing this article on and off since 2009 and so it's been on my watchlist and I saw your talk page update about the FLC. This is the first FLC I've ever participated in on Wikipedia. I don't follow the FLC world so who knows what else goes on, not my problem or interest. I'm interested in this article and this FLC. You and TRM seem to be out make this into some larger issue. As for the MOS, whatever. If you and others feel comfortable ignoring the MOS there's not much one person can do to stop you. I'd sure like to see what rules you follow. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*Ignoring that huge mess above, here are some comments from me Wouldn't winners of this prize, as the highest one in the country, automatically be notable? (and thus able to be redlinked)? Done--Tomcat (7) 21:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC) And the books? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Ok, linked them too.--Tomcat (7) 10:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC) roughly $20,000, while each of the shortlisted finalists earns $2,000. - Since we gave pounds further up, might be worth having here Done--Tomcat (7) 21:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC) I don't see it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Seems like I forgot to save, done--Tomcat (7) 10:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC) In 1997, the award was renamed the Smirnoff–Booker Literary Prize, in honor of entrepreneur and Smirnoff founder Pyotr Smirnov. - How long did this last? Until 2002--Tomcat (7) 21:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC) This should be clearer in the article — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Done--Tomcat (7) 10:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Russian Telecom Equipment Company - Notable? I don't think, not much secondary sources backing its notability.--Tomcat (7) 21:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC) The five finalists were Alexander Chudakov's A Gloom Descends Upon the Ancient Steps, Oleg Pavlov's Funeral Rites in Karaganda, or, a Tale of Recent Times, Zakhar Prilepin's Sankya, Lyudmila Ulitskaya's Daniel Stein, Translator and Roman Senchin's The Eltyshevs. - Isn't this in the list? Removed--Tomcat (7) 21:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Lyudmila Ulitskaya holds the record for most nominations (five, winning once), followed by Andrei Dmitriev (four, winning once) and Alexey Slapovsky (four). - Most wins? I added "winning nothing" for clarification--Tomcat (7) 21:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC) No, I meant who has the most wins overall (or, if nobody won it more than once, that should be noted) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Clarified--Tomcat (7) 10:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC) he typed with two moveable index fingers. - Why can he only move the fingers? Because he has cerebral palsy. Do you think the fact that he has cerebral palsy should be mentioned?--Tomcat (7) 21:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC) If you think him typing it with two fingers is relevant, yes. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Removed content--Tomcat (7) 10:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC) I have doubts about the validity of the "Winners" section, since articles on the books themselves would have this information (and the books are almost definitely notable) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Overall the prose is quite good, but I'm not quite sure of the validity of the winner's section. I may be convinced otherwise, but if we compare your Golden Eagle nominations this goes into too much detail. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Mh, not sure about that, but I could cut some off-topic arguments. Thanks for your comments! Regards.--Tomcat (7) 21:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC) As I said above, the majority of this information is better suited to articles on the books and is not quite pertinent to the prize. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC) Removed content. Thanks for the responses. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. --Tomcat (7) 17:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Ignoring that huge mess above.... comments

• "English Chief Executive Sir Michael Caine" would more likely link Caine than CEO.

• Done

• "short list" or "shortlist"?

• Done

• "Since 2011 the new sponsor" -> no need for "new".

• Removed

• Merge third and fourth lead paras.

Merged

• " winning nothing" -> "no wins".

• Changed

• "was nominate five times, more than any other" -> nominated and should end with a full stop.

• Fixed

• Avoid squashing text between images.
• Why is first item in list 1998 (Kharitonov)? instead of 1992?

• Fixed that

The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! Regards.--Tomcat (7) 21:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources The list of winners lacks reliable secondary sources per the rules of WP:Verifiability. The Rambling Man once said in another featured literary award list-article:

I insist on decent third-party sources (rather than lazily relying on the official website) (The Rambling Man)

I agree with the The Rambling Man and don't understand why he would change his position just for this FLC. And that is what the core rule of WP:V says: "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources". According to WP:PRIMARY "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". Further, "Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." The policy says "be cautious about basing large passages on them". In this article the entire list of winners is based on a primary source which is "to be avoided". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

There are enough secondary sources, which all back the winners. --Tomcat (7) 15:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

And if the official website has all the winners and nominees, there is no good reason adding redundant secondary sources. Furthermore there are not enough of them. --Tomcat (7) 15:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No good reason .. other than the core rule of verifiability. There is one secondary source for a winner. The rest are about runner-ups and the booker prize of the decade. That means out of 20 years, only 1 year has a secondary source, or 95% primary source. If there are no secondary sources available, maybe this content is not up to Wikipedia's standards of the best it has to offer? No one's trying to deny you from making featured content, but sometimes the sources just aren't available - though they may be in the future, or may be in print form not readily accessible from the Internet - have you tried searching the commercial databases like GALE etc? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 15:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

