Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/May 2016

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC) [1].

---

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Ayrton Senna

Nominator(s): Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I am renominating this for featured list. I came across this list while trying to save it from deletion at AfD some months back. The list was later nominated by Harrias for FL. Unfortunately, I guess due to his real life commitments, Harrias withdrew the nomination and could not work upon the changes recommended by editors like Cowlibob, Nergaal and NapHit during the first FL review. I've seen all suggestions and worked on all of them. You can see the first FL review here. I am replicating a few paragraphs from the first FL review below for the sake of reviewers. These paragraphs were the ones where reviewers had left their suggestions. My new comments are added after each of their suggestions in small letters within the first review. Thanks Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The archive of the first FL nomination discussion with my new comments in Red
Please add new comments above. Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Ayrton Senna doesn't have the most Grand Prix wins; that accolade goes to Michael Schumacher. But Senna, perhaps due to the manner and timing of his death, is revered as one of the best Formula One drivers of all time. Each time a driver passes his wins total, as Vettel and Hamilton have done recently, it is considered a significant milestone. I put off nominating this list for a while, as I had concerns about stability, as I knew that the WikiProject weren't widely in favour. However, it has since survived an AfD, and so I am happy to now list it here. As always, all comments, thoughts and suggestions welcome. Harrias talk 13:13, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Maybe mention the rivalry with Prost? Nergaal (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC) (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) Comments I have no problem with this list meeting 3b or being notable, as Harrias states, when Vettel and Hamilton passed Senna's total is widely covered in the mainstream media. "He entered Formula One in 1984 with the Toleman team, but after one season, he bought out his contract and moved to Lotus." ref? It's there in Ref 1. "Feeling Toleman couldn't match his ambitions though; Senna bought out his contract and moved to Lotus in 1985" Cowlibob (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC) "McLaren. With McLaren..." not great having McLaren twice in quick succession. Perhaps Senna would win all three of his world championships...with the team? (Edited it appropriately. Xender Lourdes (talk)) "He wanted to move to Williams after 1992, but was prevented from doing so by a clause in Alain Prost's contract." ref? (Provided. Xender Lourdes (talk)) "He did make the move for 1994,..." -> He moved to Williams in 1994,..." (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) You need to add a symbol to go with the colour in the table for accessibility purposes (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) Maybe the Race column should be Grand Prix, seeing as that is what they — Preceding unsigned comment added by NapHit (talk • contribs) (Not done. The general usage is races. So...but this is not a sticky issue. Xender Lourdes (talk)) Key needs to explain why 1988, 1990 & 1991 are in yellow. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC) (Done with the dagger legend. Xender Lourdes (talk)) Review by Cowlibob "is considered by many" perhaps "some" would be a more neutral word here (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) "21 April 1985" no need to the repeat the year as we already know it was in 1985. (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) "In 1988, " reword needed to avoid saying 1988 twice in short succession. (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) For the references, is it possible to have more a diverse set of sources as the vast majority are cited to ESPN F1? (Where ESPN has been used in the commentary, I've added additional source. The usage of ESPN in the table is, in my opinion, acceptable, as these are numerical figures and are simply replicated in other references. Xender Lourdes (talk)) Less shouting in the references. AUTOSPORT should be Autosport, F1PULSE should be F1 Pulse (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk)) What makes F1 Pulse, speedcafe, Formula One Art & Genius, StatsF1 reliable sources? (They are generally considered reliable. But I have provided alternative additional sources with each one you've mentioned. Xender Lourdes (talk)) Need info in the key that 1988, 1990, 1991 are highlighted in yellow because those were seasons he was world champion. (Done with the dagger legend. Xender Lourdes (talk)) That's a quick run-through. Cowlibob (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• "With McLaren, Senna won all three of his world championships..." I would change this to 'Senna won all three of his world championships with Mclaren...' (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))
• "In the subsequent three seasons with McLaren..." I feel like there should be a comma at the end here (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))
• ref 15 needs the author and date of publication (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))

Cant' see much wrong otherwise. NapHit (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks NapHit . Xender Lourdes (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support Meets the criteria, good work. NapHit (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• This list looks so much better that the just-promoted Schumacher one. Support. Nergaal (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support My only complaint from the first review has been sorted, looks good to go now. Joseph2302 21:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Source review

