Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/February 2017

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 via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC) [1].

---

Hi-5 discography

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Hi-5 is a very popular musical group in Australia and they have been prominent in the charts since 1999. I think there is a lot of interesting information to tackle, and therefore I think the article could easily be worked to be listed as a feature list. SatDis (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments "The group have released five Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA) certified gold, platinum and double platinum albums in Australia." a bit odd, perhaps just say "Five of the group's albums have been certified..." "The album earned a two-times platinum ARIA..." The album was certified double-platinum... What is "Series number"? I haven't seen this in a discog before. And why is one 5&6 and one 14&15 and one doesn't have one at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Thanks for your feedback, I have addressed those issues. I have removed the "series number" completely from the page (I had forgotten to do this earlier). It was essentially what television season/series the album corresponds with (Hi-5 is also a television series). SatDis (talk) 08:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jimknut

Notes from Jimknut If you are going to make the charts sortable then you need to correct the sortabilty: The bottom line ("—" denotes items which were not released in that country or failed to chart.) needs to be made so that it stays at the bottom. To do this go to the break line and add "class="sortbottom"". I suggest changing release dates from "Released: 19 September 2003" (as an example) to "{{start date|2003|09|19|df=y}} (release date)". You may also need to use the start date template for the chart position columns so that the numbers ascend or descend in chronological order. Other notes: The Reissues chart does not need to be sortable as their is only one entry. Likewise, " the line ""—" denotes items which were not released in that country or failed to chart" is not needed since that one entry did chart. Jimknut (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2016 (UTC) @Jimknut: Thankyou for your feedback, I have addressed these issues. I might just need clarification/help in your point of using the start date template for the chart position. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC) The sorting by date still does not work correctly (which indicates a faultiness with the template design and not with anything you have done). If you don't get anymore feedback I would suggest dumping the sorting altogether (most if not all of the Wiki discographies do not use it). Jimknut (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC) @Jimknut: I have removed the sorting, it was not something I particularly liked anyway. All issues now resolved. SatDis (talk) 23:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47

Comments from Aoba47 Would you define Hi-5 as a "pop music group"? I know that the primary genres listed on the group's main page are children's and edutainment, but there are several references in the body of the same article referring to its material as pop music. I am only asking this as I was wondering if this should be categorized using Category:Pop music group discographies? In the Infobox box image, you should identify where they are performing. I would revised the caption to say something along the lines of "The original members of Hi-5 performing in concert in Wellington, New Zealand in 2006". You can keep the member's names in parenthesis as it is helpful for an unfamiliar reader. Add "the" in front of the Australian Recording Industry Association in the first paragraph of the lead. I would encourage you to sell out the word number rather than abbreviate as No. for a more formal and appropriate tone for the site. You use a few repetitive sentence structures in the lead and I would suggest adding variety. For instance, the two sentences about the release of "It's a Party" starts with the similar phrase "The album was..." I am not a fan of how the release dates for same albums are placed in parenthesis after the title and others are put in the text. Be consistent one way or the other for all of them. I would suggest combining the last two paragraphs as they are rather short. The second sentence in the lead's third paragraph reads rather awkwardly as it quickly jumps from one idea to the next without a transition or flow. You want this to be a strong narrative documenting the group's releases so avoid making the lead sound like it is jumping around or listing ideas. Revise the last sentence in the lead's third paragraph. "a which was a record at the time" is not grammatically correct and needs to be redone. I get the idea, but the wording needs to be improved. Remove "most recently" in the two instances you use it as it is unnecessary when you give the date. I do not believe the (sales thresholds) is necessary in the charts. I have never seen it used in a FL for an artist's discography. iTunes Store should not be italicized in the references. @SatDis: Good job with the list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this. If possible, could you possible review my FLC for Alyssa Milano discography? I know it is a busy time of the year, so I understand if you do not have the time or interest of doing this. Let me know if you have any questions about my comments. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC) @Aoba47: I would describe them as a pop group for children, yes. I've added the category. I also might add Pop to the main page. I've added Wellington. For the main page I was advised to keep it succinct, hence why the location wasn't included. I guess the (sales threshold) was there for reference, but I've removed it now. All phrasing issues and other comments addressed. Thankyou for your feeback, I myself don't feel qualified enough to take a look at your page but I definitely will have a go at leaving feedback when I get the chance. SatDis (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Wonderful job with this list! Aoba47 (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23

Comments @SatDis: This is looking good, SatDis. I have corrected a few links in the list and corrected the formatting of the single Santa Claus Is Coming (see diff). My only comments are: the image alt text needs to be trimmed down, it should be no longer than ten words. Australian Recording Industry Association needs to be unlinked in refs 4 and 5 ITunes Store needs to be unlinked from ref 10 onwards "Australian Recording Industry Association (ARIA)" in ref 2, dot points 2, 3 and 4 can just be written as "ARIA" as this was defined in lead sentence. Repeat for refs 7 and 8 Refs 3-5 can simply be "ARIA" as well. For ref 6 add "Trellian" as the publisher. In notes a and c unlink Catalogue Albums Chart Link DVD in the Reissues table In the Singles table: Change the header of column 2 from "Album details" to "Singles details". Add ref to support the original release year of 1999 (Question: Is only the year known, not the day and month?) For the refs which are pdfs add "#page=" and the pdf page number at the end of the url for the page or pages parameter. For example http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/23790/20041220-0000/issue774%20issue775.pdf#page=6 will take to directly to page 6 of the document. Refer to this diff. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 08:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC) dback. All of that has been addressed. The only issue I have is proving the 1999 single of "Santa Claus is Coming". Only the year is known (and we can assume it was around Christmas time)... It definitely existed though, due to the charting details. And I personally know it existed too. No information online though. Thanks again.SatDis (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC) @SatDis: Excellent! Thanks SatDis. I would still like to see a ref for the single. Now, I have found the single being sold on eBay here and I have found it listed in Trove with the year 1999 here. Please add the Trove link or find another source as the ref. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Ah thankyou @Ianblair23: for the Trove link! Sometimes fresh eyes can find new things. I've added it now. SatDis (talk) 12:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. @SatDis: Great job SatDis. Keep up the great work! Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments – Just a couple of small issues to report from my look at the list.

• The lead has a few "also"s, which are usually redundant in nature. See if you can trim a couple of them.
• Note d: Minor, but the comma should probably be a semi-colon instead. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:23, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Thankyou @Giants2008: for your comments. They have been addressed. SatDis (talk) 03:36, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support – My couple of comments have been resolved and the list looks to meet FL standards. Nice job here. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Hi, the bot has not closed the nomination page and added the star yet; when should I expect this might happen? Thankyou for the promotion of the article. SatDis (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know why the 'bot hasn't done that. Sorry, we'll need to look into it. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! @The Rambling Man: SatDis (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC) [2].

---

List of Naruto episodes

Nominator(s): 1989 (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because IMO, I think this list is suitable to be a FL. I have made fixes on my part to make sure there wasn't anything wrong. If I missed something, hopefully, you will bring it to my attention. Thanks. 1989 (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of 2nd simultaneous nomination

Just as a note, I do not believe it is allowed to have two FLCs open at one time. While your other FLC for Family Guy (season 4) has received a lot of attention and is close to promotion, I believe that it is best to withdraw this and open it as soon as your everything with your other FLC is complete. If you could like the featured list director and/or delegates about this as I could be incorrect. Aoba47 (talk) 22:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)  On hold -- 1989 (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2017 (UTC) Note that the guide says "Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." I think, given that Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Family Guy (season 4)/archive2 has three supports and no outstanding comments, it is perfectly acceptable to have two FLCs open at the same time. Harrias talk 13:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC) @Aoba47: -- 1989 (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Yeah, we'd prefer if you ask first, but since the other FLC has 3 supports already I'll allow this one to stay up. It's generally discouraged regardless of the wording in the guide because some editors take a pretty liberal interpretation of what "substantial" means, but multiple supports and no opposes is generally fine. Remember that having two nominations up simultaneously means that you may want to provide extra reviews to other nominations so that both of yours get enough attention. --PresN 14:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Support: After reading it few times, I did not found any problem with the list. Great work and good luck with getting this promoted. Aoba47 (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from DragonZero