PRIMARY also says "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia". The primary sources here are reliably published, just as those primary sources in, say, List of Nobel laureates in Literature, are reliably published. My position 14 months ago was to use third-party sources and, where possible, that's still the aim. However, as long as the sources have been "reliably published" and since none are promoting any kind of "position", simply reporting bare facts, I can (and the gudelines most certainly allow) primary sources to be used. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

PRIMARY policy also says "be cautious about basing large passages on [primary sources]". This article is 95% primary on reporting the winners. The List of Nobel laureates in Literature probably needs to be reviewed on these grounds as well since it was promoted in 2008. There are many reasons to use secondary sources. Secondary sources do exist. You have not searched the commercial databases. Here for example are just two I quickly found:

• Walden, George. "Russian Booker." TLS. Times Literary Supplement 5307 (2004): 15. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Feb. 2013.
• Tait, Arch. "The awarding of the third Russian Booker prize." The Modern Language Review 92.3 (1997): 660+. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Feb. 2013.

I don't have time to go through them all, but if you haven't even looked for secondary sources that clearly exist, why should this article be promoted to featured status? -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Clearly I found much better sources, no need to do any searches. If the official website has posted them, then other sources just repeat the information. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 18:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The secondary sources do more than that. They have original commentary, review and other information related to the years winners that's not found in the primary. The secondaries also provide a reference for adding sources to the author and book articles that link back to this article (another thing that still has not been done). Also WP:PRIMARY is not saying to use primaries instead of secondaries. In fact it says that secondaries are the preferred type of source, and since we have them available, why aren't you using them? (BTW you can use both as they each have a place and purpose). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 21:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

From the policy, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." In other words, the use of primary sources here which are used to prove bare facts is entirely compliant with the MOS. Your tagging of the primary sources used here was inappropriate, and your insistence of the replacement of them with third-party sources is your opinion, your preference, nothing more. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

The secondary sources provide more than straightforward statements of facts. They have original commentary, review and other information related to the years winners that's not found in the primary source. And as you said before:

I insist on decent third-party sources (rather than lazily relying on the official website) (The Rambling Man)

It's "lazy" to rely on primary sources. It's a poor quality article without secondary sources for the winners. You've cherry picked a single sentence out of the policy page and ignored its context and everything else said on that page, a logical fallacy; the general concept on Wikipedia is that we rely on secondary sources, as PRIMARY says: Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I repeat: There is no reason to have secondary sources; I won't waste my time adding some redundancies. Your oppose is meaningless. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 16:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

So, GC, you agree the use of primary sources here is in accordance with the MOS. Thank you. I didn't write the MOS, so why you insist on repeating my comment is beyond me. The MOS clearly says for simple facts, primary sources can be used. Yet you now say we can't use them. How odd. perhaps you should rethink your position! (You may wish to note that finding third-party sources for English language prizes like the Booker would be far easier than this prize, for instance). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to rethink your position:

use third-party sources and, where possible, that's still the aim (The Rambling Man)

It is possible and it is the aim. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, do we obey the MOS or TRM? Stick to the MOS or not? Get a grip please. Your ever-shifting position is baffling. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