• The books for ref 2 and 3 are not specified (Done. Lourdes)
• What makes prostfan.com a reliable site? (Replaced with BBC and another source. Lourdes)
• Same with Speedcafe.com (This was pointed out in the first FL by another editor Cowlibob. I have already provided alternative reliable sources for the same. Lourdes)
• Same with F1 pulse (Per above, alternative sources provided already. Lourdes)
• Likewise Formula One Art and Genius (Per above, done. Lourdes)
• ref 5 needs the publication date and author adding (Cited inside the template. Lourdes)
• Checked a few refs and there doesn't appear to be any evidence of close paraphrasing

NapHit (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• • NapHit, thanks for giving your Support already. I have addressed all your queries above. Lourdes 04:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Review by PresN

Recusing myself from closing. Comments, all from the lead:

• "Over the next five years, the intense rivalry between Senna and Prost" - Prost has not been mentioned up to this point, nor any rivalry- you first mention him a few sentences later.
• "Senna won all three of his world championships with McLaren in 1988, 1990 and 1991, during six seasons." -> "Senna won all three of his world championships during his six seasons with McLaren, in 1988, 1990 and 1991."
• 'and the light very poor."' - period goes outside the quote, as you're not quoting a full sentence.
• "He won two races in each of his three years with Lotus, before moving to McLaren for the 1988 season." - no comma
• "That year, he secured his first Formula One world championship" -> "He secured his first Formula One world championship that year"
• "His eight victories that year was a new record for the most wins in a season, breaking the previous record of seven set by Jim Clark." - 'victories...was' is off; to avoid using "set" twice, try "His eight victories that year set a new record for the most wins in a season, breaking the previous record of seven by Jim Clark."
• "Subsequently, Senna managed" - drop the "Subsequently", as you used it in the prior sentence.
• "forty-one victories were for McLaren, and 32" - mixing number types; use "41" to be consistent with other uses
• "where he won six times during his career, including a record five consecutive times, between 1989 and 1993" - drop the comma before "between", unless you meant that all 6 wins were between 1989 and 1993

Not too many. --PresN 19:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks PresN. Will get on to this in a couple of days. Lourdes 06:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• I added more rowspans for the const/engine cols, hope that isn't bad. --Golbez (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• I am also getting onto this on this weekend. Tried but couldn't find time last weekend. Thanks for chipping in. Lourdes 09:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• • PresN, thank you for giving so much time to review. I have incorporated all your suggestions. The first suggestion regards Prost, I have handled by including a wikilink to Alain Prost and describing the line as follows: "Over the next five years, the intense rivalry between Senna and Alain Prost, a leading Formula One driver, came to the forefront, with particularly notable race incidents and collisions occurring between the two." Thanks again. Lourdes 01:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support --PresN 14:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – Gavin (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Omg my first featured content!!!!!!! Thank you all (the reviewers and the editors) for helping me get this through (esp. Harrias who wrote the article). Lourdes 10:50, 1 September 2016 (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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC) [2].

---

List of nearest exoplanets

Nominator(s): Nergaal (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it passes the FL criteria. I would appreciate any input. Nergaal (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose please seek an native English speaker for a thorough copyedit. The lead alone is full of problems, e.g. "Of the 133 stars within 50 light-years that are bright enough to be visible with the naked eye,[b][1] and only 20 have confirmed ...", "In 2015, the International Astronomical Union announced intention allow the public to vote on ...". These kinds of fundamental flaws should be sorted out well before a nomination arrives here. There are also sorting problems with the table, inconsistencies in accuracies, bizarre claims of precision and what, exactly, is "8==List=="? Clumsy and poorly prepared. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You never stop amazing me how little good faith you like to assume. Thanks for the feedback though. Nergaal (talk) 21:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not about good faith, you should know better than to have nominated something in this condition. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Although I would like to reply in a constructive manner, the prose does need some serious work. The general issue appears to be grammatical in nature. Constant passive sentences, run-on sentences, difficult wording, are evident throughout the text. Let's breakdown 1 sentence at random:

"There is no official organization that acknowledges reports for the existence of exoplanets, but the Working Group on Extrasolar Planets of the International Astronomical Union adopted in 2003 a working definition limiting the upper masses of exoplanets below that where thermonuclear fusion of deuterium occurs."