Comments from DragonZero Waiting MSN episode guide is unreliable. I've dealt with it in the past and found inconsistency with it before. This was from a 30 second check. I might be able to give a deeper look later. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:45, 8 February 2017 (UTC) @DragonZero: What are you referring to when you say MSN? Also, how is the list unreliable? Just want clarification. -- MCMLXXXIX 03:50, 8 February 2017 (UTC) The MSN episode guide in the the general references. Well, let's skip the whole Wikipedia talk about editorial department and establishing the source as reliable; I'll provide an example instead. In 2010, I used MSN's Bleach episode list as a reference which turned out to have incorrect dates and was just generally sloppy as a source. I suggest replacing or removing the source from the list. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC) @DragonZero: Done I removed it, the link was dead, and it didn't get better when I saw the archive. -- MCMLXXXIX 04:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC) Add some refs for the first paragraph. Second paragraph could use some references. Checking ref 4 (at the time of this edit), add deadurl=no. It might just be my browser, but it doesn't look like webcite archived the link correctly. "The first DVD series has been the only one to be collected in VHS format" Clarity. "There are a total of five series," clarity. Series does not sound like the correct word here Source for OVA section? Fill something in for the blank release dates The OVA summaries seem too weak to be considered for FL level. Scope= columns and rows are missing for the tables. Also why are the tables limited to 60%? Don't worry but this point doesn't affect my voting for FL. I'd remove the OVA and Film from this list. OVAs and movies have individual license, unlike the anime series episodes which are often grouped into parts. Overall, I don't think it's ready, but I won't vote for an oppose. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC) @DragonZero: How are the tables limited? Also, how big do you want the OVA summaries? Please clarify. BTW, I saw other featured lists based on episode lists part of A&M, and they had an OVA and film section, if one existed in the series, so I won't consider removing them from this one. MCMLXXXIX 11:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC) The DVD tables have their size restricted to 60%. The length of the OVA summaries are not the issue. They are just weak in general. If you're looking at a featured list promoted before 2013, those were when the standards were lower. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:26, 11 February 2017 (UTC) @DragonZero: I did a test preview edit, and it appears that they get smaller when I remove the width option. MCMLXXXIX 11:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC) It's been a while since I dealt with tables, I'll take a look at it next week maybe. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:48, 11 February 2017 (UTC) @DragonZero: Done I fixed everything except for the 60% table. I'm still waiting for your response to it. MCMLXXXIX 20:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC) @DragonZero: The tables are basically 60% because if the parameters that control that were removed, it would make the tables smaller. I would like to keep them as they are. Making them any wider would look IMO distorted. If you have any suggestions, please reply. Also, do you have a verdict? MCMLXXXIX 04:18, 22 February 2017 (UTC) I was only wondering about the table size restriction, I didn't mean it as an issue. As for a verdict, I'd have to do a thorough review so I can't offer one right now. The list above were things I noticed from a quick scroll down. Anyways, I took a look at the table and so you know, scope col/rows will auto bold their content. You should remove the triple comma bolding where the scopes do the work. I'm not sure when I can offer a full review so don't wait up. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:08, 22 February 2017 (UTC) Done MCMLXXXIX 18:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Tintor2: Do you think that the OVAs and film section should be removed? MCMLXXXIX 14:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• I think they should since the is nothing that connects them.Tintor2 (talk) 16:15, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Done MCMLXXXIX 20:49, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from ProtoDrake

• In the lead, it would be better to shift and cite the story information to before the bit of staff information.
• The American distributors should be completely moved into the second or third paragraph depending on whether Viz Media handled the TV broadcast or home media releases.
• This is purely optional, but is it possible to cite when the episodes aired in Japan and North America? If there are sources within the article or other articles related to individual seasons that confirm the dates, then this issue doesn't need to hold things up.

That's really all I saw. Once these are addressed or explained, I'll be willing to give my opinion on the article. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Done @ProtoDrake: For the third bullet point, It may take some time. MCMLXXXIX 19:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• @1989: The last point isn't essential in my view. I'll Support this article's promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review

I'll do the source review as requested by the nominator. Every single citation is archived and wikilinked. All of them appear to be reliable. As a result, I support it. However, @1989:, I suggest you using a reference for "The episodes are based on the first twenty-seven volumes in Part I of the manga, while some episodes are just filler." since this can be considered WP:Original research. There is a magazine from my country that says something similar (it's in Spanish though), but I think an Anime News Network review or other website could be used instead.Tintor2 (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Done I added a reference to it. MCMLXXXIX 14:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:09, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC) [3].

---

Family Guy (season 4)

Nominator(s): 1989 (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel like this list is in good enough standing to become a FL. There was a peer review, and a former FL nomination regarding this list, and most of the problems have been addressed. 1989 (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Carbrera

Comments from Carbrera For references mentioning "ABC Medianet" as the publication, ABC should only be linked on the very first source awhile the rest are unlinked Same with "Annie Awards" references Reference #2, 23, 25, 33, 34, 52, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65 - Date should be consistent with the rest of the citations That's what I got for now. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2017 (UTC). @Carbrera: Done -- 1989 (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC) I'll take another look at it tomorrow and give more thoughts. Thanks for the rapid responses. Carbrera (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC).

• Support – Good look in getting it promoted. Carbrera (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47

Comments from Aoba47 I would suggest adding ALT descriptions for the two images in the infobox. Reference 1 is dead and needs to be archived. Same goes for Reference 9 and 18 and 42 and 57 through 65. The external link is also dead. I do not understand the need for the “List of Family Guy episodes” in the “See also” section when you already have a link for this in a previous section. I would eliminate the “See also” section completely to avoid repetition unless you can find other things to put there instead. Avoid saying “bitterly” in such close proximity in the last paragraph of the “Reception” section. I would change one instance for variety. Some phrases in the episode summaries sound a little awkward and should be revised or removed, such as “Thus returning life back to normal.” I would look careful through the episode summaries for any awkward language or sentence construction. @1989: Overall, the list looks very good and once my comments are addressed, I will look through it again and support it. Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC) @Aoba47: Done. However, I couldn't find an archive link for Reference 9. I don't know if I should remove it or not. -- 1989 (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC) @1989: Thank you for the response. I would suggest removing Reference and possibly replacing it if you find a similar source. A featured list should not have any dead links. Once this is addressed, then I will look over this again and most likely support this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC) @Aoba47: I removed the whole sentence with the reference for now. If I can find something else, I'll re-add it. Done -- 1989 (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Since the reception section is a little bit longer, I would suggest adding some subsections, as done in Lost (season 3), to provide some guidance for a reader and give this section a little more structure. This is more of a suggestion so I understand if you would prefer not to add this. This is the only note that I have left for this before I support this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2017 (UTC) @Aoba47: Done -- 1989 (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support Great job with the list and good luck with getting it promoted in the future! If possible, could you look at my similar FLC for Private Practice (season 1). I understand if you do not have the time or interest to do this as it is a busy time of the year. Aoba47 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Oppose Many of the plot summaries need revising: "sexy" from "Brian's sexy replacement teacher" is a blatantly biased description, even if Chris finds her sexy "His ambitions, however, ultimately cost him" is a bit clunky; try putting "however" at the beginning of this part "Meg becomes extremely attractive" as well as "Meg's new attractiveness and talented singing voice" are also obvious POV statements Not sure about the tone of "badly" in "he can not kill another human being, even though he hurt him badly" "which is a parody and complete reference to the ending of Rocky III" is too much here; it's better for the episodes to contain details on cultural references "he's" in "he's a genius" should be "he is" per WP:CONTRACTIONS "Peter gets depressed at first, but realizes that, now he is retarded, he can get away with a lot of things" could read better; try something like "While Peter is initially depressed, he observes that people more easily forgive his actions when he states he is retarded" "beautiful" in "his new, beautiful babysitter" is not a neutral description "She is, of course, overjoyed to see Peter safe when they are saved by a cruise ship, but is torn" is a bit wordy, and "of course" isn't appropriate tone; try "While Lois is overjoyed when she learns Peter is alive, she is torn" "puts Lois into having sex" reads awkwardly "thus putting the show back in its original setting" is overkill "it's" in "When it's revealed" should be "it is" per WP:CONTRACTIONS "But, Peter's attitude forces Tom" is a fragment. None of the words from "FANBOYS" (For, And, Nor, But, Or, Yet, So) should be used to start sentences. "sissy" and "wimpish" in "sissy, wimpish English football team" are not appropriate tone at all "Quagmire actually falls in love with a maid whose service Peter won on a game show, and even marries her, changing Quagmire's personality" → "Quagmire's personality changes after he falls in love with and marries a maid whose service Peter won on a game show" "But when the old Quagmire returns" → "However, after his old personality returns" "puts a kibosh on"..... ends; this isn't the place for slang "spices things up"..... again, avoid slang, maybe say it restores or revives their sex life "equally-malicious" is needless, even if Bertram had a similar personality to Stewie "Brian tries to expose Mayor West as the corrupt politician he is"..... a more neutral way to say this would be "Brian tries to convince others that Mayor West is corrupt" per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV "start smoking pot"..... marijuana; please remember not to use slang in a professional encyclopedia "ridiculous moments" is more blatant bias "feel up a girl"..... again, please avoid slang Again, cultural references are better for episode articles, so I'd remove "In a parody of the film Poltergeist," Not too sure about the use of "followed by even stranger events" Let's improve the tone of "their equally exotic and dysfunctional ancestry" by just saying "their ancestry" Citations could be better: Toronto Sun isn't exactly the best of sources "SoundtrackNet" → Soundtrack.Net "ABC Medianet" → "ABC" I'm sure you can find something better than Fox News Don't italicize United Press International Publications should only be linked in the first ref they are used (i.e. just link USA Today in ref#5, and ABC in ref#16) The Heights is a student paper, which tends not to be as professional as other organizations, so let's try to find something better This is certainly not FL quality at the moment, but I don't think it's beyond repair. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: Done Thanks so much for bringing this to my attention. Hope you can reconsider. -- 1989 (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Huge improvement! I made some minor tweaks, and now can support this nomination. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:41, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Clarification about Requesting a Source Review

