Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/April 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

List of people on United States banknotes

Nominator(s): Godot13 (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because...While some individual lists/articles discuss the history or background of a specific individual depicted on U.S. banknotes, a comprehensive summary and/or list covering the issue of federal notes (1861 to the present) does not appear to exist on Wikipedia. This was the impetus to create the list, my first entry for Wikipedia. All images in this list are cropped from scans made by me at the Smithsonian Institution. Also, I think it meets FLC... Godot13 (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Extremely well formatted, meticulously referenced. And what a great idea! — Cirt (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 11:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

*Comment I would not support the list so quick; I wonder if Cirt have carefully checked the article. Anyway, I see information not supported by the references. Let us take Adams, the source does not exhamine that he was a Democractic-Republican and Unitarian. Also colours may not meet WP:COLOR; check with the tool [2] whether they are ok or not. 013567 for example is not even compliant with WCAG 2 AA. States should be linked and written out.--Tomcat (7) 12:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Comment Thank you for the feedback Tomcat7. I have spelled out all the state names and linked the first reference to the state in each box of the list with the appropriate wikilink. I have also gone through the citations for political and religious affiliation. If they are not covered by the reference immediately following the name I have either added an additional citation following the political party/religious affiliation, or in a few cases have removed it. Some of the information for these two categories comes from Wikipedia articles which, on further investigation, do not cite the source of their information. In these cases information has been removed. I will research the issue regarding colors and make appropriate changes. Am I correct in thinking that I should choose more standardized colors that meet the WP compliance issues? Thanks - Godot13 (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Yes, the colors should at least meet AA requirements. The current ones are too dark anyway. If you experiment with the sliders, you will quickly find better colors. For example you can replace D49129 with 877700. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC) After reading WCAG 2 criteria I realized that using colors to visually link to nine different categories may simply further confuse the issue, even for those without any form of visual difficulty. I have removed the colors entirely.- Godot13 (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Ref 1 does not indicate a page number. Is the source only one page? I don't see any publishers in the citations. Make sure you add them. Words like "Reverse" and "1928–Present" are to be written in lowercase. Boldface should not be used for emphasis, if anything than italicface. See also WP:BADEMPHASIS.--Tomcat (7) 21:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Ref 1 is 304 pages, the cited information is not contained on a single page but rather throughout the book (e.g., manually counting the number of individuals, and reference to the ordering of banknote types). Question- When you refer to publishers in the citations, are you referring to the embedded citations/syntax (versus the visible reference section which is tied into the Books references)? I mean the missing publishers in the citation templates which appear in the reference section, eg the publisher for Ref 3 would be "U.S. Department of the Treasury"--Tomcat (7) 11:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC) I see that the titles listed in the citations are actually publishers. For example, the title for Ref 3 would be "Portraits & Designs". Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)  Done - Godot13 (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC) “Reverse” and “Present” changed to lowercase. The bolded titles in the Title/comments section have been changed to italics and in the banknote column changed to plain text. The individual names in the Name column remain in bold. Thanks- Godot13 (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)  Done - I believe all of Tomcat7's points have been addressed. Thanks- Godot13 (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comments As a numismatist I really enjoyed this list, but there are several problems I have with it. In the lead, it's not WP's job to tell me what is surprising or familiar, so those sentences should be removed. In the table, there is too much information in the name column, which seems cluttered. Since this is about appearances on currency, I believe political party and religion are inappropriate to include. The places of birth and death are superfluous, with the date or just year being suffient. Is there a reason why some positions held are italicized? If you're trying to draw attention to them (and why those in particular?), honestly I would much prefer only listing the important positions the people are known for and eliminate the clutter. For example, James Monroe's box is very long, listing his time in the state house twice, governor twice, and the undescriptive "American Revolutionary War". His dates for Secretary of War are also wrong. Also listed are honors like Thanks of Congress and Congressional Gold Medal which have little to do with their stature. Stick to the stuff that made them worthy of being on a banknote, not state legislature, militia membership, or 'Commissioner of Mexican Claims'. Additionally, we know everything is American, so the "United States" in front of every position is repetitive.

Furthmore, sorry, but the content of the notes is ridiculous. Why does it matter that "Czolgosz was a socially inept, highly detached, and introverted person" to McKinley's appearance on a banknote? Or that he enlisted in the Army as a private? That Philip Sheridan was suspended from West Point and the 1800 election was a tie? Please carefully go through the article and only keep what is important to the article's topic of United States banknotes. The rest is what Wikilinks are for. This is a very well-developed article, but too developed. Thanks, Reywas92^Talk 20:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: Thanks for the detailed review. I too am a numismatist. However, I was not assembling this list as a purely numismatic endeavor. The goal of this list is not only to present who has been depicted on banknotes of the specified period, but to also look at their relevance and major contributions in history. Information like political and religious affiliation may be of interest and contain educational value when looking at the subset of historical figures.
• The italicized titles (as described in the intro) indicate positions that are a part of the chain of succession to the presidency. They are emphasized to denote the most senior elected office attained by any given individual (provided it was within the chain of succession).
• Words like “surprising” or “familiar” have been removed.
• Some of Monroe’s data could be better condensed (e.g., listing a position only once and putting all applicable dates behind it - done).
• Dates for Secretary of War have been fixed. The source was incorrect. Further digging also demonstrated that the WP article on Monroe also may have incorrectly cited the dates from the indicated source. New citation added.
• I respectfully disagree with your assessment that some of the note content is “ridiculous.” As I mentioned before, the goal of this FLC is multidimensional: to provide a very brief professional history of the individuals depicted on banknotes, and to provide some related contextual history; to bring these people to life. Listing all their achievements highlights why many of these people were in fact chosen to be on U.S. banknotes. The list is not primarily about banknotes, but that is the common denominator. Thank you. - Godot13 (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• • I'm not sure religious affiliation or place of birth has to do with major contributions in history. The line of succession that includes cabinet members was not created until 1886, so that is largely irrelevant to this article, with most people serving before then. Besides, it is not necessarily the most important position held. Clay was better known as a Congressman, not SecState, and Marshall's time as chief justice was much more important than as SecState. Winfield Scott was never SecWar (according to our article), nor would two months of it be more important than being General. Again, that "Booth was a chronically frustrated outcast, who sought acceptance, attention, and recognition from others", that the 1888 election was split, that McCulloch was a local bank director, and that "Guiteau had psychopathic traits" has absolutely nothing to do with banknotes, these people's inclusion on them, or even their contextual history, and the same goes for their religions. If I wanted minute details about births, deaths, and assassins' mental states, I would go to the relevant article, but this one is about banknotes. If McKinley enlisted as a private, what about McPherson and Meade right below him? Sheridan was suspended from West Point, but how did W.T. Sherman do while there? The notes just seem random and include little factoids rather than meaningful, relevant content. I respectfully <st>Oppose. Also, per WP:FLAGBIO, the flags should be removed. Reywas92^Talk 07:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• • • Thank you for the feedback. The flags have been removed.

• • • If this list was intended to focus solely on the banknotes themselves, the notes would be the centerpiece, versus the clipped portraits of those depicted. The goals for this list are stated above, so I won’t rehash them again.

• • • The footnote for Clay acknowledges that the line of succession was different at the time he (and others) served in office. I am not suggesting that attaining a position that falls within the line of succession for the Presidency is necessarily more important than another, or that a given individual may not have made significant historical impact in a position outside of this line. I am merely pointing it out as an educational tool about which positions fall within the line and which do not.

• • • I’m not sure which article you are referring to about Winfield Scott, but references to his serving as interim Secretary of War can be found here [3][4][5]

• • • McPherson and Meade both attended West Point and were career officers. McKinley may have been the only President on U.S. currency to have served as a private in the Armed Forces (i.e., started as a grunt). The information for each West Point graduate (rank in their graduating class) is available, but frankly that didn’t seem quite as interesting as what is included.

• • • The additional details are in the notes section so they do not interfere with the flow of the list but the (at least personally speaking) interesting additional facts are available to those who would avail themselves of it.

• • • This is my first work on WP, and I admit I do not have great experience with the process. If others concur with your feedback regarding an excessive number of irrelevant details then I will be happy revise. Thanks again for the feedback - Godot13 (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: – The following have been removed or hidden from view in response to comments from Reywas92:

• References to participation in specific wars have been removed from all title/comment sections except for those individuals depicted in military uniform (i.e., career military). Due to his service as a Commanding General of the U.S. Army, Grant is included in this group.
• References/notes relating to the psychological autopsies of Presidential assassins or attempted assassins.
• Religious affiliation. Godot13 (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: - The following changes have been made in response to comments from Reywas92:

• Reference to positions within the line of presidential succession have been de-emphasized (returned to plain text) and related notes removed.
• Reference to line of succession in the intro has been removed.
• Dates of birth and death have been moved into their own sortable columns.
• Places of birth and death have been removed.-Godot13 (talk) 04:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• In addition, "United States" has been abbreviated as "U.S." (in the body of the list only) due to its frequent use. This is only for Cabinet positions and the House and Senate. For the latter two, some distinction is necessary between State and Federal legislature. President and Vice President, and some of the low frequency titles (e.g., Treasurer of the United States) have not been abbreviated. - Godot13 (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
• Also, removal of several citations/notes suggested to be irrelevant to the list. -Godot13 (talk) 05:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• In reviewing the comments above, I believe I have addressed almost all of your concerns. Below may be a few stragglers:

• "prefer only listing the important positions the people are known for and eliminate the clutter." —Except for career military, all references to wars have been removed. Eliminating all but the most important positions reduces the reader’s ability to see how outstanding, versatile, and accomplished these 53 people are in the context of history (i.e., why all statesmen are not created equally).
• "Also listed are honors like Thanks of Congress and Congressional Gold Medal which have little to do with their stature." -- These two honors (and the descriptive notes that go with them) give insight into why those Generals depicted on U.S. Banknotes were in fact selected. Respectfully, -- Godot13 (talk) 03:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• The intro needs expansion, and I would like to have the table to be also sortable by the year the first time the person appeared on a banknote. Nergaal (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Is there a particular aspect you would like to see further developed, or simply in general? Thanks - Godot13 (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
• List can now be sorted by date of first appearance on the note. In addition, secondary/summary table at the end of the list is also sortable. - Godot13 (talk) 22:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

• Could you please provide some idea for a direction or scope of expanding the intro please? Thanks in advance - Godot13 (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Third attempt (+1 on talk page) to clarify the type/direction of intro expansion suggested. Thanks--Godot13 (talk) 15:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Post-promotion comment: I am happy with the intro now, and I love the new sorting feature. Congrats! Nergaal (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment: Applied hidden key to allow sorting/re-sorting by last name. - Godot13 (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

• And dates of birth and death - Godot13 (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Astros4477

Comments – I'm not very familiar with this topic so I'm going to review mostly on formatting. I was surprised to see the date formats. I thought that because it was relating directly to the United States, "Month-Day-Year" would be used... Based on this section of the MOS, because they are being used in a table and/or list, dates have been displayed in the present format. In "Summary of titles/positions", "# People" should be "No. People". Fixed You need to add "plainrowheaders" per MOS:DTT. Use of Plainrowheaders does not allow for the columns to be individually sorted, and is optional (not required) according to MOS:DTT. IMO, the major issue is that the main table is too crowded. I think the name of the person should be in its own column with their political party being in a seperate. Understood. It has been suggested that political party affiliation is not relevant to the list. It has been removed to avoid further clutter. I also feel like there is too much information in the "Title/comments" column, I'm having trouble making sense of it all. I will review and work on this. "The table below summarizes..." shouldn't be used. I don't think your ever supposed to say "This article" or "This table". Fixed -- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC) The review is much appreciated! All but one of the points have been addressed/corrected.--Godot13 (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments Not keen on the second sentence saying "This list..." We don't have articles which say "This article..." in the second sentence of the lead, do we? -- Removed/rephrased I would recommend you consider merging the paragraphs before the list to create a decent lead, one where you won't need to refer to "the list" or "the list below" etc, and focus on the people featured and their positions in US society. -- Done(?) Please advise if I should add more "was given broad" since when? year? -- Added "while he was still living" -> alive. -- Rephrased as during their lifetime. Will change to simply alive if requested. Not sure how useful "average dimensions" of notes are. -- Understood. Moved out of the body to a note with comment that average is +/- 2mm to allow for margins and cutting differences. (Happy to remove it altogether). Check for WP:YEAR ranges, (e.g. you still have the odd "1928–1934" which should be "1928–34"). -- Done The "Portraits" section should be called something like "People portrayed" or something, since it's more than just portraits. -- Done, changed to People depicted "List of people on United States Bank Notes" should be "List of people on United States banknotes" for consistency. -- Done Total years of service is probably a violation of WP:SYNTH, it's not really relevant and is generated by making estimates on the years in service (e.g. did you round 183 days up to a whole year and 182 down to no years when adding all these together?). Plus you have three blanks, what does that mean? -- Years removed, summary of positions remains. Will remove this if suggested. Note 12 has an odd /> -- Removed No need to SHOUT in the reference titles. -- Voice level has been calmed. Multiple page refs, e.g. ref 93, should have pp. not just p. -- Fixed I'm not sure you need Category:Numismatics when you have two other, more refined numismatic categories in the US banknotes, and people depicted on banknotes categories. -- Agreed, removed The Rambling Man (talk) 16:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the review.--Godot13 (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• The New York Times is a work so should be in italics. Check other works are treated similarly.-- Done. Question: Do citations from electronic encyclopedias require italics?
  • I'm on the fence on that, but I'd probably say yes. It's a "virtual" publication, just like the NYT when it's "published" on the internet.... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Fixed - All comments resolved. Thank you. -- Godot13 (talk) 22:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Weak support my support is weak because while I find the notes interesting, they are off-topic. One suggestion: Biographical Directory of the United States Congress footnotes are not consistent with other reference. For example in "Biographical Directory of the United States Congress: Adams, John Quincy, (1767–1848)" the title would be "Adams, John Quincy, (1767–1848)" and the publisher "Biographical Directory of the United States Congress". Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Congressional Bio references have been changed per your suggestion. I understand the concern that you (and others) have expressed over some of the notes in the list. I have tried to reduce their scope. Many (but not all) of the notes contain information or details which are not found in the linked Wikipedia articles. Thank you for your support, regardless of the level. --Godot13 (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments – In the first paragraph, there's too much capitalization. I would decapitalize "Members" twice, "Jurists", and "Military Leaders". -- Done. Second and third paragraphs could use more linking of people and government-related items. -- Done. In general, the lead paragraphs are all stubby and could stand to be combined in some way. Three good-sized paragraphs would be a lot better than six tiny ones. -- Done. Please let me know if more transitional material is necessary. In the caption on top of the key, the last three words should be decapitalized.-- Done. "and the founders and framers of our government." As the English Wikipedia, British, Australian, and Indian citizens may be reading this, among others, so to say the U.S. government is "ours" is inappropriate.-- Understood, reworded. In the table: "People" should be decapitalized. -- Done. Note 2: Remove space before the period.-- Done. Note 6 could use a period at the end.-- Done Giants2008 (Talk) 21:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your review and comments. --Godot13 (talk) 23:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Summary of titles/positions: Since we use "banknotes" earlier, that's what this should say instead of the overcapitalized "Bank Notes".-- Done I meant that I wanted the word decapitalized too, since that is still inconsistent. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC) My error, it is done. --Godot13 (talk) 05:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The review below has been copied from the FLC Talk page. The original can be seen there, with an intact log entry for each comment. It has been moved here for continuity. Only the opening word "Comments" has been added, the rest is verbatim. If such a move/copy is inappropriate, please let me know.--Godot13 (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comments An FLC of the nature of this article is needed and I would be happy to support if a few changes were made ...