• Ok there are two distinct thoughts here, contained in one sentence. They don't appear to be related, and simply two sentences separated by a comma instead of a full stop. Second "acknowledges reports for the existence of exoplanets". What does this mean? They don't read reports of the existance of exoplanets? No agency makes lists of exoplanets? Is it true that NASA doesn't index exoplanets? I find that hard to believe. Next, what does the "exoplanets below that where thermonuclear fusion of deuterium occurs". Are we talking stars here? What is the point of this?... anyway I can go on but now you see the reason the previous user suggested an English speaker to copyedit. For example, "adopted in 2003 a working definition" is much harder to read than "adopted a working definition in 2003". It's very difficult to read as is, and I regretfully must oppose. I hope this helps. Mattximus (talk) 23:49, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Mattximus: When I wrote it I was thinking something like the International Astronimical Union deals with things like dwarf planets, satellites, and minor planets. Until about half a year there was no "official" list of exoplanets, but then IAU took a poll for ~50 exoplanets. I am not sure how serious the chosen names are, since I cannot think of an "official" catalogue. NASA lists confirmed planets, but not sure how official is that. Any idea how to rephrase that? And yes, if you get something 12 times the size of jupiter you get into brown dwarfs, which are like kinda mini-stars that only burn deuterium, no hydrogen. Nergaal (talk) 01:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

The writing needs serious work, not just that one sentence. I recommended a change but it was ignored. Sentences like this one:

Among the confirmed exoplanets within 50 light-years, more than half were found to revolve around their star closer and complete an orbit faster than Mercury does around the Sun, many of them with highly eccentric orbits.

Are incredibly hard to read. It can be fixed with something like "More than half of the confirmed explanets within 50 light-years of the sun orbit..." But even then the rest of the sentence has grammar errors... Gosh, this needs a good copyedit before being nominated. Mattximus (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comment on table sorting for me, the following columns do not sort correctly: Name, Label, Semi-major axis, Eccentricity. Also do not understand why different degrees of precision are used within the same column for many aspects. Also no reason for References to be sortable. Statistics section is borderline trivia, and nothing that isn't already in the main table, plus e.g. why would the "Total" row move during a sort? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for catching all that!

• I think I fixed the label, sm axis, and ecc. columns; but I am not sure what issues you see for Name, which ones look off?
• Precision: the sources give greatly varying amounts of uncertainties. I tried to decrease the amount of sig figs for stuff that are overly precise; for example for mass I tried to give only 2 or 3 sig figs, but some entries have a single sig fig so I left it at that.
• Refs are not sortable anymore.
• Which things in the stats section you think are (most) unnecessary?

Nergaal (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 29 May 2016 (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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC) [3].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Lecrae

Nominator(s): 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it satisfies the FLC criteria. It is comprehensive, well-written, and solidly sourced. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment

• The lead seems quite short. Try to add up a bit information on the critical/commercial success of his releases.
• Try to avoid WP:OVERLINK in the references.

— Simon (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

@HĐ: The article did have information on the commercial success of his recordings, but I removed it in response to comments during the peer review. I don't care either way, but it seems that I'm getting conflicting feedback on this aspect.

I will work on the overlink issue.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I added the content on his critical and commercial reception, I'll get to the overlinking issue next.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:04, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 29 May 2016 (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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC) [4].

---

Jimi Hendrix videography

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix is one of the best-known 1960s rock musicians. Videos documenting his concerts and career continue to be released. This separate videography was created by combining the relevant sections from the featured list Jimi Hendrix discography and Jimi Hendrix posthumous discography. Besides convenience, it helps to reduce size problems with the discographies (WP:Article size). It has been updated with new titles and references and I believe it meets the featured list criteria. Thanks for your reviews. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

• Add a picture pls. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Added one with a film tie-in. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The table formats have been updated. Any comments? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:21, 29 May 2016 (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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC) [5].