"Ever-shifting position", how ironic. It's a policy not MOS, maybe you need to read the rules more carefully, PRIMARY says: Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. PRIMARY says in the first sentence: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Cherry picking a single sentence and ignoring the spirit of how Wikipedia works is one thing, but to do it as an example of the best and brightest featured content? Contested. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, this time it really is my final word. The MOS says we can use primary sources for substantiating very simple facts (e.g. winner names) but to avoid primary sources for "interpretations" etc, fine, no problem here. Both you and I prefer third-party sources (although many current third-party sources use Wikipedia as their source without attribution, but that's a whole 'nother argument), agreed, my position I adopted 14 months ago at Booker, and the position I hold are compatible, avoid lazy sourcing, but, once again, if it complies with the MOS/PRIMARY, then we're good. You say that PRIMARY says "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". PRIMARY goes on to say "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge". So that's good news isn't it? I think we can agree (unless you're into conspiracy theories) that the official site of the award would be capable of reliably publishing the names of the winners, along with the year they won the award? Maybe you disagree. In any case, you first claimed this wasn't an appropriately formatted list, then you made fallacious claims that once a list was promoted, a main article could never be made (your "frozen list" paradigm), and now it's a dispute over the interpretation and implementation of PRIMARY. I won't be back here as I've wasted far too much time dancing to your tune. I feel truly sorry for the nominator who has put stacks of work into this, just to see a series of drive-by objections, shifting like the sands. Totally depressing. P.S. Guess we'll be seeing plenty more of you here..... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't blame me, the problem is the article itself. The SAL was the first objection, but since it's a rare objection (not unknown, but rare) I'm unsure how it will be received. Regardless, the list has more common problems which have been detailed in good faith, and hope you assume good faith. The problem with PRIMARY is the second objection. You are right this whole conversation is a huge investment of time and energy, it could have been better spent by simply improving the article - do the right thing as you have said repeatedly in the past, "I insist on decent third-party sources" and, "use third-party sources where possible". It is not a trivial point, the third party sources contain a lot of important information not found in the primary (and also use the primary if you want to). In the end I contest this list is of featured quality (assuming it's even considered a SAL) without third party sources for the winners (which sources do exist). -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Gah. SAL objection? Seemingly no longer valid, unless you have more to add (i.e. you still want a stub main article, which we can easily do, let me know). PRIMARY? We've dealt with that, PRIMARY actively allows the current use of primary sources. You haven't been able to provide evidence to the contrary. The PRIMARY sources here state facts, in accordance with the policy. Third party sources adding more to the article is a "preference" and cannot, in any way, be considered a valid position of opposition. Now then, you've spent a huge amount of time here, are you going to move onto the other literary lists which use primary sources? We absolutely need to know because, if so, you really must centralise this discussion. We can't spend all this energy on each and every literary list you decide to show up at and provide confusing messages. Please, please, please start a central discussion somewhere relevant about the use of primary sources, as I've already pointed you too, we have a Nobel list that uses primary sources considerably, and we have a current FLC (which you've yet to comment on) which is of a similar nature. Your consistent comments would be appreciated, or better, a discussion about the appropriate use of primary sources somewhere central is advised. After all, your position doesn't just affect FLC, it affects FAC and all other promoted content which use primary sources (despite the fact that PRIMARY actively allows it). Please don't allow your (and my) preference to replace all primary sources with third-party sources cloud your judgement. That's our preference and in no way can influence the criteria for FAs or FLs. Unless you take the debate to the projects.... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my objections to this FLC are reasoned and rationale, even if you disagree with them. They may have application to some other articles, but that doesn't invalidate the point for this article. We don't have to solve the world top down, if that were the case nothing would ever get accomplished on Wikipedia. In fact Wikipedia is very much a bottom up approach of consensus building, so give the process time and a chance, even if you don't like it or in a hurry.

Look comprehensive coverage is one of the criteria of FLC. Comprehensiveness is purely subjective, our preferences can and do matter in FLC. Outside sources discussing the winners is part of comprehensive coverage. To illustrate: if the award presenter is the only one given coverage, it gives a false impression. Of course the presenter would think the winner is best, but does everyone else? There are some years when the winners are panned by the critics (for example). Yet, we would never know that without secondary sources, we would be looking through rose-colored glasses of the primary source. It's not comprehensive coverage to give only the presenters view of the winners. Anyway I'd sure like to give this conversation a rest for a bit and perhaps let other people comment, and not keep repeating the same positions over and over. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I said that there is no need for more secondary sources if there are already primary sources. And coverage won't increase if I put some more secondary sources. Secondary sources should be used if the claim is controversial or disputed, but not if citing a plain list of nominees and winners. The official website is a trused site that won't introduce any controversial errors. Furthermore, you surely want secondary sources for the English titles, but finding some would be almost impossible because some works were re-released under different names or their English translation are unknown. And yes, you still did not comment about the purpose of secondary sources if they just repeat the same information over and over, like all your comments on this page. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 01:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't need them for every year, but where the sources exist they should be included. It's crazy anyone would be so insistent about not including known secondary sources and only using primary sources for the table. Is this Wikipedia or reverse-world with everything done upside down. And I just explained in the previous paragraph an illustrative example why secondary sources are useful. You don't seem to get it that it's more than just reporting who won. It's critical commentary by outside professionals about the award, the winners, etc.. even The Rambling Man agrees they are the best way to do things, he said "your (and my) preference to replace all primary sources with third-party sources". Though we don't need to "replace" the primary, rather in addition to the primary source. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 02:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done, because they don't add critical commentary at all, but just repeat the information. And again, please carefully read what I wrote above. "Don't need them for every year, but where the sources exist they should be included" does not make sense; where would you like to have them now? You said for the whole table.--Tomcat (7) 11:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

• Either the nomination will be blanked and restarted, or withdrawn and archived. --Tomcat (7) 13:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Well it's your nom, we can restart it, or archive it and you can renominate it in due course? Your choice. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't feel there will be any progress, and the page will be likely stalled, so I have decided to withdraw this nomination. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 17:34, 8 February 2013 [6].

---

Armenian population by country

Nominator(s): Երևանցի ^talk 03:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this article is interesting enough to be featured on the main page. Երևանցի ^talk 03:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment why isn't this included at Armenian diaspora? This list is a clear violation of the 3b criterion for featured lists as far as I can tell. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I thought it would be better to have a separate list. The term 'Armenian diaspora' usually doesn't include Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Let's see. The Armenian diaspora article can also cover the institutions, the cultural centers, churches, athletic organizations, political parties, etc. operating outside of Armenia (I will be working on that article in future) and adding this huge list there wouldn't be that smart. This is my personal opinion.--Երևանցի ^talk 19:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Arsenikk

• The lead needs a lot of work and should be much more extensive. It should introduced the topic and give a summary of the list. Take a look at recently passed FLs to examine the expected scope.

doing

• The language needs tweaking. Words and terms such as "today", "large", "notice that" are not encyclopedic.

done

• The table needs to conform with WP:ACCESS and WP:DTT. This includes a caption and col/row-spans.