1) a lot of people ask questions about the worthiness of various individuals to appear on modern federal reserve notes ... the individuals were selected in the 1920's as images that would be considered distinctively "American" and give hand-to-hand currency users the confidence that this was the currency of the United States. Hunt down the relevant source for the info, and make the comment (just my solicited advice, value it for what you pay!) 2) Next, if you look on the back of the series 1976 two dollar bill, you will find scads of famous americans that you don't list here - please explain why not! And if you say it is because you don't refer to the reverse, then take Morse off the list! 3) the $5k and $10k united states notes certificates of deposits are omitted here, why? they were only banking pieces but, then again, so was the $100k gold certificate, how are the choices being made? 4) why start in 1861? President Buchanan appeared on the 1860 $1000 treasury note - why omit that? You include the 1861 2-year treasury note ...

Overall, an excellent article which is most def needed, but you gotta be clear about the rationale for what you include and exclude .... Happy to engage more if any of this is helpful ... --LondonYoung (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look over the FLC.

1) I agree, many people do wonder how the current group of people depicted on U.S. banknote was selected. What you suggest makes sense as a significant criteria for selection, which I would be happy to add, as soon as I can find at least one appropriate reference for such a statement. I am looking.

2) The 53 people included in the list each had their own individual portrait engraved and placed on U.S. Banknotes. This includes those individually depicted on the reverse of the notes (e.g., Morse, Fulton, etc.). The Trumbull painting engraved for the reverse of the Series 1976 $2 bill contains a laundry list of historically significant figures in American history. However, only Franklin, Jefferson, and Morris were individually featured on other bills. I did not list each founder depicted in the Trumbull painting because it is a group depiction.

3) The Series 1875 $5,000 and $10,000 Certificates of Deposit were more like checks (or receipts) than negotiable currency or banknotes. This was also true for the early (1862-1863) high denomination gold certificates, but by 1870-1875 they were redesigned to resemble negotiable currency. While the $100,000 gold certificate was not a negotiable instrument for the general public (along with the other high denomination 1934 gold certificates), the $100,000 note is designed in exactly the same style as its lower denomination counterparts. Also, while there are some flaws in every major reference book if you look hard enough, the central reference text for United States Banknotes (for collectors, not necessarily researchers) is Friedberg, who does not assign a catalog number to Certificates of Deposit.

4) I chose to start in 1861 because was the year of issue for the Demand Notes (greenbacks) and it was the time that Congress began to overhaul the system of currency. I also needed to select a cutoff date to limit the scope of this particular list.

The first line of the list/article states that the inclusion criteria are United States banknotes from 1861 to the present. This seemed like a fairly complete and manageable task. I do hope to create at least one or two more similar lists, possibly for Confederate Currency, and maybe for U.S. Bonds.

Again, thank you for your time and input. I am looking for support in the literature for the first point you raised. -- Godot13 (talk) 00:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the first point raised: [Quote from the BEP website]It was determined that portraits of Presidents of the United States have a more permanent familiarity in the minds of the public than any others. This decision was somewhat altered by the Secretary of the Treasury to include Alexander Hamilton, who was the first Secretary of the Treasury; Salmon P. Chase, who was Secretary of the Treasury during the Civil War and is credited with promoting our National Banking System; and Benjamin Franklin, who was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence...Treasury Department records do not reveal the reason that portraits of these particular statesmen were chosen in preference to those of other persons of equal importance and prominence.[[6]]--Godot13 (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

More of me blathering on ... I think you need to change the opening sentence to refer to "individual portraits" as per your answer above ... this will deal with Trumbull's painting (and the like), and it will also deal with the image of Columbus, who appears individually, on the $1000 Legal Tender because "portrait" often implies an emphasis on the face ... I also think you have to mention that you are relying on Friedberg - at least in a footnote - because, if nothing else, Sherman never appeared on a U.S. banknote though he probably would have appeared on the never-issued $500 coin note to which Friedberg none-the-less assigned number 379 ... these two changes, and I will be happy to support

I will say nothing of the fact that the reverse of large size NBN's contained ovals at each side of the reverse which some states used for portraits of favorite sons ... we can only go so far! --LondonYoung (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

and, to be clear, I would like the article to say that it relies on Friedberg for the definition of what counts as a U.S. Banknote ... this is a list, and what is on, or off, this list seems to have been determined by Friedberg (which is fine, but you need to say that)--LondonYoung (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Your suggested clarification has been added to the first sentence of the list. There is already a footnote by the W.T. Sherman entry (in the far right column) indicating that he was depicted on the $500 Treasury Note which was designed, printed, but never issued. I am curious as to your reference to the reverse of NBN's. Only the Series 1882 Date Back and Value Back has an individual portrait on the reverse (William Fessenden)... unless you are referring to the individual content of the State Seals on the reverse of the 1882 Brown Backs.

Do you have any objection if I copy our discussion onto the FLC nomination page where other such discussions have taken place? Thanks again for your time and insightful comments.--Godot13 (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. School-children are often asked to put together reports on famous Americans and those who have appeared on our currency are an important group of such. I think a list like this is important and should be featured since it will become one of the more referenced pages in the wikipedia. Featuring it not only helps people to find it, but also draws attention that will keep the content top-notch and accurate. Which of us (sorry non-Americans :-( ) has not looked upon the currency and wondered about the people appearing on it and why they were selected? --LondonYoung (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support.Well done. I recently acquired a Gold Cert pre 34, and it was a joy to read this listing. I do collect exonumia and some odd paper from the US.Coal town guy (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• In response to TRM's request I revisit my comments, I am still opposed to the MOS-violating material in the notes section. Notes in an article are to provide further clarification for material listed in the text (like note 3), to give details about citiations (like note 1 and 2), or to give important details relevant to context (like notes 4 and 5), not simply miscellanea. There is no pertinance of Cleveland's nonconsecutive terms, Farragut's quotation, Stanton's suspension, or quotes of Thanks of Congress to appearances on currency. I consider this to be a WP:TRIVIA section, which goes against the manual of style. I am also disappointed that the incredibly irrelevant material of assassins' mental states was simply commented out, not actually removed. Reywas92^Talk 20:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Understanding how some of this material can come off as potentially trivial in the context of who/why these people appear on currency, and after reviewing WP:TRIVIA,
• 1) Cleveland's nonconsecutive terms, 2) Farragut's quotation, and 3) Stanton's suspension have been Removed/Commented out, and 4) Assassins’ mental states has been Erased/Deleted.

• Thanks of Congress remain. The quotes do serve to “give important details relevant to context” in that many readers are likely to be unfamiliar with the term Thanks of Congress, or the specific nature of the content. The information provided is also historically pertinent, in part, to their selection to appear on U.S. banknotes. I do not think this is trivia (per WP:TRIVIA). Thank you for revisiting your comments. I hope you will find these changes satisfactory.--Godot13 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• • You don't seem to understand. The ones I mentioned are just examples I pointed out, but none of these are relevant. Yes, that "Decatur was fatally wounded in a duel by court-martialed former Naval Commodore James Barron on 22 March 1820", that "Hamilton began publishing the “Federalist” series on 27 October 1787", that "In 1794, Madison declined both U.S. Minister to France and Secretary of State posts offered by President Washington", and the other notes ARE WP:TRIVIA in the context of an article about appearances on currency. If they were relevant, they would go in the table or body of the article, but they are not. If you have sources actually describing the selection process, that would be great, but this is fluff (Manning surely wasn't honored for editing the Albany Atlas, and Jefferson wasn't chosen because his election was a tie). I doubt that when Congress or Treasury decided to put a person on a banknote decades later, they made that decision based on the flowery text of the TOC (not simply the same reason it was given). If readers don't know what a TOC is, that's what WP:WIKILINKs are for. The quotes are not "relevant to context" when context is appearance on banknotes, unless you can show the quotes or TOC itself were taken into consideration when put on the bills. Reywas92^Talk 22:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
    • You are correct. I did not understand. Thank you for explaining it to me. The list has been edited to your exact specifications. If I missed anything please let me know.--Godot13 (talk) 23:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Reywas92^Talk 01:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for your support.--Godot13 (talk) 02:21, 24 April 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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC) [7].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Abdul Qadir

Nominator(s): Zia Khan 02:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Another fifers' list is ready to get nom at FLC. The list, with inclusion criteria, is now able to join the FL class (I guess). As always, Comments and suggestion will be appreciated. Cheers, Zia Khan 02:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if someone uploads Qadir's free image. Thanks, Zia Khan 19:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments from Crisco 1492 "mastered the googlies, the flippers, the leg-breaks and the topspins" - Not understandable to people who don't follow cricket I've linked them all! Zia Khan 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Is there a way to avoid saying "England" so much? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Do you have something in mind? Zia Khan 23:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Not yet, no, but perhaps restructuring the paragraph or using "English" would help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Have a look now! Zia Khan 00:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 10:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Comments There should be a column for H/A/N. Usually we don't have such a column in fifers list. Zia Khan 15:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC) He took 6 wickets in the first test fifer but only five batsmen's names are given. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Good catch! Fixed now. Zia Khan 15:46, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Support with comments - I have a couple of questions/comments:

• As there is no photo of Abdul Qadir himself, I was thinking that the image caption read "Qadir took five of his fifteen five-wicket hauls ..." because this adds a little context to the importance of the image. It may be a bad idea (feel free to dismiss it), but saying explicitly that it is five of fifteen makes it clear that the ground is quite significant.

• Yes, this is significant for him thats why I've added this to his fifers' list?! Zia Khan 22:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the 8-ball overs in his first fifer; does this influence the other statistics — so for example does it make his economy 1.37 per six balls, or per eight?

• This is according to the source (its per six balls but the source doesn't explain this!). Zia Khan 22:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Is it notable that he never lost a Test when taking a fifer?

• This is notable indeed. Added a sentence at the end of the second para. Zia Khan 22:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyway great work with it; hope you can answer some of my questions, but regardless I believe the article meets the criteria. - Shudde ^talk 11:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments and support. Zia Khan 22:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the replies. Very happy to support. - Shudde ^talk 02:44, 22 April 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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC) [8].

---

List of Square Enix companion books

Nominator(s): PresN 19:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Back again, but instead of with another sci-fi/fantasy award list, it's with my other FLC favorite: increasingly obscure video game-related lists! Here we have a list of Square Enix companion books- covering the holy grails of artwork and article-development-section-source books, the Ultimania series (and it's predecessor, the Perfect Works series). Knew that there was a book for Final Fantasy XII, but not what other games had an Ultimania or three? Now you know, in one big, sortable table. --PresN 19:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Congrats, PresN, for cleaning up that mess of a table I left you back in July 2010. I haven't had a chance to look at it in-depth just yet so a few quick questions first. What happened to The Bouncer Perfect Works? Is it not a real thing? Also, are you not interested in including the older guide books? If not, that's fine, just curious about your reasoning. Finally, why do you use third-level headings instead of second-level headings for the sections? Axem Titanium (talk) 21:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• The Bouncer book wasn't real- some editor added it to the DigiCube article back in 2008 and it never went away, and there's no source of any sort that proves it ever existed. I took out the game guide books because frankly, every game ever has them- they're not notable, they're not special, and I didn't feel that a big table of hundreds of them belonged in a list that was trying to focus on a unique set of books that have hundreds of pages of artwork and background information. It's hard to draw the line between game guides with a bit of development info and reference books with some game guide information, but it's easy and non-subjective to just limit it to Ultimanias and Perfect Works. Finally, level-3 headers are there because I forgot to change them back. Now done! --PresN 21:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Haha figures. That's how rumors start. It's a shame about the earlier books; some of them look interesting (e.g. FF7 True Script Dissection and FF Complete Works). I guess there's no good way to slice those out with a set of consistent criteria. I'll try to look into just how much dev info/artwork/etc. was in those books, but it's not critical to this FLC. I get the sense that they were at least a bit more notable than any old game guide since they were first-party published. Oh well. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Nominator has worked hard to not only cite reliable sources and establish comprehensiveness, but to also work on uprooting misinformation. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support, list is well referenced and the lead is well written. Congrats! Axem Titanium (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments Lead image caption shouldn't have a full stop. "The Ultimania series has generated over 10 million in sales by July 2007." had rather than has. Is there an update available considering it's April 2013? Sorting by title, I think I'd expect the FInal Fantasy to sort in their numerical order, not just alphabetically, i.e. VII, VIII, IX, not IX, VII, VIII, X... What makes "bent stuff" a reliable source? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC) Done; done, and there hasn't been an announcement since then unfortunately; done; Studio BentStuff is the company that is the author of the Ultimania books (Square Enix is the publisher). --PresN 19:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• over 10 million in sales - 10 million dollars, yen? Copies sold? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Copies sold, ambiguity now removed. --PresN 18:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• "written and published by the Square subsidiary DigiCube. DigiCube...". Try not to have this kind of repetition from the end of one sentence to the start of another.
• The lead image could use alt text.
• All caps in ref 10 need removal. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• All three done now. --PresN 18:58, 19 April 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 promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [9].