I would recommend adding this article to the list for a request for a source review. Aoba47 (talk) 14:07, 23 January 2017 (UTC) @Aoba47: Please clarify. -- 1989 (talk) 14:12, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Before a list can be passed as a featured list, a user will have to provide a source review. A source review is when a user goes through the references of an article or list (in this case a list) to make sure that was not any close paraphrasing and to make sure all of the information cited with a source can actually be found in the source. If you look near the top of the FLC main page, you will see a box that says "Source reviews needed" and you add your article to that list. You only add your article to that list when your FLC has three "support" votes or more as that space is reserved for FLCs that are near completion. And before you ask me, I will be unable to provide a source review for this as it is preferred to get a new pair of eyes on this for that process. Let me know if you need further clarification on this. I could add this to the list if you would prefer since you are new to the process. Aoba47 (talk) 14:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Done -- 1989 (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments Any reason why " the Volume Three DVD box set" Volume Three, Volume Four is capitalised? "confusion over season numbers between U.S., Australian, and UK fans" not keen on "fans" here, why not just consumers? " than 3 million" three, etc. "In 2002, Family Guy was canceled after three seasons due to low ratings.[1] The show was first canceled after the 1999–2000 season" this is confusing and seemingly out of chronological order. "canceling " vs "cancellation" - consistent ENGVAR. No need to link "having sex". Or "heart attack" or "sexual intercourse". Or "boiling oil" or "boxing ring". These are all common terms to English language speakers and readers. Yet you decline to link "kleptonmaniacal"! Episode 15 should be 9.20 million (consistent decimal places). Why no viewership data for episode 19? "Frank Sinatra Jr. ⋅" no comma. Episode plot description lengths start large and gradually get smaller and smaller. I would work on balancing them out, probably by trimming down some of the earlier ones. " Popmatters " seems to be PopMatters. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC) I expanded the short summaries to a reasonable size. I plan to copyedit them later. -- MCMLXXXIX 21:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Done Let me know if you have still have concerns. -- MCMLXXXIX 23:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review by Wehwalt

Source review by Wehwalt Source review I've done this mostly for FAC so if I'm off base on anything, please bear with me. All sources seem of appropriate quality and are consistently cited. I note the following. Per MOS:TITLE, short works such as articles and webpages should be consistently capitalized. Refs 29, 55 seem especially odd here. Cannot accessdates, especially where not archived ,be updated from 2009? Why is it necessary to put "Staff" as the author of 44, 46, 47? On ref 12, "Family Guy: Volume Three: Commentary for "North by North Quahog"" Is there someplace where this title is spelled out in this manner? If you are simply describing it, then the italics (other than for the series title) are probably not justified. I only glanced at the prose but why is Deceased Indian Chief capitalized like that? I'll give another run through once this is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC) @Wehwalt: Please claify what you meant at bullet point 2, and on bullet point 4, the title is italics because the template {{cite AV media}} automatically does it. MCMLXXXIX 22:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC) My point is that accessdates from 2009 make the article look outdated, as if it hasn't been worked on but for polishing since 2009. A reader thus may discount what is said then. But it's main purpose is to say that on such-and-such a date, the webpage was still working and still said what the article says it did. While I will do spot checks, I don't plan on looking at every source. Remember, you by bringing it here say the list abides by WP:V. One way of avoiding doing this in a rush is to update the accessdate as you go through the sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:48, 19 February 2017 (UTC) @Wehwalt: Done MCMLXXXIX 20:53, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Done what? They still show 2009. I'm suggesting you check each one and update the accessdate, assuming it still says what you think it should.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC) On Bullet Point 4, is that the actual title, or is that a description?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC) @Wehwalt: I don't know if you haven't noticed, but I updated the accessdates on the ones without the archivelink parameter. I guess you wanted me to do it on those ones as well. I updated them. Part of the title is the actual title, but where it says the North by North thing is the description. I fixed that one as well. MCMLXXXIX 11:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Possibly I loaded an old version. Thanks, great. Spot check Ref 5 supports the text. Ref 15 you give 9.20 million but the source, if rounded, is 9.21 million. (9260 thousand) Ref 25 supports the text. Ref 35 supports the text. Ref 45 supports the text Ref 55 is offline, so instead: Ref 54 supports the text. Ref 62 supports the text. Done @Wehwalt: I fixed the issue in bullet 2. MCMLXXXIX 15:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

That's all I have. Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 26 February 2017 (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 via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC) [4].

---

List of Emma Stone performances

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Somehow after successfully taking her biography and awards list to featured status, I am renominating her work list for FL status. I withdrew the last nomination after I was disillusioned with the FLC process. – FrB.TG (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Oppose for now I'm not sure if this should include roles that weren't part of her professional career in the lead Removed the name but just a mention of when she began acting would not hurt. "After small television roles in Medium, Malcolm in the Middle and Lucky Louie, she made her screen debut"..... TV has screens as well; "film debut" would be more accurate Without establishing a budget figure for Ghost of Girlfriends Past, it's hard to say how financially successful the film was based on its earnings (successful if it earns the total of the budget or higher, failure if it makes less than the budget) "Further success came for her in the horror comedy Zombieland"..... do you mean commercially for the film or general success for Stone's individual career? It certainly made more than enough to be a financial success. (It's better to use the link I provided than what you have now since it includes budget to help determine commercial success plus the genre). For Crazy, Stupid, Love and The Help, it again is better to use specific links for the films like these since they actually include genres as well as budgets for determining financial success "became her most widely seen film with a worldwide revenue of $757 million"..... this is potentially misleading since people can see films multiple times in theaters as well as many instances outside of theaters; it would be more accurate to say "her most financially successful film" or "her highest grossing film" While I do know that La La Land is a musical, it seems a bit odd to state "The musical is her highest rated film on the review aggregator site Rotten Tomatoes" when you don't previously mention the film's genre Are the La La Land songs really appropriate for the lead? Even if including any songs in tables (which is rather unconventional for lists of this general nature), I'm not sure she's gotten any particular attention for certain tracks. It also doesn't seem right to have rowspans for the songs here; even if discography pages tend to use those, this isn't a discography article. Yeah, but the section is discography so.. I also do not like to repeat the same thing over and over (only to increase bytes) when you could do the same thing without making it look repetitive. Well, it is her works list. Given that she has done that more than once, it should be noted. Besides, it is not her biography where it is not mentioned. While her role in Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping wasn't credited, something doesn't seem right about listing "Unknown" for her character Not sure directors are really worth including in the tables, but they certainly don't need multiple links either way Well, the table is sortable so.. The ref used for Battle of the Sexes doesn't even mention the film, but here is something that does I'd merge all of the SNL appearances into one listing with multiple years (except for maybe the 40th anniversary special) with a collective "various roles" description to encompass everyone she played I think it is good the way it is because it is more clear this way - what role she played and when. Denzel Washington on screen and stage is also like that. It seems too soon to have Maniac listed when her role and its premiere date haven't been announced yet I'm sure this can be improved in a reasonable amount of time, but I can't support it yet. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your review. I hope that I addressed your concerns to your satisfaction. - FrB.TG (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Looking better, but I still don't feel sure directors are needed, and the rowspans from "discography" still shouldn't be here; let's keep it consistent with the other tables by not using them. On another note, I don't think the "replaced Michelle Williams" bit is needed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Directors are not very common in Hollywood filmographies, but they are widespread in Bollywood lists. I think it can prove informative. - FrB.TG (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. I now support following the improvements. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Aoba47