What particularly should be done there?

If you haven't done so yet please read the sections "Overview of basics" and "Correct table captions" at WP:DTT. You will find your list both does not use spans nor has a caption. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

done by User:Bill william compton

• The table should be in its own section. It should have a brief technical summary which explains any part of the table which is not obvious. For instance, what is the defining aspect of an official data compared to an estimation. Do they vary because of lacking statistic information, or because of differences in defining an Armenian?

done

• I have problems sorting the "source" and "estimates" columns correctly.

Let's say for the estimations column of the Armenians in the United States, which number should I chose for sorting? It ranges from 800,000 to 1,500,000.

You'll just have to pick one: the lowest, median or highest. At the moment it seems that that column sorts almost at random. You can use the template {{nts}} to help create sortable content. Also make sure the total row doesn't sort (this can be accomplished by using the syntax |-class="sortbottom", see Help:Sorting). Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Why does the rank column list counties in a different order than the population?

See above.

• Remove see also links since they are in a navbox.

done

• Don't SHOUT in references.

done

Interesting idea for a list. However, there is a lot of work before it would be featured. I am close to opposing because of the lead, but I would much rather see it improved. Arsenikk ^(talk) 23:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

To issues regarding the review page: could you please not use icons, as it slows down the load time of the entire FLC page. Secondly, remember to sign any responses so that it is easy to keep track of both who writes what and when it was written. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Interesting article, but the table needs a total column (with official, lower, and upper estimates) and a much more detailed lead. Nergaal (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 08:57, 7 February 2013 [7].

---

List of Major League Baseball players with a career .330 batting average

Nominator(s): PM800 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because batting average has, at least historically, been regarded as the most important baseball statistic. Many of the greatest hitters in MLB history are included here. - PM800 (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• The 0.330 part seems artificial. Why not 0.300 or 0.333??? Nergaal (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• As stated in the lead, "Baseball historians have considered .330 to be an outstanding batting average." There are 207 players who have batted .300, so that is not a particularly rare accomplishment. - PM800 (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Then can you put that information in the intro so it becomes clear to the casual reader too? Nergaal (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Done. - PM800 (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments– As per FL List of Major League Baseball players with a career .400 on-base percentage, the "rank" column is unnecessary, since the table is already sorted by batting average. Scope row should be added to players' names and key and scope col should be added to the table's column headings to meet WP:ACCESS. See recently promoted FL List of Major League Baseball hitters with two grand slams in one game for more info on formatting (i.e. "plainrowheaders" after "wikitable", which removes the bold from the scope row on players' names). Daggers should be in image form for access. Should be {{dagger}} for the key, but {{sup|{{dagger}}}} when placed next to a HOF player's name. Again, see aforementioned grand slam FL for more info. Replace asterisk with double-dagger for active players, since an asterisk in baseball has a sinister/negative connotation (i.e. stats by players using PED or, historically, Maris being unjustly punished for hitting 61*). Cobb's image could be a bit smaller. All images need alt text. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Done. - PM800 (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Forgot one more thing. The "List" table should include a caption at the top (I'd suggest "MLB players with a career .330 batting average"). —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Done. - PM800 (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Great work. A fine addition to the baseball-related FLs on WP. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 03:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments 5 paragraphs is too many per WP:LEAD, try and trim it down a bit and merge paras 4 and 5 as they are both quite small. You use the abbreviation MLB, without providing it after the first use of Major League Baseball "as only 30 players..." "Baseball historians have considered .330" this should really be in present tense as it suggests they used to consider it notable when they obviously still do You link American League but not the National League, be consistent, both should be linked Again with NL, you use an abbreviation that is not presented to the reader "He batted over .370 six straight times..." Take it you mean for six consecutive seasons? It's not explicit and use consecutively instead of straight times On a note unrelated to the review, Shoeless Joe Jackson is probably the best link I've seen on here! Made me chuckle! Actually I do have a comment about old Shoeless Joe. Why was he banned from playing? Given his funny name I think the reader may want a bit more context "Delahanty had his career cut short..." -> Delahanty's career was cut short NapHit (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Done. - PM800 (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – Like Nergaal, I too mind myself questioning the inclusion criteria. About the only sources supporting it as a significant milestone are a 50-year-old Baseball Digest article, and a juvenile biography of A-Rod that says "A batting average higher than .330 is considered outstanding." I don't think the second source is a great one, and don't believe that the author should be considered a historian in that sense. While it would bloat the list considerably, .300 is a much more important number in baseball circles than .330 is. To me, the inclusion criteria is arbitrary, perhaps due to the desire to avoid a long list. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I'm neither an expert nor am I particularly interested in MLB. This .330 thing is perplexing to me as well. Why not .32? Why not .34? If there are definitive independent third-party sources which declare that .330 is somehow a milestone, somehow more significant than .340, then please let me know. Right now it does seem somewhat arbitrary. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Anyone? Nomination appears to have stalled... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
    • FWIW, when I see a .330 batting average, I immediately think elite in terms of hitting, not unlike seeing 3,500 hits. a .300 average, conversely, is very good, but there have been hitters with that average who weren't all that great. It's more arbitrary than .300, sure, but I've at least heard .330 bounced around once in a while, unlike .320 or .340. Unfortunately I don't have anything to cite as proof on that, I'm just going by my knowledge. Wizardman 02:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been unsuccessful, 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 08:05, 7 February 2013 [8].