---

Citra Award for Best Director

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is a thorough look at one of the most important film awards in Indonesia. This layout is based on the featured list Golden Eagle Award for Best Foreign Language Film. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Quick look – Too many redlinks, can you reduce them? I'll have my comments when you sort out this one, ping me as you resolve this. Zia Khan 13:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• See, this is why I just had black links for List of films of the Dutch East Indies; WP:REDLINK is a damned if you do, damned if you don't policy, since nobody can agree just how to apply it. I don't mind cutting the redlinks down to just the winners (in the morning, it's 2 am here), but technically under policy they are all notable and thus should all be linked. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
  • All red links are now black except for winners (directors with one win and several nominations are also red outside of that one win) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support – on prose, but 'm still not convinced with the redlinks. Zia Khan 15:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments Any reason for the intermittent awards in the first few years? I didn't see anything explicit, but considering the state of the industry between 1956 and 1972, I'm not all that surprised (but unless I can find a source which explicitly states that, it's OR). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Ref 4 has a problem. Fixed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC) "The festival was initially held intermittently, once in 1960 and once in 1967" -> "The festival was then held intermittently, in 1960 and 1967..." Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC) "decline in local production" perhaps just clarify "film production". Sure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC) "found to violate copyright" -> "found to have violated copyright" Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Erwin Arnada redirects to Playboy, is that really helpful?! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Same guy; he founded Playboy Indonesia, which is why his article redirects there. I hope to get an article done sometime soon, but my university schedule hasn't been very friendly in that regard. I could just delete the redirect though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC) No, it's fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC) No worries. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Looks quite good. I am pretty sure that soon there will only be blue links on that page :). Regards. --Tomcat (7) 09:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bloom6132 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments – Remove the semicolon from "Key" heading and use the three apostrophes instead. I remember in a past FLC of mine someone saying that the semicolon may not be accessible for screen-reader users. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Table should include scope row under the "Recipients" column (even for the highlighted winners). Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC) The baseball FLs I've done all have daggers and double-daggers superscripted next to the names in the table (but not in the key). You make the call on this one. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC) I've used non-superscripted daggers for my FLs so far (List of songs recorded by Chrisye, for instance) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support – meets all 6 FL criteria. Great work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:24, 18 April 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 promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [10].

---

List of songs recorded by Pink Martini

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets criteria and closely resembles the similar list of songs recorded by Fiona Apple, which I recently co-promoted to FL status. I appreciate those who take time to review this list and I am happy to address concerns as they arise. Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments Looks good to me, I just have a few comments: Might be worth clarifying that Sympathique was their debut album. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Per WP:OVERLINK, common languages need not be linked to. Done. I left Neapolitan and Ladino linked. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC) MOS:CONSECUTIVE suggests not to use a second terminal punctuation mark to end a sentence (i.e. "Hey Eugene!." -> "Hey Eugene!") Done. I think there was only one instance in which that occurred. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Per the reasoning in the Fiona Apple FLC, you can probably get away without linking each instance of Pink Martini in the table. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Are the songwriting credits for "The Flying Squirrel" and "Malagueña" available? Doing. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC) First citation needs a comma after "March 16". Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC) As a website, Allmusic probably needn't be italicised. Done. I agree. I've had reviewers request both ways. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC) I hope your concerns have been addressed. Please let me know if you find other issues. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC) That photo of Chavela Vargas is kind of busy – it might be worth uploading a new, cropped version that makes it clearer who the focus of the image is. I'll do it myself, if you'd like. That would be very helpful, actually. Working with images is not my specialty. Thank you very much for the offer. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Done. You can find it at File:Chavela Vargas 060701-cropped.jpg. Done. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Why do the two versions of "Song of the Black Lizard" have two completely different songwriters? Look again. These are two different songs. :) --Another Believer (Talk) 20:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Whoops, my mistake, sorry about that. So, these are two completely different songs that happen to have incredible similar titles? Yes. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Does "Donde Estas Yolanda?" have a comma or not? No, at least according to Allmusic. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC) "Ii Janaino Shiawase Naraba" needs to be above "Is That All There Is?" when the page first loads. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Similarly, "A Snowglobe Christmas" needs to be above "Song of the Black Lizard". Done. Good eye. Thank you! (Can get a little confusing working with such a large table!) --Another Believer (Talk) 02:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC) I know it should be quite obvious, but there may be merit in describing Thomas Lauderdale as the "Pink Martini founder" rather than "Founder", just to remove any possible ambiguity. Instead, I added Pink Martini to the caption of the image above, then added "The group's..." to Lauderdale's caption. Let me know if you disapprove. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:32, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Is there anything that "video album" could be linked to? That's the term that's confusing me the most, and it's the one of the only ones not linked. "Video album" itself redirects to music video, so I made this the pipelink. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Do the remixes and other versions represent distictly different recordings to their originals? There's no real consensus on this issue, but I'd argue that the remixes are not, strictly speaking, songs recorded by Pink Martini, and would thus fall outside the scope of this list. But, like I say, there's no real consensus either way, so I'll leave it with you. Great questions. I am torn on the issue. For a group with just a handful of remixes / alternate versions, I can see how they might be worth mentioning. But I imagine there are dozens of remixes of songs by popular artists, say Rihanna... surely a list of songs she recorded would not contain 17 versions of one song? I am tempted to leave the information for now, mostly because these tracks appear on studio albums... not singles or remix albums... If, in the future, consensus determines otherwise, the songs could be removed. -Another Believer (Talk) 02:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Note: I have asked A Thousand Doors to revisit this review. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Sorry that I'm only just getting back to you. Just a couple more comments from me: The first sentence of the second paragraph talks about "more original songs". Yet, at this point in the lead, you've not actually mentioned Pink Martini's original songs at all. I'd suggest either mentioning somewhere in the first paragraph how many original songs feature on Sympathique, or else rewriting that sentence. Done. (Listed the three original tracks that appear on the debut album.) --Another Believer (Talk) 23:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Discover the World: Live in Concert is the only album in the lead whose contents you describe in the past tense (i.e. "featured" and "included", rather than "features" and "includes"). Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Mas Que Nada" -> "Mas que Nada" I do not see "Mas Que Nada" anywhere. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Sorry, that should really have been a lower case Q – basically, the "Mas que Nada" in the lead is missing opening quotation marks. Also, I've made a slight punctuation edit here – it may just be a personal preference, but it seemed like there were a lot of parentheses flying around in the lead. Please revert if you don't like the change. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Ohh, ok. I thought you were requesting a change related to capitalization. Your edit works for me! Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Just had a final look over, and there are no other issues that I can see (aside from "Martiniand" -> "Martini and"). Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Support. Nice work and does what is needs to do. Nicely balanced lead covers the main points and the table works well. The only suggestion I would make is for you to consider using {{Tooltip|Ref.|Reference}} for the reference column, but that's entirely up to you (see List of works by H. C. McNeile for the result). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! I was not familiar with the abbr/tooltip template. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support I can't find any problem in this one. Good work! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Great article; no issues! It's great to see song lists finally getting completion (for years, we've just had boring ugly ones that listed every song in bullet form.) Everytime I comment on one of these I always say the same thing, I need to finish mine. Zach 17:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 18:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments – The images could all use alt text. Done. Wow, I am surprised I forgot to include alt text. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC) The lead image now has alt text, but the others don't. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Is there an error with the tool? I added alt text to all of the image. When I click on the "alt text" link in the box at the top of this page, the page does not load as normal. (?) Please see article to view alt text. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC) You didn't put the alt= into the image templates for the non-lead images. This prevents the alt text from showing up. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Ah, thanks! The tool still does not work for me, but I added the alt text command so hopefully all is resolved. --Another Believer (Talk) 04:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC) In the Delgado image, the alt text still isn't showing up. If you capitalized the alt= parameter, it doesn't work; I've seen that in several previous FLC. Not sure if that's the issue, but it's one possibility. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC) The List of songs heading doesn't need the first two words. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC) All caps in ref 11 need removal. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Thank you for taking the time to review this list. Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 22:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment as I've come to expect, a very good list. I would only ask if you could crop the lead image to get rid of the distracting lower half of the crowd? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I am not familiar with uploading images taken by others, except if using the Flickr upload tool, so I replaced the image with a better one. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Nice choice! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:27, 13 April 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 promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [11].

---

List of Call the Midwife episodes

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm probably not the target demographic for this show, but I enjoy it nonetheless. Maybe it's just because I have quite a thing for Helen George ;-) Anyway, I am nominating this for featured list because after a couple of days of work I think it meets the criteria. I'm going to be going on Wikibreak on March 29th, so hopefully things can be resolved by then..... ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

;Some comments: "who in the first episode begins a new job as a midwife" > "who, in the first episode, begins a new job as a midwife" "The programme's regular cast also includes Jenny Agutter, Pam Ferris. Judy Parfitt and Laura Main as nuns" > Change the period after Pam Ferris to a comma. In the episode lists the first column is marked "No." with the information as "1", "2", etc. This seems redundant if the titles for the episodes are simply "Episode 1", "Episode 2", etc. Therefore I think this column could be eliminated. Jimknut (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC) All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bald Zebra (Talk) 15:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments Always had you pegged as a Miranda Hart man myself :) Ah well, on with the show... Check the page for stray hyphens. For example, the Series Overview table uses hyphens in the 'Last Airdate' column where emdashes would be more appropriate. "... the first series' transmission on PBS in the autumn of 2012 drew an average household audience rating of 2.1, equating to 3.0 million viewers." Is there an article about audience ratings that can be linked here, for the benefit of readers outside the US? I'm assuming these are Nielsen ratings. "Jenny is placed on the district nursing roster for a few weeks, to extend her experience of community practice." - no need for a comma here. "...has little patience with her or with her passionate and somewhat lofty desire..." → "...has little patience with her or her passionate and somewhat lofty desire..." "Her first patient is a gentle old soldier, Joe, who is effectively confined to his one-room tenement flat and enjoys Jenny's visits." → "Her first patient is Joe, a gentle old soldier who is effectively confined to his one-room tenement flat and enjoys Jenny's visits." "As the buildings where Joe lives in come up for being condemned..." → "When the buildings where Joe lives in are condemned..." "Cynthia, meanwhile, deals with..." → "Meanwhile, Cynthia deals with..." "Frank, the brother of Peggy, the cleaner at Nonnatus House, is diagnosed with cancer." → "Frank, the brother of Peggy (the cleaner at Nonnatus House), is diagnosed with cancer." "With it being Nurse Lee's first Christmas in Poplar she is put in charge..." → "As it is Nurse Lee's first Christmas in Poplar, she is put in charge..." "Whilst a young teenage girl who is seen helping her mother out with her brothers soon finds herself keeping secret. And when a baby is left on the door of the Convent it soon becomes clear that baby Raymond's mother needs to be found." → "Meanwhile, a young teenage girl who is seen helping her mother out with her brothers soon finds herself keeping a secret, and when a baby is left at the Convent's front door, it soon becomes clear that baby Raymond's mother needs to be found." By the way, who is 'Baby Raymond'? If it's the baby that gets left at the door, the last part of the sentence should be changed to "...it soon becomes clear that the baby's mother needs to be found." "Meanwhile, Trixie and Sister Evangelina find themselves in highly unusual circumstances, aboard a Swedish cargo ship and looking after the captain's daughter..." → "Meanwhile, Trixie and Sister Evangelina find themselves aboard a Swedish cargo ship and looking after the captain's daughter..." "The Nonnatus community is rocked..." → "The Nonnatus residents are shocked..." "The staff deal with a formidable pair of twins, who share a husband..." - no need for the comma here. Cheers, ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 09:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC) All done, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC) You've missed a few hyphens; Episode 11, Series 3, and the title for reference #7. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 09:22, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - all comments resolved, can't see any other issues that would prevent this from being promoted to FL. Nice job! ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 15:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments First sentence of the second lead para runs on a little too much. Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Could find a link for BBC Controller perhaps for our non-UK readers to understand the curiously named position? Added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC) I think TV Choice should be in italics as it's a publication. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC) "of 3 million viewers" -> "three million". Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Series overview table needs row/col scopes per WP:ACCESS. Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC) I know plot synopses sometimes descend into television blurbs, but I just get the feeling stuff like "must draw on all her reserves of skill and courage if Conchita and her premature child are to survive" is just not encyclopaedic... Think I've weeded all that sort of stuff out........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Is "pram" a universally understood word? Link added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC) "in the manner they know best" can we just say what they did rather than allude to it? Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Daily Telegraph is The Daily Telegraph. Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 23 March 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 promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [12].