---

Hoodoo Gurus discography

Co-Nominator(s): shaidar cuebiyar & Dan arndt (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured list, as we believe that whilst it was previously nominated in May 2008 we have made significant improvements over the last month that address all the previous identified issues and satisfactorily deal with all the FL criteria. We have both been involved in a number of other successful FLC so we understand what is necessary to met these standards. Dan arndt (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak

Resolved comments from Cartoon network freak (talk)

• Lead

• Formed in January 1981, the band was originally known as Le Hoodoo Gurus for the release of its first single, "Leilani" in October 1982. -> Formed in January 1981, the band was originally known as Le Hoodoo Gurus for the release of their first single, "Leilani" in October 1982.
• released its debut album -> premiered their debut album
• When issued in America by A&M Records, it stayed at number one in the Alternative/College charts for four consecutive weeks,[4] becoming one of the most played albums for the year on the college network.[5] -> Also issued in the United States through A&M Records, the record remained atop the Alternative/College Albums Chart for four consecutive weeks, with it also becoming one of the most played albums of that year on the college network.[4][5]
• Hoodoo Gurus' peak of popularity in that market was in the mid-to-late 1980s with the albums Mars Needs Guitars!, Blow Your Cool! and Magnum Cum Louder,[6] all of which charted on the American Billboard 200.[7] -> The group's subsequent albums, Mars Needs Guitars!(1985), Blow Your Cool! (1987), Magnum Cum Louder (1989) and Kinky (1991), all reached the Billboard 200.
• Crank and four top twenty singles. -> Crank, and four top twenty singles.
• In 1992 the band -> In 1992, the band
• Electric Soup/Gorilla Biscuit by BMG -> Electric Soup/Gorilla Biscuit, by BMG
• which won the band's first Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) Music Award: for Best Cover Art in 1993. -> which won the group's first ARIA Music Award for Best Cover Art in 1993.
• The two album set was certified double platinum for 140,000 units shipped. -> The two-album set was certified double Platinum for selling over 140,000 units in Australia.
• charted in the top twenty -> charted within the top twenty in their native country.
• The Hoodoo Gurus officially split in 1998, with Mushroom releasing a live album, Bite the Bullet, following the band's farewell tour. -> Hoodoo Gurus split in 1998 after the release of their live album, Bite the Bullet, in the same year.
• In November 2003 Hoodoo Gurus reformed, and issued a new album, Mach Schau in the following year. -> In November 2003, the band reformed and made their comeback with a new album, Mach Schau (2004).
• From February 2005 EMI issued expanded/remastered editions of all earlier studio albums. -> As of February 2005, label EMI made expanded and remastered editions of all of their earlier studio albums available for purchase.
• Also in that month the group released, Tunnel Vision, a two-DVD set compiling every music video, plus live material and a retrospective documentary, "Be My Guru" -> At that time, Hoodoo Gurus released as well a two-DVD set, Tunnel Vision, which featured their whole music videos, live material and a retrospective documentary, "Be My Guru".
• At that year's ARIA Awards, -> At that year's ARIA Awards gala,
• Remove the unnecessary "the band's fifth ARIA nomination".
• In 2010 they issued their ninth studio album, Purity of Essence, which peaked at No. 16 on the Australian charts. As part of the thirtieth anniversary celebration of the band's debut single, "Leilani", Sony Music Entertainment issued a compilation album, Gold Watch: 20 Golden Greats, in March 2012, which charted in the top twenty. -> In 2010, the group issued their ninth studio album, Purity of Essence, and celebrated their thirtieth anniversary by releasing a compilation album, Gold Watch: 20 Golden Greats, through Sony Music Entertainment in 2012.
• first single, "Leilani" -> first single, "Leilani",
• Remove Ref#3 from the lead, as the album is already referenced in the wikitables
• Remove Ref#6 and Ref#7 from the lead; it's referenced later in the article\
  • I left ref[6] (Adams), in the Lead: its not used elsewhere.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove Ref#8 and Ref#9 from the lead
• Remove "by BMG"
• which won the band's first ARIA Music Award, for Best Cover Art, in 1993. -> which won an ARIA Music Award for Best Cover Art in 1993.
• where did it ship 140,000 units?
  • As indicated earlier, ARIA certifies the transport (shipment) of albums/singles (etc) to Australian stores. Hence the 140,000 units are shipped to the various stores and websites, which are monitored by ARIA (or its allied agencies). I'm not sure what you want done here.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove Ref#1 and Ref#12 at this place.
• reformed, and -> reformed and
• Mach Schau in the -> Mach Schau, in the

:@Shaidar cuebiyar: These are my comments so far; more to come in the course of the next days... Ping me when you're ready with fixing. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: I have done most of these. Some I've reworded slightly:

1. ARIA Accreditations are based on shipment not sales: this distinction is important. For some artists, albums may reach platinum, say, on the basis of 70000 copies advanced by their record company. Later more than half of those copies are returned as unsold, when the buying public don't respond to the degree expected, the accreditation still stands. ARIA rarely supplies sales figures.
2. For Bite the Bullet, they split in January, it appeared in August.
3. Some other differences are due to preferences in wording; nevertheless I believe I have addressed all your concerns.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
4. grammatically "released" rather than "premiered" is more accurate
5. grammatically "charted" rather than "reached" is more accurate
6. grammatically it is incorrect to have ", and" the comma is superfluous.