---

List of CHA Men's Ice Hockey Tournament champions

Nominator(s): – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

This is the first in a series of similar NCAA ice hockey tournament champions lists that I am completing in the hopes of achieve FL standing. This list was previously listed as an FLC, but I withdrew it at that time due to ongoing discussions at WP:WIAFL. In the years since, those discussions have been settled, so I am listing this again (though the list has been much improved since). Cheers! – Nurmsook! ^talk... 18:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment sorry to say that I'm currently leaning to an oppose on 3b. This list's content already exists (albeit in a slightly different format) in the relevant section in the main article. Indeed, the lead here could usefully be used to replace the very weak lead in the main article. Besides good referencing here, I'm not sure why this should standalone, but I say that purely as a reviewer and will leave it to others to offer comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – Sorry, but in terms of 3b I don't think much has changed from the last FAC. The list could be, and part of it is, reasonably included in the main College Hockey America article, as it is a relatively small list that doesn't take up much room there. Also, I'd question whether the general reference, augenblick.org, is a reliable source. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Clearly covered in a much better format as a list with more information and better formatting than could be found trying to shoe horn it into an article. -DJSasso (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hardly a shoe-horn. Just a section that can exist in the main article easily. A tiny bit of the lead doesn't exist in the main CHA article, but the main table already does, just not with so much info. Everything else is a repeat. Plus, I'm not even sure that "CHA Men's Ice Hockey Tournament" exists. I Googled it, it just led to Wikipedia and its mirrors. Perhaps this is an artificial branch from the main CHA article? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well it could probably be all merged into that article. I think it is just presented better on its own. As for the search I think its just due to the name scheme we use for disambiguating the types of hockey (we always say ice hockey on all articles) and in this case the gender of the tournament. If you do a search for "CHA tournament" you will see a lot more. We could however drop the "ice hockey" from the title since the CHA is an ice hockey only conference. -DJSasso (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Sure we could argue over the name, but that's not really appropriate here other than to question that this actually exists as defined. The main point is that this list easily (as I demonstrated) fits into the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry but I agree with Rambling Man and Giants2008. That table is way too short and may fit perfectly in the main article. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:09, 22 January 2013 (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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 20:55, 4 February 2013‎ [9].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra

Nominator(s): Prashant  ✉  11:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the FL criteria. It has improved a lot following the Peer Review and GOCE copy-edit. Prashant  ✉  11:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: The page has some major syntax and English-language problems. Uses word "recognise" instead of "recognises" a few times, and other examples like that, throughout the page. Basically could use a major thorough copyedit by several editors with a high level of proficiency in the language at a level of either five (5) with English as a professional language, or English as a native language proficiency. However, in addition to language and grammar issues, there's also choice of wording that is a bit awkward, for example, "During her nine-year career, Chopra has received awards and nominations, mostly in the categories of Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress." Wouldn't it be self-evident that this is where most of the awards and recognition would be, for an actor's awards? I'm sorry but it looks like this page still requires a major amount of work and quality improvement before serious consideration for promotion should be entertained or discussed. — Cirt (talk) 13:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Done with all points. However, I disagree to you because the list has been copy/efited quite a few times from several editors and GOCE. The points you raised were not even mentioned during the first flc. Your issue over "recognise" is childish. Read that sentence which uses that word and you'll get your answer.Prashant  ✉  14:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You can't really "disagree" with someone who has found instances of poor prose just by saying that the list has been "copy/efited" quite a few times. Mistakes, repetitions, poor prose still remain. It's worth bearing in mind that we all review here voluntarily, so it's not a good idea to tell someone they're being "childish" because they've pointed out something they consider to be wrong. Just be polite nd more people may be inclined to help you. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad but what can I do. It was peer reviewed two times and was edited by GOCE. It was not in a rude way and I'm polite to everyone. I just meant by that the use of recognise has no issue. Some suggestions?Prashant  ✉  16:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Cirt, I agree with Pks – 'recognise' is used correctly in this context; it's the infinitive (base) form of the verb. Perhaps you meant to say, "use active voice instead of passive voice where possible"; however the subjects of those sentences are the awards, not the body which awards them. For example; "The Apsara Film & Television Producers Guild Awards are presented by the Apsara Producers Guild to honour and recognise the professional excellence of their peers." --> "The Apsara Producers Guild presents the Apsara Film & Television Producers Guild Awards to honour and recognise the professional excellence of their peers." – in which case 'recognise' is still used correctly. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comments
• "Following her win at the Miss World, She made her" - I suggest "After winning the Miss World title, Chopra made her...
• "Chopra received 30 nominations and won several" - suggest "Chopra received 30 nominations of which she won (several is how many?)
• "winning every prominent Best Actress award in India including at the National Film Awardsfor Best Actress and the Filmfare Awards for Best Actress.[2]"
• "Chopra received 30 nominations and won several" - please state explicitely how many
• "The awards were inaugurated in 1998 and are a mixture of include categories decided on determined (or simply decided, on not needed) by public votes (I would write instead "by the public") and by an industry jury. "
• "professional excellence" - redundant imho, just "exellence"
• "The Screen Awards is India's only awards ceremony involved with the Executive Director and the Governor of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. They honour professional excellence in the Hindi language film industry." - how about "India's only (prize, accolade) involved with the Executive Director and the Governor of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, The Screen Awards honour excellence in the Hindi language film industry."
• I am not sure if an award can "retire"--Tomcat (7) 18:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
• Done. Prashant  ✉  04:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments (as you requested)...