---

List of colleges and universities in Michigan

Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 02:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I've been wanting to expand this one for a while and finally got around to it. This is my sixth colleges list, but there are inevitably things I usually overlook (hopefully nothing too major), so thanks in advance to FLC's sharp-eyed reviewers! Ruby 2010/2013 02:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Bald Zebra (Talk) 12:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A few comments to kick things off: There seems to be a bit of overlinking in the lead - for instance I don't think you need to link "colleges", "universities", "U.S. state", "governing board", "accredited", "medical schools" or "multiple agencies", as the meaning of these terms would be obvious for most English-speakers. Mostly done (I kept accredited linked because there are different types of accreditation). Ruby 2010/2013 20:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Looks like a good call to me. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 12:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Following on from the first comment (sort of), "baccalaureate colleges" has been linked twice in the first paragraph. It is linked twice for ease of readers -- one says "baccalaureate colleges" and the other says "baccalaureate/associate's colleges". I'm willing to remove the link if you feel strongly however. Ruby 2010/2013 20:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC) I think it'd be best if you did – I don't see the need to have the same link in consecutive sentences, and it seems a bit inaccurate to only have the link to baccalaureate colleges and not associate's colleges. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 12:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Upon removing the link, I think this was a good call. Thanks for the advice! Ruby 2010/2013 23:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC) "The Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, a governing board in place since 1817, oversees the University of Michigan system, which comprises three public universities." → "The University of Michigan system (which comprises three public universities) has been overseen by the Board of Regents of the University of Michigan since 1817." Done Ruby 2010/2013 20:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC) "It is also the oldest post-secondary institution in the state, as it was founded in 1817..." - I think you could remove the comma from this sentence. Done Ruby 2010/2013 20:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC) "20 years" → "twenty years" (to keep it consistent with the numbering style used in the first paragraph) Done Ruby 2010/2013 20:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Clinton Township, Michigan points to a disambiguation page, it should point to Clinton Township, Macomb County, Michigan. Done Ruby 2010/2013 20:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Reference #84 (for St Clair County Community College) seems to be having some server problems at the moment. Is there an alternative source available? Failing that, an archived link would work. Hmmm it's working for me but I archived the link just in case. Ruby 2010/2013 20:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Cheers, ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 10:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing! Let me know if there is anything else. Ruby 2010/2013 20:02, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - prose is good, everything that should be referenced is referenced, tables are clear and well-formatted with no accessibility problems that I can see. Nice job! ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 12:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments " In addition, eighteen institutions " -> " In addition, there are eighteen institutions ..." " University of Michigan–Ann Arbor" this just redirects to the University of Michigan. What does the X in "X Merged into Cornerstone University" mean? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you, as always, for reviewing. I have addressed your concerns. Ruby 2010/2013 03:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC) As ever, you're welcome! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine - Is this correct, or should it be Oakland University's William Beaumont School of Medicine Agree about overlinking in the lede... can we cut it back a little? Otherwise looks good. Be sure to check my copyedits. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:12, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing. Oakland is titled correctly (per their website). The lead's first and second paragraphs don't have excessive overlinking IMO, but I agree that the third has a sea of blue. I can't really take any links out however, as they all pertain to the names of specific schools/accrediting agencies that are useful for readers to click on. Thoughts? Ruby 2010/2013 16:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC) My only suggestion would be to cut down on the names mentioned... i.e., just state the important ones. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC) I've placed the 10 law and medical schools into a note. How does it look now? Ruby 2010/2013 02:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose; sorry it took me so long to get back to you, this page somehow fell off my watchlist. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for reviewing and supporting! Ruby 2010/2013 05:29, 14 April 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [13].

---

Satyajit Ray filmography

Nominator(s): - Vivvt • (Talk) 19:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Satyajit Ray is considered among greatest filmmakers of all time and I am planning to get this list to FL status on the centenary celebration of Indian cinema on 3rd May 2013. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe article satisfies FL criteria. It has gone thru a peer review with the comments from User:Tomcat7, User:Another Believer and User:Crisco 1492. - Vivvt • (Talk) 19:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support per my comments at the PR. Image looks fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support--Tomcat (7) 11:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments "directed a total of 36 films" no need for "a total of". This was changed per one of PR comments. Well, I don't know why you need "a total of", it's redundant. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Done A personal preference, but I would like to see the Producer, music etc columns the same width. Done Don't forget in a sortable table, all linked items should be linked every time. I personally don't prefer having sortability for the tables here but changed per one of the PR comments. Also, though all the links should be linked everytime, here it might fall into WP:OVERLINK as table has almost same data. Let me know if its ok to take the sort out. - Vivvt • (Talk) 19:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Well it won't fall foul of over link as it's commonplace to link every item every time in a sortable table. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Done - Vivvt • (Talk) 23:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Kanchenjungha ->Kanchenjangha. Done "List of films contributed by Satyajit Ray" -> "List of films contributed to by Satyajit Ray" or "List of films with contributions from Satyajit Ray". Done "List of films credited to Satyajit Ray" not really, more "List of films where Satyajit Ray is credited". Done No reason to have the Note(s) column sortable. Done Note b has no full stop but note c does. No reason for this inconsistency. Done Allmovie -> AllMovie. Done Ref 14 should have an en-dash not a hyphen in the title. Done Refs 7, 8 and 10 need an en-dsah in the page range. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 17:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC) I have fixed some all of your concerns. - Vivvt • (Talk) 23:26, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support Appears to meet criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• The references look a little odd, "general" and specific". I'd rather you use those general ones as citations and all in with the references and then the bibliography underneath.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the references layout per your suggestion. - Vivvt • (Talk) 18:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Support Excellent job.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• In the beginning, Satyajit Ray should be unbolded as this isn't the parent article

Done

• The lead is not complete IMO. Apart from Pather Panchali, Apu Trilogy and Ashani Sanket I don't see other films being mentioned. The fact that three of his films submitted by India for Academy Awards (Best Foreign Language Film), the most by any director is not mentioned anywhere.

Three films were just submitted and not even nominated. Again, academy award submission does not add any value to his portfolio. so I don't think it needs any mention here or anywhere else for him. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah but still they are important from an Indian perspective. This has more significance than a film being named by a magazine such as TIME. When that fact is included this could well be accommodated. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• "His Apu Trilogy (1955–1959) appeared in Time's All-Time 100 Greatest Movies" -> His Apu Trilogy (1955–1959) appeared in Time's All-Time 100 Greatest Movies in 2005. A similar list was released just a few months ago. Also this fact should be come before the last para since the last one talks about awards won by himself.

Done. Changed the flow. Also, can you guide to me to the link for recent listing? Content can be then changed accordingly. - Vivvt • (Talk) 13:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Recent listing I don't get what you actually mean —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You said "A similar list was released just a few months ago." I was considering that as a recent listing. Anyway, 2005 is added to the article for better clarity. - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:05, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here is a link —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. - Vivvt • (Talk) 14:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• "Dadasaheb Phalke Award in 1984[23]"; Refs should come after punctuation

I don't see it.

• References should come only after punctuation —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the ref [23] should come at the end of the sentence like 1992.[23][24]? - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Mind you, last three FAs use that format. - Vivvt • (Talk) 14:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

• The Atlantic Monthly -> The Atlantic or The Atlantic (Monthly)

Done

• This being a magazine shouldn't it be in italics —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Missed that. My bad! Done now. - Vivvt • (Talk) 03:32, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ref #9 has no publisher

Done

• publisher=''[[The Hindu]]'' is totally wrong. It should be either work=[[The Hindu]] or newspaper=[[The Hindu]]

Done

• Ref #19 has no author

Done

• Time is a magazine; using {{cite news}} for quoting a material from it seems inappropriate to me
  

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 19:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Done

Resolved comments from indopug (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Indopug: List of films where Satyajit Ray is credited[a 1][a 2][a 3][a 4][a 5][a 6][a 7][a 8]—credited with doing what? (I don't understand that table at all) It lists all the TV series, documentaries made on his film career and films with acknowledging his film making style. This is my only major concern with the article. I don't think several entries in this table are appropriate; a filmography is a list of works by the person: as an actor, director, writer etc. On the other hand, every time you sit for a brief interview, it shouldn't count as part of your filmography. The same goes for acknowledgements and dedications. For eg: the David Lynch filmography FA has no such table. Done. Got your point now. I agree here and made the necessary changes. - Vivvt (Talk) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC) [a 1][a 2][a 3][a 4][a 5][a 6][a 7][a 8]—what is this? Why are there "a"s? Shouldn't The refs they points also have "a"s? Actually No. Please see WP:REFGROUP REFGROUP has a "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet" markup where the refs are a and b, and the footnotes below also show up as a and b. However, in this article, the refs are "a 1" and "a 2", but they show up below (under Filmography, contributions and credits) as "1" and "2". This gets even more confusing because there already is a ref "1" and a ref "2" in that References section, pointing to something entirely different. Done the column full of "himself" is unnecessary. Done no need to specially highlight or centre-align the unknown director cells. Thats part of Template:Unknown and we have no control over it. Ok, then why use the template at all? An italicised Unknown will do the job, and at the same time avoid attracting undue attention to itself unlike the template. Not required now. try to keep all the Yes columns of same width for neatness. Done The first table is also too wide for mobile/tablet screens. You can remove any two or all three of the writer, narrator and distributor columns and put them in other.—indopug (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC). Done. Removed "Narrator" and "Distributor" as these were not his known roles. He was prominently known for his writing so kept "Writer" as is. I have worked on some of your concerns and given explanations for rest of them. - Vivvt • (Talk) 15:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC) One more thing. The lead is supposed to summarise the rest of the article. However, the third paragraph of the lead is about films he didn't make, something not mentioned again in the article. (Not saying you should remove this; just that it's a little unnecessary to me).—indopug (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Added that part specially for Alien which had created a bit of controversy that time. Again, there is no part in the article/list where we can mentioned this as it was not started. Otherwise, it could have been added under "Unfinished/Unreleased projects" like Charlie Chaplin filmography. - Vivvt (Talk) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Let me know if anything else needs to be addressed. - Vivvt (Talk) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support all my concerns have been addressed.—indopug (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment

My concerns were addressed in the peer review process. Again, I am not terribly familiar with filmography standards, nor am I familiar with the subject, but I see no major problems with this list in terms of style, formatting, spelling, etc. I am not sure the languages need to be linked each time, both because of repetition and because commons languages do not need to be linked. I would support the promotion of this list as long as concerns raised by all other reviews are addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Support With all the concerns raised by other users have been resolved, I find no other imperfections in the list. The article meets all the criteria of a FL. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 09:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Great work! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:23, 11 April 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [14].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple

Nominator(s): Another Believer _(Talk) 23:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This list was previously promoted to FL status only to be demoted for failing to meet 3b. However, the list has since been expanded, and because I believe it still meets FL criteria I am happy to re-nominate. (Note: I currently have another list nominated for FL status, but since it has already received four support votes I believe my second nomination is acceptable.) I am happy to address any concerns that may arise during this nomination process. Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Question: How much weight should year-end lists be given? You'll notice that in the "Other recognitions" section, I have included some year-end list rankings for each of her albums. You'll also notice on the article for The Idler Wheel... that the album has actually been placed on many more year-end lists. Perhaps album-specific year-end rankings should be removed from this list of awards and nominations? This would leave other list rankings for select songs of Apple herself (Best Female Performer, etc.) Ideally, would these album-related rankings appear here or on the appropriate album articles? If removed, this would essentially leave the more generic list placements such as "Hottest Album Cover", Academy Award shortlist, etc.--Another Believer _(Talk) 00:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I have removed year-end "best of" list rankings for her albums. What remains are recognitions spanning longer time frames (best of the 2000s, etc.) and other list rankings associated with Apple herself. Pardon me for using this page for my own inner dialogue! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:21, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ruby 2010/2013 20:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments Firstly, well done with this list! Sorry it's taken me so long to look it over. You might think about asking some other editors to review it, as it's been sitting here for a while. I've looked at other musician award FLs for further improvement ideas and came up with a few recommendations: input Apple's main genres (as seen with Any Winehouse) into the first or second sentence and consider adding some information on charting (like with the list on Norah Jones). Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC) It might be worthwhile to include some rankings in the lead (as seen with Alanis Morissette); Idler Wheel for instance was considered the best album of 2012 by several sites [15] [16] (The Guardian had it at 38) and Tidal is listed by Rolling Stone at #60 of the best debut albums of all time. I think the lead could be pushed into three paragraphs with the inclusion of the above information (I have a slight OCD thing with evenly spaced paragraphs). :) But these are merely my thoughts, feel free to disregard! Ruby 2010/2013 18:32, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ruby. I added some chart statistics to the lead, along with a genre (pop rock, according to Allmusic). Her albums have been placed on so many lists, that I think it would be almost arbitrary to select some listings but leave out others... and perhaps those details would be better off in the album articles themselves? Two paragraphs remain in the lead, but they are more evenly weighted, if that helps! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. I support the promotion of this list. The content and prose are solid, and the citations are reliable and correctly formatted. Ruby 2010/2013 20:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

;Comments Support

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All (talk)
The article looks great, but just some small things to take care of :) In the MTV references please add Viacom Media Networks as a publisher as well. And Time Warner for CNN and Entertainment Weekly. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC) In the lead write: 6 → six (WP:MOS) Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Other than these small things, the article is well referenced and written. Great work! – Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Toa Nidhiki05 (talk)