Comments from Aoba47 This is probably obvious, but why is the list titled "List of Emma Stone performances" instead of "Emma Stone filmography" or something along those lines. Again, there is probably an obvious answer, but I was just curious about this. I found the sentence about the The New Partridge Family to a little confusing as you describe it as a reality show that produced an unsold pilot, but when I look at the Wikipedia page about this, The New Partridge Family is the pilot. Wouldn't it be clearer just to say Stone made her television debut in the unsold pilot for The New Partridge Family? The way it is currently phrased makes me think that The New Partridge Family and the pilot are two separate entities. Not sure if this matters or not, but why is the "Voice role" in the "Notes" section for the "Film" table, but "Voice" is put in parenthesis by the character name in the "Television" table. I was just wondering for the sake of consistency throughout the list. Otherwise, everything else looks solid. Most of comments are just for my own clarification. I will support this nomination once my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC) There is film, television, video game, music and what not. I don't see any other title more suitable. I have rectified the errors. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Support: Great work with this list and thank you for your clarification. The title of the list seems appropriate to me. If possible, could you look at my FLC for Private Practice (season 1)? I understand if you do not have the time or interest as it is a busy time of the year. Good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I will look at your nomination after I complete my another review at FLC. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 22:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll contribute later, but the one thing I noticed right away was the Sleeping Dogs reference under video games. As someone who works in the video games wikiproject, I feel like I should mention that Gamerant is not considered a reliable source. In terms of reliable sources, you can use IGN or Paste, although neither of these sources mention which character she played. This AdWeek article mentions her nomination and the character she plays in an offhanded comment, so you could use that. Since it's such a small part of the list, I won't oppose it simply based on that one iffy source, but I do think it should be changed to something more reliable. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Replaced the source. Thanks for the link. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments "reprised in its sequel in 2014 – which became her highest-grossing release" which was the highest-grossing release, the original or the sequel? "Stone also recorded six songs such as "City of Stars" for the film's soundtrack." ref? In the main body § Discography. Fred Wolf and Mark Waters are dabs. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC) Thank you for making the pertinent comments, much appreciated. – FrB.TG (talk) 14:22, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I don't see any issue with this list. Good job! Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC) [5].

---

Will Smith filmography

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Will Smith is an American actor who is best known for his title role in television sitcom The Fresh Prince of Bel Air, Marine Corps. pilot in science fiction film Independence Day (1996), and Agent J in the Men in Black film series. As always, I welcome constructive comments on how to improve the list. Cowlibob (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

Comments

• " he garnered a nomination for" why not just "he was nominated for"?
• Any reason why Collateral Damage isn't noted, after all Smith's been nominated for the Outstanding Actor in a Motion Picture award?

Otherwise, excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the comments. I have changed the sentence. Collateral Damage would properly be a better name for the shockingly bad film Collateral Beauty that he starred in. I have only mentioned Oscar or Golden Globe nominations. Cowlibob (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Since the opening sentence describes Smith as a producer, I'd at least note how he executive produced some episodes on The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air If talking about his Golden Globe nominations, then I don't know why his nomination for The Pursuit of Happyness was left out "The film received poor reviews but became his eighth consecutive to gross over $100 million"...... earnings have nothing to do with reviews, so maybe go with "While the film received poor reviews, it became his eighth consecutive to gross over $100 million" "he appeared in action film Suicide Squad which grossed over $745 million at the worldwide box office despite receiving a generally negative reception"..... same as before, and "receiving a generally negative reception" reads awkwardly Per consensus here, it's best to change "1990–96" to "1990–1996" and "2003–07" to "2003–2007"; more complete and professional Overall, looking pretty good. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: Thanks for the review. Have made relevant fixes, I think. Cowlibob (talk) 12:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I now support following the article's improvements. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

• "He also executively produced 24 episodes of the series" — Can be rephrased as "He also served as an executive producer for 24 episodes of the series" as the former seems a bit off.
• "The following year, he appeared in action film" — Isn't it "The following year, he appeared in the action film"?
• BTW, Reference number #72 is missing an accessdate.

Other than this, I find the list quite good. I will support as soon as the above mentioned comments are resolved.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Thanks for your comments. I think I have resolved them. Cowlibob (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

I now support this list.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 03:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. This list looks great. I can't find any real problem with it. Only thing is that i'm used to seeing the film table first, then the television table. But that does not really matter. Another thing is that lead could be expanded a bit. - AffeL (talk) 14:37, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC) [6].

---

Timeline of the 2001 Atlantic hurricane season

Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The 2001 Atlantic hurricane season will forever be overshadowed by the years that would soon follow it, but the season produced some notable tropical cyclones such as Tropical Storm Allison, Hurricane Michelle, and Hurricane Iris. After unknowingly leaving this article half-complete shortly after joining Wikipedia, six years later I have decided to improve it to what I believe matches FL standards. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 05:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments - I stumbled across this while tending to my own nomination and figured I'd leave some suggestions for improvement.

• The second sentence of the intro is pretty convoluted - I'd try to split it up if possible.
  • Done. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• of which fifteen into tropical storms - missing word.
  • Added the escapee. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Allison was the only tropical storm in recorded history... - this might be confusing for folks who aren't intimately familiar with the distinction between a tropical storm and a hurricane.
  • Both terms are linked at the start of the paragraph though. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Still think this could be clearer for general readers, but I'll defer to other reviewers. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• I'd switch around the two sentences in the last lede paragraph. I'd also avoid starting both with "This timeline" and using "operationally" (already a pretty ambiguous word) twice in the same line.
  • Switched and tweaked. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• "Chris Landsea" in one citation and "Christopher W. Landsea" in another. Same with "Jack Beven" and "Jack L. Beven II".
  • Filled in for consistency. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

That's it for now. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support now. Nice work. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support, good work.--Jarodalien (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "extratropical transitions". After reading the link I am still not clear what this means. It sounds like a transition to a non-tropical area, but the linked article does not clearly say so.
  • A tropical cyclone has a core that is warmer than the surrounding environment, and it's a system not attached to any cold fronts. Extratropical transition means it loses that warm core and becomes attached to a front. As someone studying meteorology, the article conveys that fine to me, but it may be a bit advanced for those who don't study meteorology. I'll bring it up with other members of the project or might just edit it myself to make it easier to understand. Nonetheless, that is probably an issue irrelevant to this FLC specifically. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 03:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• "not released in situ" This means means not in the original place, whereas I take it you mean only released at a later time.
  • I changed it to "It includes information that was not released throughout the season..." Better? TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 03:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
• Looks fine. Just a couple of minor queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for stopping by. :) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 03:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC) [7].

---

Private Practice (season 1)

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone, this list is about the first season of the American medical drama Private Practice. I have recently expanded this list and I believe that it fulfills all of the criteria for a featured list. It is comprehensive in its content, and I have styled its structure after similar featured lists. I am still relatively new to working on lists, and putting something up for FLC so I would greatly appreciate feedback and comments on how to improve this and improve lists in general. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 06:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support The list looks fine to me. I didn't notice anything major that needs fixing. Good Luck. -- 1989 (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 15:59, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose following these edits. Please revert if I have messed up anything. A few suggestions in the meanwhile:

• Thank you for the copy-edits and I apologize for the silly mistakes that I overlooked. Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• "Addison feels offended when none of her co-workers have R.S.V.P'd" - RSVP'd?

• It is too informal so I have replaced it with "responded". Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• I think you might need to link self-help book, but I don't feel strongly about it. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Linked. Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG:Thank you for the support, comments, and copy-edits! Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Support: After reading it few times, I did not found any problem with the article. It is definitely a deserving candidate.Krish | Talk 19:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Krish!: Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments " consisting of 9 episodes." nine per MOS. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Infobox heading should be "season 1" not "Season 1". Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC) " The episodes also focus" why not "The season also focuses on..."? Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Check for WP:DASH violations (e.g. "The Complete First Season - Extended Edition" and several reference titles). Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC) " March 16, 2009 in" comma after 2009. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC) " had received the spin-off" do you mean "had been featured in the spin-off"? Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC) "on July 18, 2007 in" comma after year. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC) "October 18, 2007 after" ditto. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC) "New York Daily News " should be in italics. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC) "friends with benefits" is a dab link. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC) "The Complete First Season- Extended Edition[45][46]" space and en-dash needed. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC) "Set Details" details. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC) "Special Features" features. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC) "9 Episodes" episodes... plenty of over-capitalisation here. Revised. I have kept a few things capitalized (Kate Walsh: Practice Makes Perfect and Alternative Ensemble: Behind the Scenes of Private Practice as they are the titles of the special features). I have corrected everything else. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed all of them Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be improved or revised. Aoba47 (talk) 15:40, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Support: I read through this page and my first thought was that it seemed more like an article than a list. However, it is strictly about a season and its episodes and I am no expert on TV, so after reading other articles, I understood its classification. That being said, this list rises above and beyond what typically covers seasons. It is well organized, well written and reliably sourced. I can see no outstanding problems, so you have my support vote! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• @DarthBotto: Thank you for your kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC) [8].