• "She participated in the Femina Miss India 2000 contest".... and...?
• Chopra mentioned three times in the first four sentences...
• "Chopra has received various awards and nominations" we know that, you just told us she was awarded the Miss World crown.
• " Filmfare Award for Best Female Debut" for is not wikilinked, then "Filmfare Award for Best Performance in a Negative Role" where for is wikilinked... Consistency.
• Infobox image caption doesn't need a full stop.
• All tables should be fixed to meet MOS:DTT for row and col scopes for screen readers.

I think the tables are alright as I have used the pattern used in other FL.Prashant  ✉  06:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect, that's why I pointed it out. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• "In 2009–12" maybe "Between 2009 and 2012"...
• Second para in lead has Chopra three times in three sentences...
• Check infobox, I see 2 awards from 1 nomination in there....
• Then check the totals.
• "for excellence in the Hindi film industry" is this a quote from the website? Then quote it and attribute it.
• "for Best Actress thrice" archaic word, three times.
• Are all these awards actually notable? E.g. "Cosmopolitan Fun Fearless Awards"??! "Sabsey Favourite Kaun Awards"??! They don't have articles in Wikipedia so presumably they're not particularly notable, are they needed here?

Yes Those awards are notable and other awards are very much needed because this page consists of all her awards. Secondly, the other awards are notable as they are held every year and are covered by third party . Prashant  ✉  05:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Please then enlighten me as to why, if they are notable under WIkipedia notability guidelines, they don't have an article? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sabsey favorite kaun awards were present by Star Gold and was supported by third party notability, same for others awards. They are covered by third party notability.Prashant  ✉  16:39, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• "to honour both artistic and technical excellence of professionals in the Hindi language film industry" again, sounds like a quote, and not something we'd write in an encyclopedia. Attribution required.
• Please check this for the other awards you describe in a similar way.
• What makes the "other awards" notable?
• "Won [31]" remove the space.
• Ref 31 is a bare URL.
• Removed I think some fans would have added that URL.Prashant  ✉  05:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• Ref 24 june -> June.
• Ref 18 title needs spaces after the commas.
• What makes pinkvilla.com a reliable source?
• What makes tellyawards.indiantelevision.com a reliable source?
• And indya.com?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• Done and yes the sources are very much notable. Indya.com is a part of Star Organisation.

, Indiantelevision is a notable source as Indiantelevision.com is a well known organisation and Pinkvilla is also notable as its a fashion and style website reporting the red carpet activity and is not the fan made sites. Prashant  ✉  05:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That's not really proving they're reliability against our guidelines on reliable sources, WP:RS, it's just you saying things are "well known" etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comments from Baffle gab1978 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Pks invited me to comment here. I'll go through the article and make comments about the prose. This doesn't mean I'm correct or incorrect but reflects changes I'd make if I were copy-editing it. I'll apologise in advance if I'm picking out something that complies to Indian English, or if I'm repeating comments above. I won't be expressing an opinion about the listing of this article at FLC. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

• • General comments
• I think this is looking much better now than when I first saw it.
  • Infobox
• The awards infobox on the right covers the tables in the first two sections; I'm using SeaMonkey 1.1, but I suspect this will cause problems on any Mozilla browser. I don't know what the answer to this is, but it needs fixing. I see it's collapsible; though that doesn't display on my browser! The Javascript for collapsing the table didn't load properly in my browser; I can now see the 'show/hide' link.
• Header
  • First paragraph
• "Following her win at the Miss World, She made her..."; don't capitalise mid-sentence pronouns except 'I'. I suggest, "After winning Miss World, she made her..."
  • Second paragraph
• "She was number one on Eastern Eye's list of the "World's Sexiest Asian Women" twice." is oddly-worded; suggest "She has twice been placed at number one on Eastern Eye's list of the "World's Sexiest Asian Women" ". or " Eastern Eye has twice placed her at number one on its list of the "World's Sexiest Women".