Comments I have an issue with the use of the Allmusic citation to define genre. Allmusic uses the generic pop/rock label for all pop and rock artists, creating the peculiar situation of a death metal band like Children of Bodom being grouped with a pop singer like Katy Perry. Additionally, Allmusic lists far more genres than just indie pop and pop rock. I believe genre should probably just be omitted entirely, save something generic like 'alternative', since the Allmusic citation supports the singer/songwriter claim.</s? I changed it to read "Fiona Apple is an American pop singer-songwriter. Allmusic says "popular alternative" and "pop rock", among others, so I think "pop" is most appropriate. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Prose is excellent. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Can't find much else to fault. Good job here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Support because issues were fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 03:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from - Vivvt (Talk) 16:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Vivvt: "She has released four studio albums:" - a semicolon (;) would be appropriate than colon (:) For a list? I've never seen a list of works followed by a semicolon. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC) "released through Clean Slate Records/Work Records." Need to mention what are these in a word, like record label or something? Not everybody knows them. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC) "(Extraordinary Machine...reached number three)." No need to put them in parenthesis. What would you recommend otherwise? I would prefer to leave as is, but if you feel strongly or if another reviewer agrees. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC) You may want to fork it into another sentence. You can take second opinion on this though. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Added semicolon, since these two sentences go together. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC) "Overall, Apple has received six awards from 23 nominations." I believe her career is not over yet, so you can mentioned till which year. The sentence is in present tense: she "has" received. "She received" would imply an end to her career. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Though you are argument is "grammatically correct", it does not harm if add year to the sentence. I believe, it does not sound deteriorating as well. - Vivvt (Talk) 13:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Sentence now reads: "As of 2013, Apple has received six awards from 23 nominations." --Another Believer (Talk) 16:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Question: If all these awards are prominent and notable, why do they not have articles? - Vivvt (Talk) 03:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Because someone has not started them yet... :) --Another Believer (Talk) 03:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Haha... "Technically correct answer". - Vivvt (Talk) 13:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks for taking time to review this list. Please let me know if you have other comments or remaining concerns. --Another Believer (Talk) 03:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support All of the above issues are fixed. All the best and Good Job! - Vivvt (Talk) 16:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SchroCat (talk)

Comments by Schrocat Billboard Music Video The pre-table blurb refers to "Sleep to Dream" and "Fast as You Can", but neither are linked, although they are linked in the subsequent table. Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC) California Music Awards Similarly, this is the first mention of When the Pawn... outside the lead, but is unlinked in the pre-table blurb (and yet linked within the table). Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC) These are minor points only. The lead reads well and I get a good idea of what is to follow. The only other suggestion I would make is for you to consider using {{Tooltip|Ref.|Reference}} for the reference column (see List of works by H. C. McNeile for the result). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Done. Thanks again! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Support. My very minor concerns all addressed. - SchroCat (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 10 April 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [17].

---

South Africa national women's cricket team record by opponent

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 07:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've nominated a list related to the South Africa women's cricket team, so here we go! I have another nomination open Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of women's Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut/archive1, but it has two supports, and few remaining concerns. I hope that the community will trust in me to cope with the two nominations adequately. This list is based on similar lists from the football world, such as Sheffield United F.C. league record by opponent and Malmö FF league record by opponent. As always, all comments, thoughts and issues appreciated! Harrias ^talk 07:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – "Although the men's national team returned to international cricket in 1991, South Africa women did not compete again until 1997". "the" would be helpful before South Africa here. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I still see this in the lead. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I intended to reply, but forgot to. I don't think the suggestion would make grammatical sense, at least in (cricketing) British English. In internationals, the South African women's team is generally referred to simply as "South Africa women", in the same way as the men's team is generally referred to as "South Africa". If this jars too much grammatically as it is, I think it would need rewriting to something like "Although the men's national team returned to international cricket in 1991, the women's team did not compete again until 1997.." Which although slightly repetitive, should satisfy us both? Harrias ^talk 16:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
      • That would satisfy me. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Ideal. Done. Harrias ^talk 16:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 00:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments– For consistency, unlink South Africa. Done. Harrias talk 12:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Link One Day International on 1st occasion, same for the Tests. Done. Harrias talk 12:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC) You may add a "Total" row in the tables. Done. Harrias talk 12:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Add a template at the end of the list. At the moment there is not an appropriate navigation box, but when there is one, I will add it to the article. Harrias talk 12:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Link CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo on 1st occasion as you did to The Guardian. Done. Harrias talk 12:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Please take a look at Clarke's list if got some time. Zia Khan 04:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Meets the standards. Zia Khan 00:27, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments A Key section is required. Done. Harrias talk 12:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC) There should be a Tie+W and Tie+L column in the T20I table, as it is present in the source. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC) I don't think that those columns are necessary: as there have been no ties (as listed in the table) it is obvious that there will be no Tie+W or Tie+L. If in the future there is one such result, I will add both columns in. Harrias talk 12:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments Link New Zealand and T20Is appropriately in the lead. Done. Harrias talk 14:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Link "Commonwealth Secretariat" in refs Done. Harrias talk 14:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Year of the last match between South Africa and the listed opponent -> Year of the latest match between South Africa and the listed opponent Good spot, done. Harrias talk 14:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC) You could add a note explaining how the win% is calculated on the table Added into the key. Harrias talk 14:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Remove the Total for "first" and "last" columns from the table I disagree on this point; it gives a useful indication of their total span in each format of the game. Harrias talk 14:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Ahhh, I never thought that way! —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC) —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Good work —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 10:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments picky as ever... "They... Their... They..." reads a little dull. Tweaked the first paragraph a bit, any better now? Harrias talk 16:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC) "Since then, the team has played regularly in One Day Internationals (ODI). The introduction of Twenty20 cricket in the early part of the 21st century has all but eliminated Test cricket from the woman's game.[2]" these two sentences feel a little odd together. Maybe there's a way to re-phrase it? Presumably, the main oddity is the jump from talking about ODI cricket to talking about Tests and T20? I was trying to follow a mostly chronological line, but I can try changing things a bit if you think it would help? Harrias talk 16:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC) "South Africa have only played four different sides in women's Test cricket, with their most frequent opponent being England, against whom South Africa have contested six Tests" a touch clumsy for me, maybe something like "South Africa have played four different sides in women's Test cricket, with England their most frequent opponent, having faced them in six Tests"? Not sure, just feels like the sentence there right now is a little too much "follow-on...". Done. Harrias talk 16:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC) "In women's Twenty20 Internationals" - use the abbreviation you've already introduced. But it's such a horrible abbreviation! Done. Harrias talk 16:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC) "They have recorded the most victories..." last team mentioned was West Indies... Tweaked, though now there seems a lot of repetition of "South Africa." In the Key, last five items need an en-dash, not a hyphen. Done. Harrias talk 16:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC) You have a W%, D% and L% for Tests, but just a W% for the other two. You have a Tie and some NRs, so maybe worth considering additional columns for consistency. The source does not include the additional information, so it would sort of be OR (though in reality, it would simply be maths). Irrespective of that, the W% counts a tie as half a win, and disregards NRs, so assuming that a L% in one-day cricket would also count a tie as half, the L% would simply be 100 minus the W%, which I personally think would be redundant. Harrias talk 16:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 8 April 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 10:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [18].

---

List of New Mexico hurricanes

Nominator(s): Yellow Evan (talk · contribs) and Hurricanehink (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this list is very well-done. Twelve months and 25 days ago, my friend Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) wrote a comprehensive list on storms that affect a place when you think hurricane will not go, New Mexico. Shortly after its publication, the author told me on IRC that he was impressed with how much info he found (who IIRC thought about making this article as early as Fall 2011) and thus pressured me into making List of Nevada hurricanes. In April of last year, he offered me a collab of this fine list, which due to lack of interest I declined. Earlier this year, he made a similar proposal of such nomination, of which we nearly got to FLC. However, I got a bit busy in early February and the whole project died of until tonight when it occurred to me I never sent this list to FLC. So, here goes nothing, and yes Hurricanehink is co-noming and yes this is a WP:CUP nomination. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 03:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Yerp. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 16:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

*Comments "The List of New Mexico hurricanes" – List -> list "while only 13 such North Atlantic tropical cyclones are known to have affected the state. " - probably "with only 13 North Atlantic tropical cyclones known to have affected the state" I have not fully exhamined the list, but at first glance the prose appears to be ok. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC) All fixed. Thanks for the review of the lead. YE Pacific Hurricane 13:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support as well.--Tomcat (7) 16:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*Comments from Crisco 1492 Why are you using the simple past tense here? This is not a finalised list, at least not until winds stop blowing or New Mexico is no longer a state... there can still be more. I changed to "there are 65 known." --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC) I'd go present perfect with the first few sentences. "The list of New Mexico hurricanes includes 78 tropical cyclones and their remnants that have affected the inland U.S. state of New Mexico. There have been 65 known tropical cyclones...", for example, as this list is going to be expanded as new storms develop. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Cool, I like it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Canton - Link? Added. YE Pacific Hurricane Other deadly rainfall events from tropical cyclone remnants include Hurricane Dolly in 2008, after which flooding swept away a person along the Rio Ruidoso. - Events? I only see one. Added a second. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Your change seems to have attributed the death not to Dolly as in the original edit, but to Georgette. Which is correct? Revised. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC) The term "were" is certainly incorrect, as the area that is now New Mexico almost certainly was struck by hurricanes or hurricane remnants for which no documentation exists. in the extreme western portion to less than 5% in the eastern portion. - Why not just "west... east"? Done. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC) You've still got the repetitive construct "portion ... portion" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Fixed. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Perhaps note why you've given the division as it is now, and that storm naming only began in the 1970s? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC) I don't see anything odd about the division, and the storm naming began in 1960, not in the 1970s. YE Pacific Hurricane 16:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC) My mistake for the second part. I didn't say anything was wrong with the division, just that it is unclear why you've got all the pre-1970 storms together. A statement as to why would help our readers understand the list better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC) There was no real reason I did that, aside from there not being many storms in the 60s. It could just as easily have 60s split or adding the 70s to the other section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Looks fairly solid, easy enough to follow. You might catch flack from not using a table, but I don't think that list = table. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Awesome, thanks! And it follows the format of other articles (like List of Texas hurricanes (1980–present)). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment — all NCDC links are broken. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
  • What do you think is the best way of sorting them. Replacing the url and switching the template? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 21:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
    • I can't find a replacement url for pre-2000. What should I do? Keep doing what I did for 1996 and 1998? YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Nah, that didn't work. You gotta replace it with the accompanying monthly report - http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/IPS/sd/sd.html --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
        • Okay, I got confused for a sec, I can't do it in school though, so I will worry about it later today. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
          • This appears to be fixed now. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 23:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
• Is there a good reason not to put the bullets into a sortable table with 3 columns (date, name, notes)? Nergaal (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think it works best just as prose, considering how long the descriptions are for some storms. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • What you could do, if you wanted a table, is do something similar to what I did for List of Arizona hurricanes#Storms. I would not encourage changing the existing list/prose into a table. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 20:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments No benefit in turning this into a table. "The list of New Mexico hurricanes includes" not a nice start, would prefer to not have to say "the list of" in the lead to a list. Could be as simple as starting: "Seventy-eight tropical cyclones and their remnants have affected the inland U.S. state of New Mexico since .... " Good call. I'm not a fan of starting with a number, so I started with "The inland U.S. state of New Mexico has experienced the impacts of..." Is that acceptable? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC) On that note, do we have an idea of "when records began", that's not usually stated in these articles but it's useful information. Well, the record goes back to 1949, but there are some storms here before that date. I didn't want to say since any particular time period (there was one storm even before NM statehood). Is that ok? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Hmm, an interesting issue, because quite obviously there would have been hurricanes hit New Mexico before the 20th century, just not recorded.... I know this should have been noted before, but perhaps we need a footnote or something? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC) The EPAC storm track was diffrent 10,000 years ago, and a lot EPAC storms ended up affecting the Western US and BCP as much as the Philpenns gets hit by typhoons. NM is part of the Western US, So, therefore an exact state would be very incorrect. I added the 78 knwon storms affected that state. Is that fine for you? YE Pacific Hurricane 21:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC) " ft3/s " this looks odd to me, if you're not keen on using superscript, then you probably should say "cubic feet per second". Will do. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Ensure all refs meet WP:DASH (e.g. the title of ref 23). Would you mind if I ask how best to comply? I read WP:DASH, but I don't see exactly how would that apply to ref 23. Unless, you mean that it should be a simple -, instead of an endash? Or should it actually be – between the dates? Sorry :/ --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC) No apologies required, I meant the last, numerical ranges like year or date ranges should use an en-dash, not a hyphen. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks, that should be settled :) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Did a few ref fixes that were missed. Juliancolton (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment – Minor point, but ref 6 should be showing up as pp. instead of p. since the citation is to multiple pages. Giants2008 (Talk) 14:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed, thanks for bringing that up. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 16:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - no issues found worth mentioning (some redirects that are benign). Consider archiving your online references via web.archive.org or webcitation.org, so that any future changes or removals of content at those websites do not affect your citations here. --PresN 18:40, 9 April 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 10:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [19].