---

List of international cricket centuries by David Warner

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(talk) 19:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

David Warner (28) is second only to Virat Kohli (33) in terms of centuries scored over the last five years in international cricket. I've modeled this based on similar lists. Look forward to comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _(talk) 19:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23

:@Vensatry: My comments are below: alt text comes before the caption Lead: carried the bat in the fourth innings of the match... link to innings As of January 2017 change to {{As of}} against India, New Zealand and South Africa link teams 163 against Sri Lanka link team As of December 2016 update to January and change to {{As of}} he has played 63 T20Is remove as this is mentioned in the first paragraph his highest score remains 90 not out unlink not out Key: Add in as the third row: Balls = Deliveries faced Not done, sine I've not used the 'balls' column —Vensatry (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Link directly to Innings Move strike rate to after Test I've listed down the items based on the order in which they appear in the tables (1 followed by 2). —Vensatry (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Fix link to Result (cricket)#Draw Test table: Missing the balls column (should be the third column) We don't use this column for these lists. —Vensatry (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC) Missing the strike column (should be the eighth column) Per above —Vensatry (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC) ODI table: Missing the balls column (should be the third column) This is redundant as we have a column for strike rate. —Vensatry (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC) "H/A" should be "H/A/N" Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC) @Ianblair23:Responded wherever necessary, thanks for the comments. —Vensatry (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC) @Vensatry: Looking at the recent promoted FLs you seemed to be correct with regards to format. What I was looking at was the Younis Khan's list and that includes the balls in both as well as the strike rate in the Test table. This is also the format for Chris Gayle's, Mohammad Yousuf's, Nathan Astle's and Aravinda de Silva's list but it seems that these are the exception rather than the rule. Nonetheless, I would argue that having the number of balls faced is a vital piece of information that certainty worthy of inclusion. After all, the following articles include it: List of Cricket World Cup centuries List of ICC World Twenty20 centuries List of ICC Champions Trophy centuries List of Asia Cup centuries List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket The list of centuries in women's Tests, ODIs and T20Is List of Indian Premier League centuries List of Big Bash League centuries List of first-class cricket quadruple centuries and All of the list of centuries by ground So, we seem to be inconsistent across our lists. I would also argue that for someone like Warner, arguably the most aggressive man ever to play Test cricket, we get no sense of how aggressive he is in the Test arena with absence of the balls faced and the strike rate. Thoughts? – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC) @Ianblair23: True, I'm guessing that it was Sahara4u who started this 'trend'. The format used in this list has been adopted from the earliest ones. Agree with your penultimate point, but I don't think we can really set a precedent. Gilly's and Sehwag's lists don't have the balls column. Looping in: @The Rambling Man, Harrias, and ChrisTheDude: —Vensatry (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2017 (UTC) I'd add in the balls faced and/or the strike rate... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 25 January 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Added strike rate —Vensatry (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2017 (UTC) @Ianblair23: Are you willing to revisit the candidate? —Vensatry (talk) 07:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC) @Vensatry:, Ok thanks for adding in the strike rate. I did bit of copyediting (diff) cleaning up a few things. The only thing left is could you please directly link to innings in the key and make the no. column sortable. One other thing to note is that Warner has scored three centuries since this nomination was open on New Years Eve. With Warner only just turning 30 he still has many years left him and no doubt the centuries will continue to flow. So list will need to be continually updated until he retires. – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC) @Ianblair23: Fixed both. I'll make sure the list gets updated. —Vensatry (talk) 14:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. @Vensatry: Great job! – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:24, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• Typically in these lists, we specifically define a century (see the Tendulkar list for example).
• Support – Otherwise, this looks a great list, so I have no issue with supporting the promotion of this list, nice work. Harrias ^talk 09:27, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  Done, thanks. —Vensatry _(talk) 17:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments Tend to avoid "currently", prefer to use "as of", e.g. for the "current vice-captain" claim. "In the next game at the WACA Ground, Perth, he scored 253 runs," avoid "runs" here as it could be interpreted that it was a total of 253 across two innings. "year.[e]. " spare full stop. Sorting by reverse date, 13 and 14 are out of order (that's the pair of centuries he got in the same match), so you need to do some hidden forced sorting there. That's it, not much to address at all. Good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Fixed all, thanks for the comments —Vensatry (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support - meets the standards! Khadar Khani (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 12:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC) [9].

---

List of New Zealand cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on Test debut

Nominator(s): Lugnuts, Khadar Khani (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

This list was created by User:Lugnuts, and I would like to have him as a co-nominator. I expanded the lead and organised the table a bit. I think this is now a very decent list and should have a place in featured lists. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Regards, Khadar Khani (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments Suitably link "New Zealand cricketers" to the national team. " occasions,New Zealand won the match three times, drew three times, and lost two games" space before New Zealand, and "lost two games"->"lost twice". "most recent of them" _the_ most recent. In fact, " most recent of them have come at the" ->"the most recent was taken at..." "best bowling figures by a New Zealand bowler on debut" no need for bowler. And do you mean in international cricket as a whole because you go on to say " the best bowling figures by a New Zealander in a Test match on debut" so either there's an odd repeat here, or I'm missing something. "Paul Wiseman is the most economical," no, his fifer was the most economical. "is the only spin bowlers to " bowler. " with rest of the seven being fast bowlers" -> "the others being fast bowlers". Wiseman's article says he was a spinner too.... Taylor's article states " scored 105 and took 5-86 for New Zealand on Test debut against India at Calcutta in 1964-65, the only man to have completed this all-round feat on debut. so this is noteworthy (if verified) and can be included in the lead. "R Premadasa Stadium" has a full stop after the R. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC) @The Rambling Man, I think I've sufficiently done with your concerns. Please take a look and let me know if there is something missing. Thanks for the review... Regards, Khadar Khani (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Ianblair23 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments Hi guys, this is looking pretty good. I have just reviewed this for DYK. I updated "November 2016" to "December 2016" and corrected some links. My only comments are the ESPNcricinfo needs to be unlinked in ref 5 and the image needs alt text. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC) @Ianblair23: done with your concerns. Thank you...! Khadar Khani (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC) Support Great job. Cheers -- Ianblair23 (talk) 03:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC) @Sahara4u: I have picked up a few things: In the first sentence, directly link to Bowling (cricket), Wicket#Dismissing_a_batsman and Innings. Replace ref 7 with this link as this shows that information that your stating much clearer. Add the following refs to after win, lose and draw: [10], [11] and [12] "the Hagley Oval" and "the Eden Gardens". Drop the "the". "Paul Wiseman's fifer is the most economical, ..." link to Economy rate (cricket) Ref 14 replace with this link for the spin bowlers and add this link to the pace bowlers. In the key, fix links to innings and Economy rate (cricket), remove the duplicate listing of Econ, remove draw and just link to Result (cricket) under result. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 23:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC) @Lugnuts: Are you able to address these comments? @Ianblair23: done with your concerns. Thank you...! Khadar Khani (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments – "As of January 2017, 147 cricketers have taken a five-wicket haul on their debut on debut in a Test match." The second "on debut" should definitely be taken out. "the" could be added in "Bruce Taylor is only player...". Is it normal for New Zealand-related lists to sort by first name instead of last name? I know it is for some of the other top cricket-playing countries, but I'm not sure about this one. Now sorted by last name. Khadar Khani (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Minor point, but the Google Books link in ref 4 doesn't really need the access date. It can be treated as a convenience link to the paper book, which is the real source; in that case, the access date is not required. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:15, 27 January 2017 (UTC) @Giants2008: resolved. Thanks for the review...! Khadar Khani (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support – All of the edits look good, and I think it's up to standard now. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:02, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• Don't use "fifer" in the prose. It's fine to mention it in the first sentence, but it is slang, and does not constitute encyclopaedic language.

• Done. Khadar Khani (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• I've been away from the encyclopaedia for a while; have we moved away from needing row and column scope per MOS:DTT. The Rambling Man used to be hot on this? Harrias ^talk 09:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  No, you're absolutely right, my oversight. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  In which case, I'd recommend that the nominator use List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket as a guide, as that article is a similar to format to this one. Harrias ^talk 09:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  As punishment to myself, I've added the row and col scopes, hope nobody minds. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for the edit. Khadar Khani (talk) 02:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support, nice work, well done. Fancy taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/England cricket team Test results (1920–39)/archive2 for me? Harrias ^talk 07:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 12:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC) [13].