• Now you need to capitalise 'she' as it begins the sentence!

• "In 2011, People and Maxim magazines respectively declared her as the best dressed woman and the "hottest girl" in India." 'Respectively' can be awkward. I suggest "In 2011, People magazine declared her the best dressed woman, and Maxim called her the "hottest girl" in India.
• Done.Prashant  ✉  05:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• "Pinstorm considered her the most influential Indian in the social media circuit." should use 'on' instead of 'in'.
  • Filmfare Awards
• "They are presented annually by The Times Group to honour both artistic and technical excellence.", remove "both" - it's redundant. Again, probably change "prominent" to "prestigious" here; "prominent" means standing out whereas prestigious means having prestige, if that's what is meant.
• Done.Prashant  ✉  05:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • International Indian Film Academy Awards
• "...to honour both artistic and technical excellence...", as above remove "both" - it's redundant.
  • National Film Awards

*"The National Film Awards is the most prominent film award ceremony in India." Do you mean 'prestigious'?

• "Due to their national scale..." Does 'national scale' mean a) they are awarded across the entire Indian film industry b) they are recognised across the entire Indian film industry c) their prestige is recognised across the entire Indian film industry? I'd suggest removing this - it's probably redundant anyway.
• Yes the nominations and winners are selected from all over India. These are like Academy Awards. The regional and other film industry are also included. Bollywood films rarely win here, it all about performance and not about stardom.Prashant  ✉  04:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying; I'm not sure what to suggest here to avoid using "scale" – how about "Because nominations are selected from all over India, they are..."?

They don't have nominations but have consideration which are not announced publicly.Prashant  ✉  05:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough; I'll strike that suggestion/comment. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Screen Awards
• "The Screen Awards is India's only awards ceremony involved with the Executive Director..." 'Involved with' --> 'involving' or 'that involve' – unless I'm misunderstanding this sentence.
  • Honours – a bit vague really; perhaps this should be called 'Beauty pageants' or similar.
• Chopra has won the following honours – again a little vague; "Chopra has won the following beauty pageants" might be better.

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Prashant  ✉  04:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for implementing my suggestions; I've struck them where they've been dealt with and have added a few more (missing capital etc). Good luck with the nomination - I hope it goes well. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 04:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Quick Comment: There is a problem in the section National Film Awards, The National Film Awards does not have any nominations. They do have considerations but those are not declared publicly. Please remove this "from one nomination" from the section National Film Awards. 182.183.149.35 (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• DonePrashant  ✉  05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Oppose – This list cannot pass Featured criteria with unsourced content. For example, the awards have a brief, one-liner description about them but none of them are sourced to the content it says. Hence there being over 20 awards, such unsourced and non-verifiable content is not acceptable for FL. I pointed this out in the talk page of the list prior to the nomination, but I see this has not been heeded by the nominator who chose this to be a dig at him/her. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 08:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

So what do you want, a whole article describing a single award to be used instead of those sources which proves that she has actually won. I think it's pretty immature to say that. Also, Its not about me...its about article. Don't use personal comments like "dig at ...". I Think it's not a right place to argue. Thanks for your opposition, now I know why you opposed it. Prashant  ✉  09:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You cannot expect to have a featured content where things are unsourced. For example you have lines like "The Apsara Film & Television Producers Guild Awards are presented by the Apsara Producers Guild to honour and recognise the excellence of their peers" and "The Filmfare Awards are one of the oldest and most prestigious Hindi film awards. They are presented annually by The Times Group for excellence of cinematic achievements", however where are the references backing those claims? There are pretty sure articles talking about the basis and foundation of awards, and they should be incorporated. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Breaking News These awards are notable and has articles on Wikipedia. I don't need to introduce new sources claiming what all awards are about, their past and present.Prashant  ✉  09:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• • The "Best actress " in the National Film Awards section, actress should be capital as it is a proper noun in this case, award name.
  • Filmfare Awards, the number of nominations is nine, not eight. And Filmfare is a printed magazine, so likewise should be italicized like the MoS applied thoghtout the list.
    • Filmfare Awards are presented by the Times group and has nothing to do with Filmfare magazine.
      • Wrong. The Times Group is the publisher for the magazine and consequently would sponsor for the ceremony. However, the awards "are" named after this magazine and per MoS, it should be italicized if you are following this norm throughout the list. If not, then the others should be un-italicized like GQ. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