---

List of current Indian chief ministers

Nominator(s): —indopug (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Nearly five years after my last FLC nom, I bring you a list that, just 30 hours ago, I found looking like this. Since it's a "current" list, sources were easy enough to find; it is in the vein of List of current Canadian first ministers.—indopug (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: this article had a previous FLC. However, since I moved the article to a new name, the FLC doesn't should up on the talk-page's ArticleHistory template. Anybody know what's wrong and how to fix this?—indopug (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I tried doing something; what I have done may not be right thing to do (Was thinking that I was creating a subpage of the talk page). Would request an admin to review it and delete if needed.--GDibyendu (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment. This list by its very nature may become outdated at any time if one of those chief ministers resigns. It will require continues maintenance in the future, and I do not understand how its compliance with the FL criteria will continue to be maintained. Ruslik_Zero 16:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

if a CM resigns and a new one takes his place, the list will simply be updated. Since it will be a major news event, high-quality sources won't be difficult to find. At most it'll take a couple of days before it is done perfectly (ref formatting etc), but for the most part it should be a stable, non-controversial, easy-to-maintain list. Besides the Canadian featured list above is a precedent.—indopug (talk) 21:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Frankly I can not see any real issues. I fixed a dab link. What you may do is linking all the states in the image. "is the de jure head" – the article is probably redundant in such cases. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you!—indopug (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments A little like the States and territories of India article you link, I'd prefer to see "twenty-eight ... and ... two". Is it "chief minister" or "Chief Minister" (like the article you link)? Per my understanding of WP:JOBTITLES, I've used "a chief minister is the head of government" when speaking generally, but "the office of Chief Minister of Jharkhand is vacant" when referring to a specific title. Table headings, no need for Past to be capitalised, similar with Tenure. Done. Should the "(List)" under each state also be "(list)"? Yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Done. Blank cells should be avoided, put an en-dash in there. The blank cells are for unavailable photographs. So, would adding a dash be appropriate as that might imply that a photo is "not applicable"? (for eg: I've used a dash to indicate that a party is N/A in the case of President's rule in Jharkhand) Ah, then for "not applicable" you should use N/A and explain why. For "not available" an en-dash is appropriate. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Done. " these aren't listed " avoid contractions. Ref 1 should be "pp." not "p." as you list multiple pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Done except where noted.—indopug (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Responded to those notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks. I think you missed a question: Should the "(List)" under each state also be "(list)"?—indopug (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC) "All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam" has a green line next to it. Why? It's not shown on the map or in the key as green? There are more of these... The map colours all non-Congress, non-BJP states together as "other parties" (all of which are in power in exactly one state). Otherwise you'd need ten different legends for ten different parties, several of which have highly similar official-colours, making their identification on the map difficult anyway. The table, on the other hand, lists each party alongside a band of its official colour. In short: the colours in the table and the map are mostly unrelated; the legend applies to the map alone. I can't think of a better way of doing this, though I'm open to suggestions. But the colours are therefore irrelevant in the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC) The colours in the legend don't apply to the table (which is why it is inside the map's caption), but I don't think colours are superfluous or irrelevant in the table. They provide a quick visual indicator of the party, esp for those familiar with the colours, and increase the article's visual appeal (5a). But only to people that understand the colours, alternatively you can add the colours and appropriate symbology to a key so all readers can enjoy the benefits. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC) I propose to move the map to the bottom and heavily enlarge it. In the lead I would add an image of a significant person. I guess then there will be no confusion. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC) @Tomcat7: The reason the map is not enlarged or clickable is that it isn't the focus of this article (I want to avoid feature creep), nor does it really it contribute to readers' understanding of this article. If somebody wanted to know which state was which, we have other articles for that. Due to the nature of this article, there's no one significant person whose image I can add to the lead. It will surely lead to partisan bickering of the "why this guy but not that guy?" nature. @The Rambling Man: but isn't a key for the table redundant because the party's colour always accompanies the party's name? (so even colour-blind readers aren't really disadvantaged). If the existence of colour bands itself is confusing, I've added an explanatory note. That said, if you still feel a key is necessary, I will definitely add one.—indopug (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Well unless those colours are used elsewhere, e.g. in the map, I'm not sure of their relevance. Where is the "official colour" of each of these parties defined? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Turns out Indian parties don't have official colours (there are quite a few strong affiliations though—BJP with saffron, red with communists etc). I will thus add a key to prevent any confusion.—indopug (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Done. Added colour-key based on list of uk pms.—indopug (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Note this nomination appears to have stalled. Suggest the nominator contacts relevant projects or editors who may be interested in reviewing this for FLC, or else we should archive the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Support
• "Given he has the confidence of the assembly, the chief minister's term is for five years; the office is subject to no term limits." I did not understand that "office is subject to no term limits" part. What does it mean? CM can change, but CM's office staffs cannot?

• Clarified.

• "At present, the office of Chief Minister of Jharkhand is vacant..." Instead of "at present, it should be "As of ..."

• Reworded slightly differently to prevent two dates in the sentence, "As of April 2013, . . . since January 2013".—indopug (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• The list itself looks pretty good, and I am leaning to support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:47, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Diffs. Thanks for your comments and kind words.—indopug (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support I... don't really have anything. Not sure why this nomination stalled out for so long. Consider archiving your online references using web.archive.org or webcitation.org, so that any changes or removal of content at those sites don't affect the citations in this article. --PresN 23:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!—indopug (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• SupportComment Please correct the colour coding of Sikkim Democratic Front, which is not matching with the Legend. All other seems perfect and match the criteria for a FLC. Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 08:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Good catch! Fixed.—indopug (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: On the FLC for National Film Award for Best Actress, images were asked to be removed as all entries did not have images. Won't that apply here as well? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see the merit in doing that, especially when we have so many of the CMs' images already (20 out of 30). Further, there's no reason that free images of the remaining ones won't turn up; they are highly visible public figures after all. For eg: I've been searching Flickr a lot lately, and have been moderately successful at getting photographers to release their works for free.

FWIW, I think the article you linked didn't suffer for missing a few images and that they shouldn't have been removed during FLC.—indopug (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please take my comments very casually. I was just pointing out the difference as i was under the wrong impression that completeness is something we require for FA/FLs. I understand that such points can be (intentionally/unintentionally) missed. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 15:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Good job. Zia Khan 16:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

thank you!—indopug (talk) 05:57, 11 April 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 promoted by The Rambling Man 10:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [20].

---

List of roller coaster rankings

Nominator(s): Astros4477 (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... it meets all the criteria and has already gone through a nomination.Astros4477 (talk) 04:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Tallest and Longest wooden coasters sections are both missing record-holders for the 90's. Rmhermen (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

There are notes in the chart titles. Look here.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The lead says that the list shows the record holders - but apparently it only shows the still-standing record holders? What is the point of the list? The record holders - or the current standings? Rmhermen (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Well we can't put current per WP:RELTIME.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

We could potentially put these cases in the tables and just have another colour similar to the way coasters under construction are handled. The rank column could then have *** or something. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I really like that idea. I think the tables should just stay current, with notes about gaps in the years. If you include defunct roller coasters, the lists could get very long in some areas.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

The current format of the notes are small and easily missed (as evidenced by Rmhermen's comment). I propose having them listed more clearly similar to the layout found at the featured list, Grade I listed buildings in Bristol, and place them next to the name of the roller coaster where any gap in time begins or ends. In Tallest wooden roller coasters, for example, you could have note #2 next to Mean Streak and note #3 next to Colossos. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree they are small and easily missed but I don't know if that's the best place for them. I understand what you're saying but it doesn't seem right to have a note about The Rattler, connected to Mean Streak.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not really following. The note is more about the record than anything else, and it does affect Mean Streak in the way that its record was taken away by The Rattler in March 1992. To me, it makes sense to place it there. However, if that spot really bothers you, it can alternatively be placed next to the date range in the "Record held" column in the same row. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I've tried playing around with them but everywhere I put them, they don't look good. They might look better if we moved the image or created a gallery like Indopug suggested.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

A couple of quick comments

• I think listing "Park, city, state, country" under Location makes the tables far too wordy. I recommend listing the Park and the Country in separate columns. Further information about location can be obtained by going to the park article.—indopug (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Would it be ok if we just had Park and Country in the same column?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I recommended splitting because readers might be interested in sorting by country. On that note, I think you should make the tables sortable, which is possible by deleting that ref column and moving the ref somewhere else (the "Tallest steel roller coasters" header? One of table headers like "Height"?)

If this isn't possible, what you suggested is fine.—indopug (talk) 10:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• After taking a long, hard look at the layout, I have to admit that splitting the location into two columns seems like a great idea. We can then move the ref to the table header as proposed and convert each list to a sortable one. Not only will this add clarity, but having the ability to sort by park or country would be very useful in my opinion.--GoneIn60 (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• It is possible to have both: a ref column and sortable tables. You just need to add !class="unsortable"|Ref(s) as the column header. I'd be fine with having location and country columns. If we leave the city and state information though, it will cause the tables to be quite wide forcing wrapping to occur (which I dislike; at the moment for me the first table contains wrapping and doesn't look as neat as the second which doesn't). Themeparkgc  Talk  22:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• So I'll remove the city and state and separate the park and country into two columns. I'll do it sometime this weekend.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
•  Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Is having the bolded sentence in the middle of the lead acceptable by our Manual of Style? Does it allow self-referential wording like "This is a list..." I used to work on discographies, and it was prohibited there.—indopug (talk) 14:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
  • "This is a list..." has been added and removed several times since I've worked on this article. Someone will come along and not like it then someone else says it should be there. We should probably decide and keep it that way.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
    • I believe the self-reference is fine. Per WP:SELF, "...while articles may refer to themselves, they should not refer to "Wikipedia" or to the Wikipedia project as a whole (e.g. "this website")". Also this featured list seems to reference itself more than once in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• But does it make for good prose? You could easily replace "This list of roller coaster rankings summarizes..." with "Roller coasters are ranked by height..." to avoid the self-ref and improve the language. Also, I feel the bold-text draws the eyes abruptly to the middle of the paragraph, instead of the beginning.—indopug (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Further

• There seems to be a lot of redundant code—what do scope="row" and scope="col" do?
  • They are required in all Featured Lists per WP:ACCESS and MOS:DTT.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• The no's under the Rank column should be centred, using align="center".
  • I don't think so... They used to be centered but they were asked to be removed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• Don't think the Poll rankings section is appropriate for this article. The rest of it is based on objective stuff—heights, angles—but here we have subjective opinion polls. Further, the fact that you only list the latest ranking seems to be WP:RECENTISM.
  • I don't think that applies because it's not changed on a daily, weekly or even monthly basis.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
• If the tables continue to wrap even after removing state & city, I suggest moving the pics from the right and putting in galleries of four/five in the middle of page, in between successive tables.

Advice: if you are going to be moving lots of text around repetitively, I recommend using find-and-replace to get it done in a jiffy. For eg: this edit took me a couple of seconds as I did a replace-all for "Ref(s)" with "Ref".—indopug (talk) 15:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments – The Record held columns should be sorting by date, not by the first letter of the month as they are now.  Done – Thanks for the feedback. The column now sorts based on start date of each record. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Longest wooden roller coaster drops: Number 10 isn't sorting properly. There are sort templates that fix such numbering issues. This is also an issue for Fastest wooden roller coasters and Tallest vertical loops.  Done --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Fastest steel roller coasters: Number 5's country is included with the park name, throwing the whole table off.  Done --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Steepest steel roller coasters: Photo here could use alt text.  Done-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC) All caps in ref 48 need fixing.  Done-- Astros4477 (Talk) 23:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Ref 47 needs a publisher. And what makes this a reliable source? It looks like somebody's personal website. Replaced ref.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Publisher of refs 73–80 (Amusement Today) should be italicized as a printed publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)  Done-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

CommentsThere is a lot of great information in this list. However, I went through table by table and found that the majority would not allow me to sort by column as suggested by the up/down arrows. Sometimes the reference numbers in the far left column would move.

• Tallest steel roller coasters – Does not work.
• Longest steel roller coaster drops – Does not work.
• Tallest wooden roller coasters – Does not work.
• Longest wooden roller coaster drops – Does not work.
• Fastest steel roller coasters – Does not work.
• Fastest wooden roller coasters – Does not work.
• Longest steel roller coasters – Does not work.
• Longest wooden roller coasters – Does not work.
• Steepest steel roller coasters – Works (but the Maximum vertical angle column is not sorting properly (probably requires a hidden key to sort).

 Done --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Steepest wooden roller coasters – Works.
• Tallest roller coasters inversions – Works.
• Tallest vertical loops – Works.
• Most inversions on a steel roller coaster – Does not work.
• Most inversions on a wooden roller coaster – Works.
• Top 10 steel roller coasters of 2012 – Does not work.
• Top 10 wooden roller coasters of 2012 – Does not work.
• Best Steel Roller Coaster Poll 2010 – Does not work.
• Best Wooden Roller Coaster Poll 2012 - Does not work.