---

List of municipalities in Nova Scotia

Nominator(s): Hwy43 (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC) and Mattximus (talk)

This is chapter 10 in a 13-chapter effort to bring the list of municipalities for every province and territory of Canada to featured status and eventual featured topic. We have created a standardized format and so far promoted Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and New Brunswick. We have also taken suggestions from the previous 9 nominations into account for this nomination. All suggestions welcome and thanks for your input. Hwy43 (talk) 05:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolved comments from K.Annoyomous

Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk) Looks good. Just a couple of things to fix before I can support: It would be nice to have more info added onto the "Rural municipalities" section. You could add an explanation on the difference between a county and a district. I wonder if the content that follows in the subsections doesn't already do this. Let me think further about this. Perhaps there is a solution without appearing to be redundant in close proximity. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Does this work? Hwy43 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC) The gallery of pictures in the "List of municipalities" section could be more visually appealing if both rows are centred with the page, with the bottom two pictures having the same length. Mattximus, you are more often successful with image-related edits than I am. Care to take a stab? Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Yep, the gallery mode actually automatically adjusts based on your screen resolution, so if we did make an edit it would look well on K. Annoyomous' computer but would look worse on the vast majority of others. Specifically, only monitors with resolutions less than half the average laptop would be affected by having two lines of images that you are seeing. As far as I can tell, without hyperbole, almost every computer that is not set up for visually impaired users or cell phones should see the images as on a single row. Sorry, but to be more specific I would have to know your screen resolution. Thanks for the comment! Mattximus (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Thanks. I had no issues on my two laptops and work computer. Hwy43 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC) "Kings County is Nova Scotia's largest county municipality." Clarify that it is the largest by population, and not by area. Good eye. Fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Did you consider adding a general references section? There are a number of citations that are referred to a good amount of time that could simply be put in a separate general references section. I haven't considered it and it hasn't been a suggestion received in the 10 predecessor FLCs. Allow me to consider this and other options that may be available. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC) See this and this, which has reduced the repitition of the second reference by 12 (from 26 to 14). Hwy43 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Ref #14 is a dead link. Fixed. It died sometime within the past three weeks. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Why is User:Canadaolympic989 not a part of the nominators? Seems like he was a major contributor in addition to you two. No sleight intended. Canadaolympic989 started the article over two days in early 2013. Subsequent edits to add villages didn't stick since they aren't considered muncipalities in Nova Scotia. The effort to begin bringing to FL status began in December 2013, while the only subsequent additions (2001 census data) didn't survive either as 2001 census data isn't included in the 10 others and can be problematic where municipality boundaries before 2006 differ from those in 2011. If Canadaolympic989 would prefer however, I am not aware of there being a maximum of two co-noms. Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC) I'm semi-retired, and I don't check my watchlist that often, so please message me on my talk page. Kind regards. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 06:38, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Hi K. Annoyomous, thank you for your review. Interim responses provided above. I'm on the road for the next 36 hours and will swing back again to finish up after I'm back. I'll ping again. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Hello again, K. Annoyomous. Please review my latest replies and advise if there are any further concerns. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Hwy43, see above: please message me on my talk page --PresN 17:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC) Will do so now. Thought I'd try a less intrusive ping first. Hwy43 (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Support --K.Annoyomous (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Conditional support until data is updated to 2016 Census data. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Support --K.Annoyomous (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry

• Pipe-linking Canada 2011 Census to 2011 borders WP:EASTEREGG

Agreed and fixed. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• 53,000 km2 (20,000 sq mi) - Why approximates when you have the exact figure?

The approximation is based on a request on past FLCs for the other provinces and territories. I much prefer not to round. I'll change it to our preference now, but I hope a future commenter doesn't want it changed back. Seems like a preferential style thing that differs from editor to editor and has little weight between what is and isn't a FL. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

As co-nom, I agree, I much prefer not to round, in fact if there are no objections, I might change the other lists to precise numbers. Mattximus (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Mattximus, no objections here. I was planning on doing that myself today. Please proceed. Hwy43 (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hwy43 Doing it now, but I just realized that two of statscan sources differ! [14][15]. This seems rather odd, but I think I'll stick with the latter number since it's more recent. Any idea why the land area differ so much? Mattximus (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Mattximus, this source should not be used at all. Just the actual census source. Obviously there are two different StatCan methodologies at play here. Using the StatCan census land areas for municipalities and provinces/territories allows for a proper apples-to-apples comparison. The other StatCan source is an orange. Hwy43 (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, all done. I rounded to the nearest square km, hope that's ok! Mattximus (talk) 23:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• All notes should be cited.

They were. See fourth bullet from first commenter and replies. I'm happy to return and hope the first commenter understands they are necessary. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Delink Town

I assume in the second paragraph because it should be a commonly understood term per WP:OVERLINK. Correct? Done. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• Why is Municipal Government Act (MGA) italicised?

Because it is a title of a printed work, albeit legislation. This has been done per requests on past FLCs. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• "3 regional municipalities, 26 towns, 9 county municipalities and 12 district municipalities." -> "three regional municipalities, twenty-six towns, nine county municipalities and twelve district municipalities" to comply with WP:MOSNUM. Check for the rest of the article too.

As there is one figure exceeding ten, we are permitted to use one format (written words) or the other (numbers) throughout as long as we are consistent, if I recall corectly. I'll review to see if there are any inconsistencies.

• Is the Rural municipalities classification defunct?

It is not a classification per se. It is the title for a group of two classifications. Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

—Vensatry _(talk) 07:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Vensatry, thank you for your review. See replies above. Some actions done already while others in progress. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Support from Hurricanehink

Support from Hurricanehink Just a few comments (having stumbled from my own FLC) Nova Scotia is the seventh-most populous province in Canada with 921,727 residents as of the 2011 census - I feel like a comma is needed in there before with. There is a natural pause there. There is not a natural pause there when I read or speak it. Perhaps this is a subjective or preferential thing where some people pause and others don't? Respectfully, I hope leaving as is doesn't prevent an eventual support. Hwy43 (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC) "Nova Scotia's 50 municipalities cover 99.8% of the territory's land mass, and are home to 99.0% of its population." - what is the remainder? Parks, or waterways, I'm guessing? Actually it is not, but we anticipated this question and we added a note saying: "The remaining 1.0% of Nova Scotia's population resides on Indian reserves, which occupy the remaining 0.2% of the province's land mass." Mattximus (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC) A very good observation similar to those raised by other sharp reviewers in past Canadian municipality FLCs. Thank you Mattximus for bringing Hurricanhink's attention to the note. Hwy43 (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC) "Nova Scotia has a historical system 18 counties." - this doesn't make sense grammatically Nice catch, changed: "Present county municipalities of Nova Scotia originate from a historical system of 18 counties." Mattximus (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Even better, I hope, is "Nova Scotia's county municipalities originate from a historical system of 18 counties." Hwy43 (talk) 03:14, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Agreed, that is better wording than my sentence. Mattximus (talk) 12:03, 7 February 2017 (UTC) "Most recently, Nova Scotia's 12 district municipalities have been continued as district municipalities under the authority of the Municipal Government Act of 1998." - seems like there's a redundancy that could be reworked. How is this wording? "Nova Scotia's 12 district municipalities continue administratively as district municipalities under the authority of the Municipal Government Act of 1998" Mattximus (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC) I like the revised wording, though I think the perceived redundancy persists due to the repetition of "district municipalities" in close proximity. In past nominations, there has been a desire by reviewers to understand how municipalities of each type are incorporated (e.g., incorporation requirements such as population, land area, density, assessment, petitions/votes, etc.). Under current legislation, there are no such requirements for this type of municipality, which is why we have this wording. Based on my recollection, the current (and original) wording is largely a softened version of how it is written in a redundant legalese manner within the MGA. Hope this explanation is helpful. Hwy43 (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC) "Nova Scotia's largest and smallest district municipalities by population are Lunenburg and St. Mary's with 25,118 and 2,354 residents respectively." - you really don't like commas, do you? :P See reply to similar comment under first first bullet. Hwy43 (talk) 03:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC) "Nova Scotia's largest district municipality by size is Guysborough which spans 2,111.42 km2 (815.22 sq mi) and the smallest by size is Yarmouth at 585.75 km2 (226.16 sq mi)." - this should also be split up with commas and conjunctions In hindsight, I'm not happy with this sentence. The term "size" is ambiguous, while "spans" usually refers to length as opposed to area. I've changed it to read "Nova Scotia's largest district municipality by land area is Guysborough at 2,111.42 km2 (815.22 sq mi), while the smallest by land area is Yarmouth at 585.75 km2 (226.16 sq mi)." Hwy43 (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Canada 2016 Census is releasing the results of the 2016 census in two days. I'm sure it would be an easy fix for the populations, but since it is coming so soon, I won't be able to support until after the 2016 results are in. Yep, the plan is to remove the 2006 column entirely and updated with the 2016 data. Please give me a few days for the update. Mattximus (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Be assured, Hurricanehink, we have every intent to update this list and the others. :) We've already been in discussions about it even. After I plow through Alberta municipality articles and update various Alberta lists with the 2016 census data on Wednesday, I will turn my attention to this list first in the event Mattximus hasn't gotten to it yet. Perhaps, if you are satisfied with the other responses above, you can provide a "support subject to...". ;) Thank you for your review! Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC) Sounds great. I just wanted reassurances that it would be updated. I appreciate the effort to keep Canadian province articles in such good shape. I've been an editor for a long time, and I've seen for years that Canadian provincial articles are more often than not in Featured X category. Keep up the good work! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Thanks, Hurricanehink! I'll be sure to ping you (properly this time) once the condition of updating to the 2016 census is completed. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 20:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Hurricanehink, the list has since been updated with the latest figures from the 2016 census. Does this effort therefore remove the condition associated with your support? Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 09:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Certainly - thanks so much for the quick update! Full support now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 12:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC) [16].