@Cartoon network freak: Aside, if pinging could you also dob in my co-nominator, @Dan arndt: I don't want him to miss all the fun.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak: the lead paragraphs have all been reviewed by the Guild of Copy Editors. Dan arndt (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Shaidar cuebiyar: New comments for you! Cartoon network freak (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Cartoon network freak:, @Dan arndt: I have done most of these, I need clarification for some (see above).shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Shaidar cuebiyar: Lead looks great now; comments for wikitables coming as soon as possible... Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Wikitables

• For Purity of Essence, remove the "Music Entertainment".

Sony Music Entertainment is the actual label the album was released on, not Sony

• For Gravy Train, remove the "Music Australia".

Sony Music Australia is the actual label the album was released on, not Sony

• Electric Soup/Gorilla Biscuit -> Electric Soup/ Gorilla Biscuit.

done

• The same for Electric Chair/Armchair Gurus.

done

• You only need to link the labels used for release of any album in "Studio albums"; if it's used afterwards, you shouldn't link it.

typically for other FLs this only applies to each individual table.

• For Gold Watch: 20 Golden Greats, remove the "Music Entertainment"

Sony Music Entertainment is the actual label the album was released on, not Sony

• Also released as a 3× CD extended set, Bite the Bullet: Director's Cut -> make a note out of this sentence.

Done

• The album overall has a strange sorting; use that one used in Hilary Duff discography.

@Cartoon network freak: not exactly certain what you mean but will check out HD.

The only differences I can see is the HG discography includes the catalog number and HD discography doesn't; the HG discography cites the reference next to the release date whilst the HD discography cites the reference next to the album name; and the HD discography has an extra column for sales. Can you clarify what exactly you mean.Dan arndt (talk) 12:21, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

To make it easier for you, I've already done it by myself.

thanks

• For the albums in "Compilation albums" and "Live albums", there's no need to list extra information like "Includes a new version of "Use-By Date" or such.

Done

• "Turn Up Your Radio"(by Hoodoo Gurus and Masters Apprentices) -> "Turn Up Your Radio" <br/> (with Masters Apprentices)

Done

@Dan arndt: New comments! Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

With my issues being resolved, I am now willing support to this FLC. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Ojorojo

• I realize that this discography follows the same format as many other discography FLs, as set out in a stale proposed WP:DISCOGSTYLE guide. However, I wonder if this is the best way to present the information. A discography is a "descriptive catalog of musical recordings" (Oxford American Dictionary). Many WP discographies appear to be "lists of chart and sales data". I own several published discographies and none follow this format or place so much emphasis on sales and charts. In the "Studio albums" table, the album title and details are squeezed into two narrow columns, making it difficult to read. About 2/3 of the table is devoted to charts and sales. Are all of the country columns important? The UK Indie column has only one entry, CAN two, SWE four, etc. Similarly, the "Singles" table includes columns for CAN and NZ (1 entry each), UK Indie and US Mod Rock (2 entries each). So, there are four columns for six entries or about 1/4 of the space. There is no descriptive information for singles: releases, labels, B-sides, etc. Many indie bands release songs on B-sides that are not available elsewhere and may be noteworthy, contrary to WP:DISCOGSTYLE. Is there a way to present the information that has a more balanced look? In my view, current formats lack "visual appeal", one of the style criterion. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

1. I believe most of your commentary is more directly applicable for the Discographies/style talkpage, perhaps you should voice your concerns there?
2. As for Hoodoo Gurus discography: the tables may have up to ten columns of charting for regions (countries) or component charts therein. There is not much charting information, in some of those columns, for this group; however this is still notable enough to be included in a featured list of their works.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 05:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, my concerns are more appropriate for the DISCOSTYLE talk page. I will take them up there. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 29 May 2016 (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 archived by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC) [6].