I haven't seen comments about most of the tables not sorting, so I wonder if it's something recent (or a problem with my browser)... Thanks - Godot13 (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

It is definitely something recent, as I know for a fact it was working fine in this revision. However, even in that revision I'm having trouble now, which is really strange to me. In testing, I can say that removing the rowspan setting in either the rank or reference columns resolves the issue. Apparently, since this issue started, you can't have more than one rowspan parameter nested in a sortable table (and actually, MOS:TABLES says you shouldn't use rowspan at all). --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well is there any solution? Could we take out the sortability?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The only three options are to remove sorting (obviously), remove the rowspan parameter from all entries in the Rank column, or remove the rowspan parameter from all entries in the Ref column. Personally, I'd go the third option, but it doesn't really matter much to me. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Another possible option is using a Hidden Key --Godot13 (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably the main source for that issue is the fact that you use rowspan in the Ref columns. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll remove the rowspan in the refs column if everyone agrees that's the best option.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 04:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

A side-by-side table format where the ref column is actually it's own table may be the ultimate workaround, but so far I haven't been able to get it to look right (though I know it's possible). For now, taking out rowspan in the Ref column gets my vote. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I did it for the first table. Does that solve the problem? I don't want to do it to them all unless I know that's the solution.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I have it fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 02:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorting issues appear resolved. --Godot13 (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

So can you change it to support? :)-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:03, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: First off, apologies for the long delay in revisiting. I'm glad that the list has improved since FLC. That said, I'm afraid I can't support because of the presence of the Poll rankings section. There are two reasons for my opposition to the section:

1. Why confuse an otherwise-objective article with a subjective section? (to provide an analogy—notice how a music-artist's discography and awards articles are separate; it's because their scopes are entirely different)

• Although I disagree because the list is about roller coaster rankings and those are rankings, I have removed it.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Is mixing objective and subjective material discouraged? The acceptable format for media and technology, for example, uses a Reception section for subjective content in an otherwise objective article. Are lists treated differently? --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Nearly ever rollercoaster in this list has its own article; there, as you say, you would deal with the subject comprehensively—include both subjective objective info. On the other hand, a list of items has to have a defined scope (see WP:FL? 3a), and it's crucial that we don't confuse that scope.
• Besides having the opinion polls raises a number of questions: why only mention these particular polls? Were they conducted scientifically? Do the polls reflect a worldwide view or a US-only one? When the rest of the article is about "all-time" rankings (for eg, tallest-ever wooden rollercoaster), is it consistent for the opinion polls to be only from the latest year?—indopug (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

2. Why do only the latest year's ranking get mentioned? (why is one from 2010?)—indopug (talk) 12:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That particular poll was on a hiatus for two years. He conducted the poll again last month for the first time so the results should be out within a few weeks.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Support All my concerns have been addressed.—indopug (talk) 13:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Support My concerns have been addressed.--Godot13 (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments (sorry for the delay) " took thrill-seeking riders " reads a little like a brochure, not particularly encyclopedic. Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC) "inversions", what are these? Is there a decent link you could use for it? Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Are you sure the XL–220 needs an en-dash instead of a hyphen (per the article). It shouldn't be an en-dash, I'll fix it.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC) "it ushered in" bit journalistic again, would try to stick to encyclopedic tone. Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC) "418 ft or 127 m" etc. Seems a little odd to me, most other lists would have "418 ft (127 m)", just as you do in the lead. I'm not entirely sure why this was done. I'll leave a note on the users page that added that format.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC) I altered the display of the convert formula because that is what I had seen in other tables (not necessarily those in FLs). In tables I personally think the "or" display looks better. In saying that I don't really mind if it is removed. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC) "or" looks a bit odd to me and inconsistent with pretty much all of our featured lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC) I think the N/A for records should sort below the "lowest" in each case, because sorting by the most recent, you have loads of N/As and then the actual most recent record holder. How do I do that?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:04, 15 March 2013 (UTC) You need to understand the {{sort}} template and its friends. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) I'm having trouble getting it to work with the N/A template.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC) I don't think you need a column for refs when most tables have a single reference used on every line, you could have something simple like "Source: ..." after each table to avoid all those repeated refs. "149.1 mph or 240.0" while all other speeds are given the nearest whole number... be consistent. Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC) "Inside Top Hat" why the over-capitalisation? Similarly "Vertical Loop"? And "Cobra Loop"? Fixed.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC) "Wooden roller coasters" the Record column is blank, shouldn't it be N/A? What section are you talking about?-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:20, 15 March 2013 (UTC) You've fixed it. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) "2000 – 2006" -> "2000–06" per WP:DASH and WP:YEAR. In fact, it should probably be "from 2000 to 2006". Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC) I'm not entirely sure Category:Lists of amusement parks is correct, since this is list of rides, not parks. I think it should be either that or Category:Amusement park rides lists. I like how it is now though.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC) No, it should be what you said above. It's not really about what you like I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC) I have responded to and addressed all comments.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Remove spaces between text and references please. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2013 (UTC) Done.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 20:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment – Can this list be moved to ...records instead of rankings? Nergaal (talk) 19:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure can, probably a good idea too. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have performed the move; I agree.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 19:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'd actually like to get more of a consensus before it is moved again.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 14:31, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Since we are more likely to make references to the phrase "world record" as opposed to "world ranking" in the articles, I do not oppose the change. However, at the same time, it seems like a wash. Both terms seem to fit well. In addition, the current prose in the lead section already uses a form of ranking and should probably be modified if the page is moved. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I personally would like to see it stay as is because it's not about all the records. It kinda seems to be an unnecessary change.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 18:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Note this nomination appears to have stalled. Suggest the nominator contacts relevant projects or editors who may be interested in reviewing this for FLC, or else we should archive the nomination. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

How has it stalled? It's received reviews from 5 users.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 21:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It needs support, not just reviews. Otherwise it'll be archived as having no consensus to promote. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Why didn't you or Giants give it a support? I resolved your comments so what else is there? I'd hate to nominate this a third time, especially when not one user has opposed it in both nominations.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 13:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Because either of us may have to close the nomination and it's not great for conflicts of interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Note – I'll be having a look at this FLC within the next day. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support – other than a minor fix I made, everything looks good to go. Meets FLC criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input Bloom6132, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 8 April 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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC) [21].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Aravinda de Silva

Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 18:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 18:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Link balls  Done
• That's it... seems the other nomination got much of it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support on prose. Looks fine. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support – per the previous nomination —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 00:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments— ....in an eight and a half hours innings.[4] → perhaps "....in an eight-and-a-half-hours innings.[4]"  Done ...when he scored 138 and 103 not out in the second... → may be "...when he scored 138 and 103 – not out in both innings – in the second..."  Done ..and it was also the first World Cup century made by a Sri Lankan.[15] needs rewording.  Done 10th fastest Test Cricket Double Century → tenth fastest double century in Test cricket  Done Not done, remove unnecessary capitalisation. Link London in the table.  Done Zia Khan 20:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC) In the key it should be "Man of the Match"  Done It should be De Silva in the notes not "Silva", also Younus Khan has 21 tons to his name.  Done Zia Khan 03:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Meets the standards. Zia Khan 00:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from - Vivvt • (Talk) 01:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Vivvt: There is an extra space for "103 – not"  Done Link "not out". Could be a jargon for non-cricket follower.  Done You may want to link "highest ODI total"  Done Header and caption for "Key" is same. See if you can change it.  Done Do you want to change the verbiage? "below tables" does not sound good to me. - Vivvt • (Talk) 14:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC) I have removed below. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 14:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Otherwise looks good. - Vivvt • (Talk) 14:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support All of the above issues are fixed. All the best and Good Job! - Vivvt • (Talk) 14:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• Wisden should be italicized in the first paragraph.  Done
• I would remove "national cricket team" from the last sentence of the lead, piping it to read only Bangladesh.  Done
• Ref 1 should probably have the ESPNcricinfo link instead of ref 3, as it is the first one that uses that site.  Done Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Nice work. --Carioca (talk) 20:25, 5 April 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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC) [22].

---

BBC Sports Unsung Hero Award

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it now meets the "minimum entries" unwritten rule (of ten) and complements all the other FLs within this existing featured topic. I'm nominating on behalf of User:Rambo's Revenge who is absent right now, in an attempt to stop the currently featured topic being demoted. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - the lead variously makes reference to the six and seven winners to date - as you state, there have actually been ten........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh shucks. I suppose I should have read the list more thoroughly....!! Will look at shortly.... The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I think I've dealt with that glaringly obvious issue, would you be kind enough to have a look at the rest of it now? Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
    • "Of the ten recipients to date, three were chosen for their contributions to football; the other recipients contributed towards boxing, swimming, and the Special Olympics could do with updating (only adds up to six), as could Three of the ten winners have been put forward from the BBC South region and two from the BBC East region. The other winners came from the BBC London, BBC West Midlands and BBC Wales regions" (only adds up to eight). Other than that I can't spot any issues...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
      • Tsk, must learn to read...! Thanks, fixed that. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
        • The first part's still not quite right........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, well as I said, reading isn't my specialist subject! Fixed, I hope, I didn't add "various" into the lead, but lead should cover it generally speaking!! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• The two other tables are redundant since the column sorting system does the job and there are no significant numbers that require more than a few seconds to be counted.--Tomcat (7) 11:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well they're consistent with all the other lists in the topic, and since they do no harm, I don't see the big deal. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - can't see any issues now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Everything looks good to me. Miyagawa (talk) 14:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Athletics is a dab page
• Perhaps find a way to explain that "Nat." means "Nationality"?
• Otherwise that's it. I've copyedited. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Fixed those, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support on prose. No images to check. Looks peachy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – Don't need two association football links in the lead. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Quite so, thanks, fixed now. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 31 March 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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC) [23].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Michael Clarke

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Zia Khan 21:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Australian cricketer played some memorable innings during 2011 and 2012, so Zia Khan created and worked on the list. He feels that the list is now ready to appear at FLC. Also, it'll be a great pleasure for him to work with The Rambling Man as a co-nominator. As always, look forward to your comments/suggestions. Zia Khan 21:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 20:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments – "he has played 85 Tests and 221 ODIs for Australia scoring 7,257 and 7,375 runs respectively." Needs a comma before "scoring", I think. "ESPNcricinfo described that Clarke...". This would be a better read if "described" was changed to "wrote" or similar. "He was named by Wisden as of their Wisden Cricketers of the Year in 2000." First, this needs "one" after "as". Second, maybe the latter Wisden can be dropped so there aren't two of them in such close proximity. Key: Minor, but the photo caption here could use a comma before "at". Note 2: "the" needed before "hundredth" and "seventh". Giants2008 (Talk) 22:32, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Fixed all! Zia Khan 00:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Commenting on lede alone Since he isn't the captain for T20I team you could add a note saying that he leads only the Test and ODI side Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 20 March 2013 (UTC) In the infobox you've linked everything except Australia Unlinked all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC) For the quote attribution must be given to the author rather than ESPNcricinfo Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Period should come within quotation as it's a part of the quoted material; also suggest you to include "Clarke" with in the quote Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC) "one of their cricketers of the Year" -> why is "Y" in Year capitalised Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC) the highest score in an innings -> the highest individual score in an innings As you like. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC) between the teams is unnecessary Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC) seventh Test captain, test repetitive Not sure, given your first comment. No harm in clarifying it. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC) You've already clarified saying that it was the 100th Test hosted by SCG —Vensatry (Ping me) 02:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Not sure you saw this comment —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Well I have to say the facts are separate, one is about the number of tests at the SCG, the other is about captains scoring triple centuries. I see no issue here. Better to be verbose than ambiguous. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Fair enough —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Linking cricket ground is unnecessary to me, though others might have different views Will leave it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC) including eight at venues outside Australia -> including nine at venues outside Australia Forgot to mention that I fixed this too. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC) Ref #14 doesn't really support the claim Ref 15 does. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) "He has scored Test centuries at thirteen cricket grounds" is neither supported by any of the refs. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Are you cryptically trying to tell me it should be 15? The number maybe wrong but the sources certainly back up the quote. Number fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Ref #15 is for his "nine at venues outside Australia". Don't know what's the use of ref #14 (It links to centuries at home venues) —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Yes, so it references a total of 15 grounds? 9 away, 6 at home.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Which one references 15 grounds? What's the use of ref #14. You get to understand what am saying? —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Combined, they reference the "15 grounds". Add 9 away (ref 15) and 6 at home (ref 14). Alternatively, remove the references altogether from the lead and leave it to the list itself which has individual references for matches that are home/away. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC) Ahhh, that will confuse the reader for sure. I'd suggest you to go for specific refs. for all claims or remove them as they can be verified in the table —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Well I didn't think it was that confusing, a home list and an away list. But never mind, I've replaced it with a single source. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC) That'll do —Vensatry (Ping me) 02:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC) His highest ODI score is 130 runs against India at the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium, in 2002 -> His highest ODI score is 130 runs against India at the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium, in 2007 Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) The last sentence needs to be rephrased Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC) —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the comments Vensatry. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC) More comments (re-visit) I don't think the No. column needs to be sorted, as we have a separate column for date I don't see this as a huge deal, but I'll unsort it just for you. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC) It was just a suggestion. You may apply sortability for that column too —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC) It's fine. It's done. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Sorry to disagree, but I do believe the No. column should be sortable. I was fiddling with the columns and wanted to return to it's original state, but could not. I later realized they were chronological, but I can see others having the same issue. Mattximus (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC) He has never scored a Test century batting at no. 4 Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Inn. for his second Test hundred is 2 Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC) The values of Inn. and Pos. for his second ODI ton are interchanged Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC) —Vensatry (Ping me) 02:33, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks again Vensatry, good spots all of them. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support – No issues for me —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• There is no need to write ESPNcricinfo Staff in ref 20 since the field is only used when the author's name is specified. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• Removed. Zia Khan 20:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*seventh-equal - Huh? Two people share seventh place... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Why not just seventh (equal with Justin Langer)? Google sees almost nothing for "seventh-equal" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC) That is a terrible image. Do we have anything else? No image would be better than... that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2013 (UTC) I don't think there is really, many of him playing shots (at a distance) but no better mugshot. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC) We could crop something. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC) I'll happily adopt any solution you can provide. I'm not so opposed to the current image. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 31 March 2013 (UTC) He's the batsman here and here, right? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC) I think this would be a bit more acceptable. Not FP quality, but at least it's not blurry at thumbnail size. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Switched. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Looks fine, both images are free (FOP in Aus for the stadium) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 06:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Everything looks fine to me, but I have one tiny suggestion - consider replacing the 'current' dates in the first and second paragraphs with {{Today (dmy)}} and/or {{Monthyear}}; this should update the statements automatically, rather than having someone manually update them every so often. ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 08:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That's a good suggestion, but I look at it from the other point of view which is that the list will be accurate no matter what. If the template continually updates but the list isn't updated, the list will not be accurate. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support: I'm worried; I have no comments to make at all. Most disturbing. Good work! Harrias ^talk 13:41, 4 April 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 promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC) [24].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Mohammad Azharuddin