---

Ajith Kumar filmography

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk), Ssven2 (talk) and Vensatry (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Thala is one of Tamil cinema's most iconic and successful actors whose insane fanbase (who vandalise the majority of his articles) has not been a major obstacle in bringing this list to where it stands today. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

• "Following that, he made his debut as a lead actor" - why can't you scrap following that and simply begin the sentence with pronoun?
• "He followed this debut with supporting" - I would rephrase "followed this" for variety.
• "In 1995 he landed his first breakthrough role in the romantic thriller" - two things. It is not like you have your first breakthrough followed by your second and so on. Perhaps better as "he had his breakthrough with"?
• "The success of the film helped him establish himself" → "The success of the film established him"
• Fetch is a bit informal.
• "The film's success prompted Rajiv Menon to cast Ajith in his directorial venture Kandukondain Kandukondain" - we just had a sentence "the success..." I would write it as "As a result, Rajiv cast Ajith". Also, I would remove directorial venture.
• "Featuring an ensemble cast, the film saw him paired opposite Tabu." Given the size of the prose, this could be removed without detriment.
• "he collaborated with debutant AR Murugadoss" - director or actor?
• "Both films were commercially successful." Both as in Dheena and Citizen?

More later, hopefully. – FrB.TG (talk) 18:53, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: All of the above comments have been resolved, Frank.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 04:15, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I have made some edits in the meanwhile. Please check if I have messed up anything.

• " 2007, he was seen in two remakes—Kireedam and Billa. The former was a remake of the 1989 Malayalam film of the same name while the latter was a remake of the 1980 Tamil film of the same name" - remake ... remake ... remake; same name ... same name. Too much repetition in just two sentences.

I've reworded. Please see. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Is this better? – FrB.TG (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, much better. But could the dash be replaced with a colon? Because I don't know much about dashes. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• I feel like film genres should not be linked but masala genre is not something non-Indian readers would understand, so..

Done. "Masala" is the only genre in the lead that is linked now (should epistolary be delinked?) Kailash29792 (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that one can stay; it does not seem like a common term. - FrB.TG (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

• crime drama - see the above comment. Perhaps no need to wiki-link it. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Kailash has resolved all of the above remaining comments, Frank. Do let us know if there is anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose. – FrB.TG (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thank you, Frank. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cowlibob

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

*The lead does need it be cut down. Especially the mentions of films where the sentence is basically "He appeared in this film." with no description of its success, his performance etc. Done by Kailash29792.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC) "Despite earning merely average income from his acting work, the film helped him obtain more modelling assignments". This is an odd sentence. The source I think says the film was an "average grosser" not that he earned an average income from it. Could this be rephrased or even discarded? I support your idea, but don't know why it was rephrased that way. Kailash29792 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Done: The source says "average grosser", and I have modified the sentence accordingly. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Why was Aasai his breakthrough? Did it make lots of money with him as the lead? Was his performance lauded by critics? Both. Added a sentence.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC) I think you can replace the second mention of Vaali with the film. Done by Kailash29792.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC) What does "Thala" translate to in English? It means "head". Added. Kailash29792 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC) The racing career is only mentioned in the third paragraph surprising the reader, perhaps mention that he wanted to be one earlier. Perhaps a way you could introduce it is mentioning his earlier injury from an amateur race which stopped him acting. He had aspirations for the sport but did not pursue it actively until 2003. He just reduced his work in films during this period.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Cowlibob, you make a good point. In fact, he had a major injury in the early part of his career as well. Kailash29792, can you add something about it? —Vensatry (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2017 (UTC) Vensatry, if you had been more specific, I could have easily found info on that. Based on what you said, I only found this which says he was injured while filming Vedalam, Arrambam and Billa. Kailash29792 (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC) He suffered a major injury during the mid 90s, at the time when Pavithra got released. —Vensatry (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Then I got the source, which is already used. Can you review and do c/e once I've placed it? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC) @Kailash29792 and Vensatry: The information is in the main biography article, right under our very noses. Here it is, under the question "When did you start looking at acting as a profession?".  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 08:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Done. Vensatry and Ssven2, I've added the information. Can you please see if it is fine/matching the source? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Was Attahasam commercially successful or was his performance praised or both? Commercial success. Added.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC) "In 2006, he returned", he continued to act in films in the interim just less of them so can it really be counted as a return? Guess you're right about that, Cowlibob. Modified the sentence.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC) How much did Mankatha gross? The lifetime gross is not provided by reliable sources (Behindwoods and IndiaGlitz give the gross as 1.3 billion Indian rupees. Both fail WP:RS.) I've added the first week gross instead.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC) How do surnames work in Tamil? As the role column currently sorts by first name. Tamil people seldom use surnames. They use patronymics, usually initialising their father's name and placing it before their given name. Kailash29792 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC) Cowlibob (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC) @Cowlibob: I and Kailash29792 have hopefully resolved all your comments. Do let us know if there is anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Support Good list. Requires source review and I think it should be there. Cowlibob (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

@Cowlibob: Thank you, Cowlibob. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:55, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mymis

• "had the biggest opening in Tamil cinema" -> opening weekend? opening week?

  Day —Vensatry _(talk) 06:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• In the references, where the refs that are archived, the accessdates are probably not needed.

  Will leave this to the co-noms. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• ref 16 not formatted properly

  Fixed —Vensatry _(talk) 06:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

• in refs, The Times of India is linked in two different refs

  Fixed —Vensatry _(talk) 06:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Mymis (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mymis: Vensatry has resolved your comments, Mymis. Do let us know if there is anything pending. Thanks.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• Accessdates are not necessary in refs that are archived. You are yet to change that.

@Mymis: Isn't it necessary to show the accessdate of when the URL was retrieved?  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 06:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Archivedate serves that purpose. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mymis: Removed accessdates.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 13:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• You have to decide whether you put comma after years or not, I mean, "In 1997 he had five re...", "In 2007, he was seen in t", or "Between 2003 and 2005 Ajith...".
• Remove full stop in the caption of the picture.

Mymis (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mymis: Fixed the last two. —Vensatry _(talk) 18:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

• You have my support. Great job! Mymis (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mymis: Thank you, Mymis. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 16:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

Resolved comments from Aoba47

The phrase “an average grosser” sounds a little odd to me. I would rephrase it. Rephrased —Vensatry (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC) In the sentence about Varalaru, you describe that he plays three roles and only say one (the classical dancer). Why did you only mention one of the three roles? I think it was added because he is not really known for his dancing skills. Removed the bit as there's no context. —Vensatry (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Can you identify in the sentence in Reference 19 that supports how he broke the “stereotypical image of a leading man in Tamil cinema”? I cannot locate it in the source. Removed the bit as it was not the first-of-its-kind Tamil film. —Vensatry (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC) I also agree with Mymis’ above comments. @Ssven2: Once my comments are addressed, I will support this nomination. Good luck with this. Aoba47 (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC) @Mymis and Aoba47: Thanks for the comments —Vensatry (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Vensatry, thanks for addressing various comments in my absence. I found out that Ajith's performance in Mankatha earned him a Best Actor nomination at Filmfare South (as seen in this video at 2:37). Mymis and Aoba47, since there are probably no reliable text sources covering this, could I cite the event itself? But the video is from an unverified channel, even though it shows the event being broadcast on Star Vijay. We can't deliberately leave out such things as it borders on gaming the system. Also, should we list his major wins/nominations in the table under the "notes" column? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC) @Kailash29792:@Vensatry: Thank you for addressing my comments. I would not include a table of his major wins and nominations as there is already a separate list devoted to that (as put in the "See also" section) so that would not be necessary. I am honestly not sure if the video would work as a citation (I am leaning more towards no, but I am uncertain), and you could also pose this question at Wikipedia:RSN as they would have more informed about what can be used as a source and in what context. I apologize for not being much help in that matter. Aoba47 (talk) 14:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC) @Aoba47, Kailash29792, and Vensatry: I believe it can be cited like reference number 32 in List of accolades received by Kahaani.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 16:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC) Makes sense to me. That appears to be an appropriate citation method. Once this is addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2017 (UTC) @Aoba47: Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 17:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: Support Great job with the list and good luck with getting it promoted in the future!

@Aoba47: Thank you very much, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 12:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I am glad that I can help in any way. Aoba47 (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Mymis and Aoba47, the movie you saw in the table (English Vinglish) is a Tamil-Hindi bilingual, and Ajith appears only in the Tamil version, not Hindi. Is there a better term than "Cameo appearance (Tamil version only)"? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It was not a bi-lingual; however it was claimed to be one. Added a footnote to clarify the same. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

@PresN, Giants2008, and The Rambling Man: Pinging you for source review.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 09:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Just add it to the yellow box at the top of WP:FLC; someone will get to it soon (it doesn't have to be a director/delegate). --PresN 14:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• The alt text is missing a fullstop.
• I think it would be more specific to link tamil & telugu to the film Industries instead of the language.
• You can write 'Ajith', instead of 'a man' in the alt text.
• Sify should be linked in ref 15.