In the same way as Billboard Music Awards (Billboard is a magazine). Don't make senseless arguments.Prashant  ✉  10:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Same for Dainik Bhaskar.
  • Check for internal redirections like the Bengal Film Journalists Association Awards.
• 'DonePrashant  ✉  09:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • One major thing I noticed about the lead was that it was not engaging, not brilliant prose and suffers terribly from proseline effect. Its just a who's who list of the awards she won, but without any context. Like one or two lines about the role for which she won the award, or a one liner review, those would make it engaging. And the jumpy prose starting from the "Between 2009... " part is really not helping the case at all.
  • Another minor quabble. This is not related to the oppose, but it might be better if the tables are modified as part of WP:ACCESS, data table. This is not mandatory, but I see all the recent FLCs following this.
• Would you please tell me which latest flc and what the issue is?Prashant  ✉  14:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
  • One suggestion regarding the lead. You can refer to WP:LEADLENGTH, then find out how many characters your list is using and then decide on the lead length. At present it appears to be a little too short. I would suggest maybe three paragraph.

Many other reviewers told me to have short prose during 1St FLC. And By the way, what I will describe by having a 3 paragraph prose?...I don't want to explain her success and background here? Because her article is best to do. And One minute, why don't you suggest the same for Chopra article. You sounds too fishy.Prashant  ✉  14:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• • Can you clarify how some of these sources are reliable? What is the reliability aspect they are passing? Or any relevant RSN discussion you can link me to? They are: Pinkvilla, YouTube.com, Nadiawalagrandson.com, Eventfaqs.com?

Nadiadwalagrandson is official production company showing the awards won by their films. The live video is the best source we can get to prove awards (as you can see her getting that award). Eventfaq is the official sponsor of that award and is a renowned name in India for live events. As, long as Pinkvilla is concerned, this is also a good source because it covers live events and is not fancruft. More important, they are just showing the winners and not anything else which is true.Prashant  ✉  14:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• • References are still inconsistent. You have missed accessdate in some of them (Ref 30 citekills). Also, since you are linking the first occurence of any particular reference work parameter, you should be consistent throughout. Like you have missed for Verve. Please check this throught the article and I'm sure you will correct them. Also, BBC Online is missing.

Check Verve has no link on Wikipedia.Prashant  ✉  14:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• • The Media honors section needs to be checked for the column widths as they do not conform to the rest of the formatting.
  • Refrain from using "&" in prose like that in Zee Cine Awards.

DonePrashant  ✉  14:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

These are some of the points I noted. It did have a wonderful expansion in the hand of the nominator, but lacks work still to be brilliant enough to be a list. I would suggest taking a look at similar lists like that of Madonna, Brown and Keys etc. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 09:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I dont need to reflect back to your frivolous arguments.Prashant  ✉  09:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

"Breaking News These awards are notable and has articles on Wikipedia. I don't need to introduce new sources claiming what all awards are about, their past and present." — This is what the nominator's responsewas regarding unsourced claims in the article. Pks1142, the fact that the awards have Wiki pages simply means that they are notable, it does not imply that any content present in them can be added directly here without a reference. This list, without references fails verifiability and I would suggest you pay attention, rather than calling my arguments "frivolous". My oppose still stands. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Your issues over Filmfare Awards are baseless and she has received 8 nominations. I'm worried a person who don't even understand that Critics awards are not nominations but are presented by critics(jury) directly, is opposing this list.Prashant  ✉  10:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can stop the snide remarks it would do you good. You are right that I might not know about the nomination process and here in comes the important part. That the critics/jury awards are not part of the nomination should be mentioned. From a layman's term and reader POV, it appears to be misinformation since the reader can she that there were nine nominations while the prose says eight. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 10:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

So, how could you point fingers to the information which you don't know. The above points which you raised, were not even mentioned by the Seasoned reviewers. Prashant  ✉  11:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

You can either address the concerns politely, or you can let the oppose stand, suit your way, I won't bother. I have made my points clearly, you chose whether you want to address them. As I said, from a reader's pov it is essential that content is understandable, which your work has failed to provide, thus failing WP:WIAFL#3a. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 11:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

This User is playing very wisely to get me down....he is showing that I'm not interested in resolving issue. He pointed few issues and I resolved those. Then, he added more points following those issues to show my comments in a twisted way (to show that I'm going against his issue by ignoring it.) he would have added those continuing issues by adding more comments like What Bafle gab did to follow without diturding Tomcat comments. He is trying to portray me as I'm not resolving his issue.Prashant  ✉  15

03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Closing note: I'm sick and tired of premature nominations and in-fighting in these FLCs. These issues really should be fixed before nominations are made, otherwise we waste the scarce resources of the FLC reviewers. Please think three times before renominating, and resolve all these outlying arguments before this nomination returns. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been unsuccessful, 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.