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Another centuries list, this time about the former Indian captain. I remember watching Azhar as a senior person playing alongside Tendulkar, Ganguly, Dravid and Kumble—all of them seem to have overshadowed his achievements. If anyone comes across a free image of Azhar, it would be highly appreciated! Look forward to your constructive comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Howzat! Resolved comments from Bald Zebra (Talk) 14:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments Here's a few comments to get the ball rolling. (see what I did there?) There's one picture of him at Commons (File:Mohammad Azharuddin Sangeeta Bijlani.jpg) - different versions of this picture have been used on his article and a few others. Will try to upload a new version of the file before using it here —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC) "He was the first cricketer to cross 9000 runs..." → "He was the first cricketer to score 9000 runs..." Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC) "...remained the leading run-scorer until retirement." → "remained the leading run-scorer until his retirement." Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC) "Azharuddin was named the Indian Cricket "Cricketer of the Year"..." → "Azharuddin was named by Indian Cricket as their "Cricketer of the Year"..." Doesn't make a big difference. The next sentence follows the same pattern —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC) "Azharuddin made his Test and ODI debuts during the 1984–85 tour of England." → "Azharuddin made his Test and ODI debuts during England's 1984–85 tour of India." Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC) "Reaching his century in 62 balls,[15] In a match winning effort, Azharuddin set the record for the fastest century in the format.[16]" → "Reaching his century in 62 balls,[15] Azharuddin set the record for the fastest century in the format. [16]" (it also looks as though these two references should be swapped around - #15 is the list of fastest centuries and #16 is the match scorecard) Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC) "His highest score of 153 not out was achieved in the later part of his career against Zimbabwe; he was involved in a record partnership of 275 with Ajay Jadeja." → "His highest score of 153 not out was achieved in the later part of his career in a match against Zimbabwe, during which he was involved in a record partnership of 275 with Ajay Jadeja." Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Just a general query (and I may be wrong on this, so bear with me!) - in the two tables, why is the Score column rendered as the row header? Would it be better to have the century number as the header instead? Similar lists are modeled like that —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Reference #4 has a hyphen in the title, please change this to an endash. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Cheers, ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 14:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Nice job. Just a couple more minor points: "As of March 2013..." - consider replacing the month and year with {{Monthyear}}; this should update this statement automatically and save anyone the job of having to manually update it every month. "Azharuddin photographed in 2009." → "Azharuddin photographed in 2009" (as the caption is a short 'noun phrase' description rather than a full sentence, the full stop (period) isn't needed here, according to WP:CAPTION) Replaced with a complete sentence —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC) "Azharuddin scored his maiden Test century at the Eden Gardens and went on to score four more centuries till the end of his career at this venue." → "Azharuddin scored his maiden Test century at Eden Gardens and went on to score four more centuries at this venue." "...when Sachin Tendulkar overtook the feat" → "...when Sachin Tendulkar overtook his total" (or perhaps "...when Sachin Tendulkar overtook his score") Cheers, ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 12:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC) All done and thanks for your comments —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - all comments resolved, all criteria appear to have been met, this list is a good all-rounder! ★ Bald Zebra ★ ^talk 14:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments Link batsman first time. "9000" vs "8,648" comma consistency! Should link Test cricket first time of the use of "Test". " a century of 74 balls " perhaps "a century from 74 deliveries"? " has the fifth highest number" you said "joint-fifth" in the lead. "after his debut" his ODI debut? Given the fact that he made both his Test and ODI debuts during the same tour, I don't think it's needed. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Test 19 sorts out of order when sorting by score. If you're using, surely you should be using Vadodara? Retrieved dates should have consistent format. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC) Fixed all —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• The first para should have a sentence about the life-ban imposed on him, and possibly the decision of the High Court to lift the ban. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:00, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Does that stuff really matter in these type of lists? —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
    • A life-ban is a major thing in any cricketing career. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 06:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 20:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments – In Tests, he made centuries against all nations except the West Indies and Zimbabwe. At that time!! Not against Bangladesh so the sentence should be rephrased. Added a note for clarity —Vensatry (Ping me) 20:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC) The following year, he scored 108 in a man-of-the-match... → Which year?? You've not mentioned the year in the previous sentence. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 20:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Reaching his century in 62 balls,[15] Azharuddin set the record for the fastest century in the format.[16] → Which is definitely not a record at the moment, so it should be mentioned. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 20:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC) ''later part of his career in a match against Zimbabwe.. → No need of in a match, I guess Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 20:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC) Link BBC and ESPNcricnfo at 1st instances. Zia Khan 01:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC) BBC is already linked. —Vensatry (Ping me) 20:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC) BBC is linked twice! Zia Khan 16:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Pardon me, but I could not find it. —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC) Why are publishers for refs 1 and 2 different? Zia Khan 19:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support– Meets the standards. Zia Khan 19:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

On the whole a good list, as I've come to expect.

• I agree with Zia Khan's comment about Bangladesh; a note would probably suit best, something like "Bangladesh, now a Test playing nation, did not begin playing Test cricket until seven months after Mohammad Azharuddin's final Test appearance."
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
• I think that given the ban was what finished Azharuddin's career, it is certainly worthy of mentioning in the first paragraph; without that ban, he might have gone on to score more centuries, after all. Indeed, I think the current use of "..until his retirement." is misleading; he did not retire, he was banned; unless the various articles have given me completely the wrong impression.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 20:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• "He scored a century in his last Test innings against South Africa in March 2000." Place "against South Africa" inside a pair of commas, otherwise the sentence gives the impression it was the last time he played Test cricket against South Africa, but that he could have played against other sides after that time.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 20:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• I think (I might have miscounted, but I did count twice) that he is joint twenty-fifth, not twenty-sixth.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 20:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• As Zia Khan alludes to above, although he mention his debut ODI century was two years after his debut, you don't specify in which year he made his debut.

• Just mentioned that his ODI debut was mentioned in the prior paragraph, sorry. Still might be best to making it a little clearer though! Harrias ^talk 13:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

• Given that Kolkata was officially named Calcutta until 2001, and his appearances all pre-date that, I think that Calcutta should be used in the list. Similarly for centuries made in Chennai/Madras prior to 1996. Not so sure about Bombay/Mumbai, which I think is a less clear-cut case.
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 20:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Test century #7, at Faisalabad, should presumably be listed as "Away". Harrias ^talk 13:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 20:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• BCCI should be spelled out in the lead. Non-cricket fans like myself aren't going to know what this stands for at first glance.
• "In a career that spanned for 15 years". Remove "for"?
• "during the England's 1984–85 tour of India." Remove "the".
• Period needed at the end of note 4. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
  • All done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:01, 7 April 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 promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC) [25].

---

List of Major League Baseball pitchers with 18 strikeouts in one game

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past few months and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comments Couple of questions. First, does fn 'a' really serve a purpose? It has cites, but nothing to do with the 18 strikeout line it's alluding to. Second, could you link to extra innings at some point in the extra innings section? Also, a more general note, but both fn 'a' and the explanation of why the extra innings list is separate feel slightly conversational. So happy to see this, I assume (given the 'in one game' title that you used List of Major League Baseball hitters with four home runs in one game at least in part as a model? Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• The fn is meant to explain why 18 Ks was chosen as the number. I previously got comments on the article's talk page and my own talk page as to why the cutoff point is 18, as opposed to 17 or 19. It's basically to help people who aren't familiar with baseball to understand how 18 Ks equals ~2⁄3 of a game. Second point—linked extra innings in section. And your four HRs list wasn't only the model; it's the clear inspiration for this list and my recently promoted 2 grand slams FL as well. Someone had to start somewhere and get the ball rolling, so thank you for that! —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Last thing, the Bob Feller picture's alt text could use some work. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• I tell a lie, another bit. Could you provide a text footnote for Randy Johnson's extra inning game? For an inexperienced reader it might be odd to see "9 IP" for a game listed under the extra-innings section. Just something brief like "Although the game went into extra innings, Johnson was relieved by another pitcher after just nine innings." Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments from Crisco 1492 to date - replace with As of 2013, or As of March 2013, or some other specific and non-relative date, to ensure verifiability Done. Utilized "...as of 2013". —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC) For the note about strikeouts, perhaps note that these 18 of 27 strikeouts were also made by the same pitcher, as pitchers can change during games Done. Stated "...were made by a single pitcher..." —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC) thirteen were right-handed and five pitched left-handed - a link to a relevant article about handedness in baseball? No. The closest articles related to handedness are Left-handed specialist and Switch pitcher. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Otherwise looks peachy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review! —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Looks pretty good! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – I'm a bit concerned about the scope of this list, as I don't see any evidence provided that analysts consider the 18-strikeout mark to be significant. Why is this that much better than recording 16 or 17 strikeouts in a game? If we're doing it strictly on the basis of math, I wonder whether that is a strong enough reason. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• 18 has been the benchmark since Feller reached the mark in 1938, setting an MLB record for the live-ball era. It stayed that way for 21 seasons before Koufax could tie it and 31 seasons before Carlton broke it [26]. I'm hypothesizing that's why there's all this lore behind 18. 18 is also mentioned in The Economist, though I didn't include this as a source since it's a "blog" (albeit from a reliable news source). —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment I'm very concerned that this "18 strikeouts" is an artificial record. We do need independent sources that suggest this benchmark is more significant than, say, 20 strikeouts. The notes relating to the selection of 18 strikeouts simply point to rules of baseball, nothing to substantiate that anyone other the blogger and the nominator really considers 18 to be of any particularly significant note. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Found an ESPN source that uses 18 Ks as the benchmark (i.e. "Is 14 strikeouts in a playoff game against a great offensive team more dominating than 18 strikeouts against a crappy team in May"). Good enough? —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. That's a writer's personal opinion mixed in with lots of other personal opinion. I'm looking for something where multiple reliable sources have remarked that 18 strikeouts is a benchmark, definitively, rather than just the opinion of one journalist (who uses language like "crappy team"!)... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no non-paywall source that specifically mentions 18 Ks as a benchmark. History.com notes that 18 was the previous record ("Koufax’s total of 18 strikeouts in the game broke Dizzy Dean’s 26-year-old National League record, and tied the major league record held by Cleveland Indian ace Bob Feller."). I think that's the reason why 18 has been the unwritten and unofficial "benchmark". This paywall source indirectly mentions 18 Ks, in that Sheets was "just the 20th time in major league history a pitcher has fanned 18 or more in a nine-inning game" and that "[t]o throw just 116 pitches with 18 strikeouts is almost unheard of." —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm sorry to be a pain in the ass/butt/arse but I still can't really see a series of reliable sources noting this as a genuinely widely accepted benchmark. Does Baseball Almanack or similar list it? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

There's no need to be sorry. It's actually good that FLC has reviewers like you that scrutinize candidates extensively and carefully before passing them. That way, the FL standards are always held very high. And no, neither Baseball Almanac or Baseball Reference have a list. Only MLB.com and USA Today provide a list of 18 K pitchers, but they don't explain why it's significant. They simply present the list as if it were the widely accepted benchmark. Furthermore, precedent has been set where a simple list is enough to establish the benchmark. I actually attempted to AFD the List of Major League Baseball runs scored champions for exactly the same reason—that there weren't any sources specifically referring to the subject title. That was flatly rejected. So, as long as there are several sources (e.g. tables) covering the stats and there are no counter-examples available (i.e. a 16, 17 or 19 K table), then it is not an artificial record. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well thank you for taking the time and effort to explain this, I very much appreciate it and understand that it's annoying when you've made such a decent effort at a FLC. I'm happy that this should run its normal course at FLC, but, if you don't mind, I'll leave my comments open for others to see just in case they have the same thoughts and thought processes we've had. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Everything looks good!-- Astros4477 (Talk) 15:17, 6 April 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 promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC) [27].

---

Gotye discography

Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because having worked on the discography and redeveloped it extensively, I feel that it may be promoted to featured list status. Holiday56 (talk) 10:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments "Gotye later signed to Creative Vibes" perhaps clarify this was as a solo artist? Not quite sure how to clarify that. Can you give some suggestions? Holiday56 (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC) "Gotye later signed to Creative Vibes as a solo artist"? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Done. Holiday56 (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Can you link "certified" appropriately in the lead please. Done. Holiday56 (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC) You have "triple J", but apparently our article has it "triple j".... Done. Holiday56 (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC) "which managed to chart in" -> "which charted in" Done. Holiday56 (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC) "of Gotye material" since you seem to refer to Goyte as an individual throughout, why shouldn't this be "of Goyte's material"? Done. Holiday56 (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC) "in over thirty-one countries" so... 32? 132? Seems like an odd phrase... Fixed. Holiday56 (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC) "The album spawned an" never really like this "spawn" thing, a bit too sci-fi for me. Why not "Three singles were released from the album...." or something similarly basic? Done. Holiday56 (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC) Slightly odd that you have US linked twice in the first table, once to Billboard and once to Nielsen.... could be potentially confusing. Delinked the second instance. Holiday56 (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Holiday, have you considered asking anyone for a review? I am sure that Calvin999, Till, Status, Michael Jester, Magiciandude, Tomica or Tomcat7 would be willing to help out here. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Sufur222 Not much to do: You might want to add the different languages for some of the Hung Medien pages. For example, lescharts.com is in French, ultratop.be (in this case), is Dutch, austriancharts.at in in German and so on. That's about all that needs doing, as far as I can see. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC) Done. Holiday56 (talk) 12:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support Looks all fine to me. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 18:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
• Support No real issues that I can see. Toa Nidhiki05 02:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
• Quick comment – Reference 40 needs a publisher listed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. Holiday56 (talk) 11:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support It meets the criteria. Good job. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

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