---

WCW Light Heavyweight Championship

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE ^X 12:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Another short-lived pro-wrestling championship from the early 1990s, albeit a fair bit less interesting than my last nomination. I'm aware that there's a degree of overlap between this and List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions, but this is a more thorough look at a separate entity which is only in hindsight considered one and the same with the latter so I don't believe that's going to be an issue. The article was given a copy-editing tag-team by Zppix and Baffle gab1978, and follows the same layout as the FL WCW International World Heavyweight Championship. Thanks for looking at this to anyone who takes the time. GRAPPLE ^X 12:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. – SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2016 (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 archived by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 14 May 2016 (UTC) [7].

---

List of U.S. Highways in Michigan

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 01:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this is the next in the series of lists on Michigan's state highway system. The product of research on and off over the last decade, this is the one page on the Internet that so comprehensively covers the topic of the United States Numbered Highways (US Highways) in the Great Lakes State and would join List of Interstate Highways in Michigan and Pure Michigan Byway at this level. Imzadi 1979 → 01:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments

1. Aren't all the current special routes business routes? Why not just call them business routes instead of special routes when referring to them in the Description section.
2. The footnote for "MSHD & Rand McNally (1935a)" doesn't work.
3. Do you think the US 2 and US 141 entries can be combined into one row with the combined length of the two sections following the format here?
4. Isn't carferry supposed to be one word? You use both the one word and two word formats in the table.
5. Do you think you can indicate what replaced the Bus. US 127 in Mason?
6. Do you think you can add a photo gallery for the special routes?
7. Why is there a long line (———) in the MDOT map refs? Dough4872 02:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dough4872: replies:

1. Because the heading below says "special routes", which it has to since there are alternate, business, bypass and truck routes listed.
2. Fixed.
3. I don't think that does the two highways proper justice when other resources treat them separately, including our infobox and RD section which divides them into the two sections. Also, that format does not ensure that the HR lines up across the columns, while actually putting them in separate rows does.
4. Fixed, standardized on separate words for consistency with the SS Badger article.
5. Added, but you might not like that answer.
6. There aren't that many photos of business routes available, so I decided to omit a gallery for now.
7. That's a standard notation in reference lists to indicate that the author there is the same as the author in the preceding entry.

Imzadi 1979 → 03:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Issues addressed. Dough4872 03:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support I took a look and couldn't find any issues. --Rschen7754 17:58, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. – SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2016 (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 archived by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2016 (UTC) [8].

---

List of mountain peaks of North America

Nominator(s):  Buaidh  16:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this article for featured list because I believe this article provides useful information about the mountains of North America in a convenient style. We would appreciate any constructive criticism. And yes, we do have a lot of references. Yours aye,  Buaidh  16:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This site has received 17,059 visits over the past 90 days.  Buaidh  04:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• Starting a list article with wording of a type "This article comprises three sortable tables" is forbidden.
• The lead should be a maximum of 4 paragraphs and should be referenced. The lead has 6 paragraphs and no refs.
• Some of the lead is far too technical. For example: "The topographic prominence of a summit is the elevation difference between that summit and the highest or key col to a higher summit. The topographic isolation of a summit is the minimum great-circle distance to a point of equal elevation." Details like this should be in notes and the main text should be understandable to the general reader. I would suggest a separate notes section as well as the references section for details like this.
• "For further information, please see this United States National Geodetic Survey note." Links should not be in the main text, only in references, and the whole comment should not be in the main text.
• There are obviously technical reasons which are beyond my knowledge, but the division into three lists, with the top 100 in the first and the top 50 in the second and third, seems arbitrary. The title of the article is "List (singular) of mountain peaks of North America". Three different lists, with Denai top in all three, does not seem right. Why not just name the article "List of mountains of North America over x metres high", with one list?
• A column for photos of each mountain against its entry (where available) would be better than a gallery at the end.
• A lot of good work has obviously gone into this list, but in my view it is too technical for a general encyclopedia. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your very helpful comments. I primarily edit technical articles, so it’s nice to come up for air occasionally to see how these articles affect other readers.

In response to your first comment, I don’t understand why a description of the article is not appropriate in the lead.

I definitely concur with your second, third, and fourth comments. I’ve dropped most of this technical material into the references.

In response to your fifth comment, this article is a synopsis of three lists dealing with the three technical rankings of mountains.

1. List of the highest major summits of North America (topographic elevation)
2. List of the most prominent summits of North America (topographic prominence)
3. List of the most isolated major summits of North America (topographic isolation)

Other than Denali being ranked first on all three, the lists are very different. The list you and most other readers should prefer is the first, the List of the highest major summits of North America. That list is probably the best candidate for featured list. This combined list is primarily for avid mountaineers and physical geographers who wish to compare relative rankings in the same article.

In response to your sixth comment, many peaks appear in all three tables. I think adding photos to the tables would overwhelm them. Photos are only available for some of the more famous peaks. I think a better place for summit thumbnails will be the "List of mountains" articles such as the List of mountains of the United States. I will see if there is support in WikiProject Mountains for adding summit thumbnails to those lists.

In response to your final comment, I would add that Wikipedia is both a general encyclopedia and the online encyclopedia with articles ranging from cartoon characters to quantum chromodynamics. While this list is primarily designed for mountain enthusiasts, I hope it is simple enough for the general reader.

Thanks again,  Buaidh  19:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

My first comment was not a personal opinion. As I understand it, starting an article with "This article" is forbidden in the manual of style, but someone will no doubt correct me if I am wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The Manual of Style discourages the use of "This is a list of X" where "List of X" is the name of the article. While the lead sentence does not repeat the article title, it also does not explain what the "three sortable tables" are or their significance. I'll add a non-technical explanation of the tables. Thanks,  Buaidh  01:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I've made my first attempt at a simplified lead. Yours aye,  Buaidh  02:48, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Further comments

• Clarifying my comment that the article is too technical, I did not mean that technical subjects should be excluded. One of the functions of Wikipedia should be to explain technical subjects to laymen. Radiocarbon dating, for instance, succeeds triumphantly, but many fail. I once complained that Alkalinity is incomprehensible to non-scientists, and another editor disagreed on the ground that the article is incomprehensible to scientists. I find your revised explanation generally clear, apart from "highest or key col to a higher summit". Presumably the summit listed will in many cases be the highest in its range, so how can it be separated by a col from a higher summit? BTW I would link col.
• I would suggest merging the second and third paragraphs of the lead, and the fourth states what applies to any geographical list - it could be deleted or relegated to a note.
• Reviewers generally like to see a paragraph giving detail about particularly notable items on the list - for example expanding on the information about Denali in the picture caption.
• I still find the title and rationale confusing. Why is it described as a list of mountain peaks when the items listed are described in their articles as mountains (not mountain peaks)? Why have a combined list with large amounts of duplicated information rather than just a list for each of the three categories? Why 100 of the first and 50 only in the second and third? Is it not misleading readers to call the article "List of mountain peaks of North America" when it is a list of a few of them selected according to technical criteria? These points should be explained, although in my view in notes rather than in main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks again, Dudley.

Topographic prominence is a simple concept and a complicated measurement. I placed an explanation of the measurement into the references.

I merged the second and third paragraphs as you suggested. I think this is a significant improvement.

The last paragraph was for neophytes. I've removed it.

The Denali picture caption includes the links topographically prominent and topographically isolated which explain the significance of those measurements to Denali. Many references highlight notability. I'm not sure where else we could place notability detail.

There are many lists of mountains of North America on Wikipedia, including:

• Lists of mountain peaks of North America
  • List of mountain peaks of North America
    • List of the highest major summits of North America (200 summits)
      • List of the major 5000-meter summits of North America (11 summits)
      • List of the major 4000-meter summits of North America (124 summits)
      • List of the major 3000-meter summits of North America (401 summits, so table lacks verifying references and location links.)
      • List of the highest islands of North America (82 islands)
    • List of the most prominent summits of North America (200 summits)
      • List of the ultra-prominent summits of North America (353 summits, so table lacks verifying references.)
    • List of the most isolated major summits of North America (200 summits)
      • List of the major 100-kilometer summits of North America (230 summits)
    • List of extreme summits of North America
    • List of mountain peaks of Greenland (This article comprises three tables of just 40 summits.)
    • List of mountain peaks of Canada
    • List of mountain peaks of the Rocky Mountains
    • List of mountain peaks of the United States
    • List of mountain peaks of México (This article comprises three tables of just 40 summits.)
    • List of mountain peaks of Central America (This article comprises three tables of just 25 summits.)
    • List of mountain peaks of the Caribbean (This article comprises three tables of just 15 summits.)

Since there are a great many mountain summit lists, this article attempts to be a synopsis and guide to the other lists. All articles named "List of mountain peaks of X" use the same format. I suppose these articles should be renamed "Major mountain summits of X" or "Multilist of major mountain summits of X" since they are a combination of lists. The title of these articles have already changed several times. I would appreciate any suggestions.

Why are there 100 summits ranked by elevation, 50 by prominence, and 50 by isolation in these lists? I would have preferred 100 summits in each table. The density of references limits us to about 230 total summits. Rather than listing 75 summits per table, I decided to include the 100 highest summits since that is what most readers understand, and only the 50 most prominent summits and the 50 most isolated major summits.

Yours aye,  Buaidh  18:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Further comments

• There are lists of mountains, lists of mountain peaks and lists of mountain summits. What is the difference between them? Why not just lists of mountains?
• The lead does not comply with usual requirements. Your lead could be one of the four standard lead paragraphs. The others could be one with a (very brief) summary of the basic geology, one on the major mountain chains, and one giving interesting facts about a few mountains. For an idea of what reviewers expect see Crisco's objections at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London/archive1 to my lead (before amendment) in List of local nature reserves in Greater London.
• The lists themselves look to me fine. My only problems are with the lead and the article title. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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. – SchroCat (talk) 06:42, 13 May 2016 (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 withdrawn by SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC) [9].

---

List of British films of 2014

Nominator(s): Willowandglass (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is as close to an exhaustive list as possible of all films that are at least partially British productions and were first released in 2014. Moreover, it includes other information about 2014 in British film. This is a key list on which many other lists of British films by year and lists of national films of 2014 have been based. Willowandglass (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• One at a time please, per the instructions. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Whoa there, this one page has many thematically distinct lists in it. It goes far beyond listing films, but notable deaths? Awards? These need to be separated before renomination. There is also some original research which must be removed: "By creating an average of both the critical and audience scores of all three websites, it can be concluded that the best and worst British films respectively released in 2014 were as follows" Mattximus (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to withdraw this submission, but am not sure how to and can't find any instructions for doing so. Could you advise? Willowandglass (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2016 (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. – SchroCat (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2016 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC) [10].

---

List of cities in the Philippines

Nominator(s): Sanglahi86 (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it contains well-organized relevant (political and geographical) data about all existing cities in the Philippines in a single sortable table. The table has been revised several times in the past for optimal/proper sorting and visual appeal. Sanglahi86 (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - numerous issues; list appears a ways from FL quality.

• Lead is almost non-existent. See List of municipalities in New Brunswick (FLC, below) for an example of a more comprehensive lead
• Chunks of overview are unreferenced
• The table is almost entirely unreferenced
• Table is missing rowscopes, and seems to be using a double-table header to move the sort button down?
• Random provinces are italicized in the table, as are some effective dates
• City charter should be a reference attached to the approval date, not a column of external links
• "Dates of inauguration/organization" is a section floating off on its own, which should be above the table or an actual note
• Many of the references appear to just be sentences with a link, rather than formatted references
• The biggest deal-breaker is that the table is unreferenced, with just notes pointing off to other websites where you can find the information. It needs actual references. It's possible that you can get away with citing columns of the table to a specific page- like List of municipalities in Ontario does, but only if an entire column can be cited to a single webpage; there is still the second big issue that the text surrounding the table is a bit anemic. --PresN 19:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing up these issues. I have finished exhaustively replacing all the bare external links with formatted references and inline citations. I have also added row scopes (based on what was done in List of municipalities in Ontario). The double table header was done to make the wide table more compact in the limited space by creating a separate row for sorting. The italics in those provinces and dates were intentional and have a meaning; a table note at the bottom of the table describes the reason/s why they were italicized. Sanglahi86 (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Even though I voted on this nomination, I'm going to go ahead and close it- after 2 months, there haven't been any other replies, which would be enough to close it just to keep the queue moving, but in addition several of my points were not addressed- there is still a lot of the table unreferenced, and the supporting text was not improved. --PresN 21:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been not promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

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