I'm not aware of his career, so can't comment on it. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Fixed [1] and [4]. As for [2], we usually link them to languages (that's the standard way). Re [3], WP:ALT suggests not to mention the name if the article is particular about the subject. Thanks for the comments. —Vensatry _(talk) 06:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Vensatry: I understand why now. It shows up in the WP:FLC page right? It did, actually. So, my bad. Won't repeat it again. Thanks for resolving the comments BTW.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. My comments are mostly resolved. Good luck. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Thank you, Yash. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 12:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC) [17].

---

Jacques Rivette filmography

Nominator(s): Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is accurate, complete and fully cited, but I would love to work with any editors on necessary improvements if needed. Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments sorry that you've had to wait a month for any comments, hopefully the following will kick-start the process! " a three-part television documentary and was an interviewer on another three-part television documentary" repetitive. "He also acted in small roles or was interviewed in a few films" surely "and" rather than "or"? And "a few films" doesn't sound encyclopedic. " on a few mainstream films" similar. La Religieuse is a dab link. L'amour fou check capitalisation. "political turmoil of May 68" firstly I'd say 1968 and secondly I'd probably link the whole phrase rather than just the date. Note [a] could be included in the lead rather than appended to a section heading. Table is sortable so link all linked items every time. Ref column doesn't need to be sortable. Table needs to have row and col scopes (see WP:ACCESS / MOS:TABLE) Around a Small Mountain doesn't sort properly by duration. It's probably because you have "minutes" each entry and that makes the table sort purely alphanumerically rather than by the actual duration. Notes don't really need to be sortable either, since it's free text. All previous comments regarding table structure and column sortability apply to all tables, by the way. Andre S. Labarthe missing his accent. See also needs a bullet point. That's a start for you, hopefully useful. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:00, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Thank you for the tips The Rambling Man. I have done everything on your list except for figuring out the Around a Small Mountain duration problem. I will try to figure it out.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Also, how do I sort name this: Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet ?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 06:14, 7 December 2016 (UTC) I "fixed" the issues of the Lengths not sorting properly, but I don't really like it and think I need some help fixing it.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC) I modified the header of the table to suit it better I think. As for sorting Jean-Marie Straub and Daniele Huillet, I'd do it on the Straub. Is that what you meant? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC) I just changed it, but now it is a redirect. Their joint page is Straub–Huillet.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Ok. Incidentally, I changed the format of one of the tables, here, to see if you prefer it to the bold italic titles which come in when you introduce row and col scopes. If you prefer it, add plainrowheaders to the wikitable class description, if you don't like it, simply undo my revision. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC) I think its looking good now and all of your comments/suggestions have been addressed.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support good work on my comments. Let's hope some more people show up to review the list! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Vensatry Avoid sentences that begin with 'with'. Refs. should come after punctuation. Not done. Eg., "films[5][6]", "as an extra[8]"—Vensatry (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Do you mean that you don't think I should have references in the middle of a sentence?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Not exactly, but you may do so after punctuation marks (say comma/semicolon). —Vensatry (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Got it. Think I have covered all of your comments now.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2016 (UTC) Consider linking 'extra' appropriately. "personal assistant to Jean Renoir and Jacques Becker their films" - Not clear Add WP:ALT for the image. In the second image mention the names of the people. In fact, that's more than enough. —Vensatry (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2016 (UTC) What is Gazette du Cinéma? A description might be helpful. "distinguishing himself as one of the most respected writers of his peers" - Part of me feels, this needs to be slightly rephrased to maintain WP:NPOV. I'd suggest you to pipe 'film version of La Religieuse' to The Nun (1966 film). 'hit film' is frowned upon in WP. Something on the lines of 'commercially/financially successful' would be helpful. 'theatrical' or 'theatreical'? Remove the periods at the end of each points in 'Awards' and 'Notes' columns. The lead is engaging and the lists look in great shape. Nice work! —Vensatry (talk) 12:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC) Thanks Vensatry, I took care of most of this. I couldn't find any punctuation after references.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support, good work! —Vensatry _(talk) 08:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support – Nice job on this list. I read through and it appears the previous two reviewers addressed any major concerns this FLC may have had. Sucks it's been here so long though! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 22:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

• Director note – Deoliveirafan, we need a source review at this point. It's already been listed on the top of FLC as needing one, so hopefully somebody will take it up. Vensatry has done some good source reviews for us; perhaps you can ask them for another look. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Giants2008: Will do by the weekend. —Vensatry _(talk) 07:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, been very busy lately. Thanks to all for helping out on this.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Source review

• "He also worked as an extra ..." This bit isn't verified in either of the sources

I changed it to small role, but I think extra is better. All the sources I am finding say (translation) "a passerby", which is basically an extra but I guess that specific term doesn't translate. I think its a question of translation and extra should be reinstated.

What I'm saying is that, the 'extra' claim isn't verified by either of the sources used. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

OK, I just used a new source.

• Ref #9: Material faithful to the source

Again, it seems to be a question of translation and previous interpretations of translations, but I changed it to what the source says

I changed this to Assistant Director. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• Did La Belle Noiseuse win Special Mention Prize of the Ecumenical Jury? Ref #34 doesn't say so. Our article doesn't mention the film either.

It is referenced in Ref # 35. Took me forever to find that as I recall

It still doesn't. The Cannes FF site doesn't mention it either. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It is currently reference # 34. The MUBI reference.

Unless I'm missing something, the film did not win the said award. The official source lists only the Grand Prix. —Vensatry _(talk) 14:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, ;User:Vensatry sorry for the delay and I do appreciate your help. Basically as I recall the Official Cannes page originally did have the award listed. At some point in the past few months them seem to have purged their website and now only include the most basic awards for each year. At that point (when I noticed it) I found the MUBI source. Is MUBI unreliable? I always thought it was.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, alright —Vensatry _(talk) 12:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Ref #29: Years are inconsistent with the source. You need to clarify the same in the table.

I just eliminated most of this source. One date was wrong on the wiki page.

You haven't. It's now numbered at [28] —Vensatry _(talk) 09:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, currently the reference in question is # 41.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'eliminated' then? —Vensatry _(talk) 14:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I mean I took out that specific source for most titles in the filmography charts except for those not listed in the AllMovie source. Initially I intended to only use All Movie as the source for all of the titles, but found that some of the films were not included in that reliable source. So I found the French Ciné-Ressources (the source in question) and added it to ALL titles that it supported, both those already supported by All Movie and those not. Admittedly I overlooked the fact that some dates were wrong, which was sloppy of me. So by 'eliminate', I mean that now the Ciné-Ressources source is only used for titles not supported by All Movie.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC) Also to be clear, Reference number 28 is the All Movie reference. Reference number 40 is the Ciné-Ressources reference. The beginning of this conversation referred to Ciné-Ressources when it was still reference 29. Have you been referring to the All Movie reference?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC) I apologize, a few of the dates from All Movie are inconsistent. Fixing now.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

• You link some publishers but not others

Fixed

• In publishers, you use Festival del film Locarno, berlinale.de and Cannes Film Festival - Be consistent

Fixed

• Is cinema1987.org a RS?

I hate this source. Lots of unreliable sources on the web, but this was the best I could find. It is very hard to google translate search in Japanese. I'll keep trying.

I added a better ref for the 1992 Kinema Junpo award. Hope that helps! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:19, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

• Titles and publisher names should abide by WP:SHOUT

Fixed

Refs. #36 and #37 are still left. Also, add language in the former. —Vensatry _(talk) 09:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Yea, I overlooked those. Fixed.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

• Rest all look good. The book sources used in the article are of high-quality. —Vensatry _(talk) 04:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. I'll keep looking for a better source for the Kinema Jumpo award.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Vensatry would you be prepared to indicate whether your concerns have now been addressed? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Vensatry sorry to nag, but can you respond here? Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

TRM, I have responded. A few points are still unaddressed. —Vensatry _(talk) 19:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Vensatry, appreciate it. Deoliveirafan if you could let me know you're continuing to address Vensatry's issues, that'd be great. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I'm done with the SR. This one is good to go! —Vensatry _(talk) 12:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 23:31, 6 February 2017 (UTC) [18].

---

List of municipalities in Louisiana

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

With the help of many others, I am attempting to create standardised, high quality featured lists of municipalities in all states, provinces and territories in North America. This will be the 12th such nomination and I believe this article is a complete and comprehensive list of all cities, towns and villages within the state of Louisiana. I have modelled this list off of my recently promoted List of cities and towns in Montana and List of cities and towns in Alabama so it should be of the same high standard. I've incorporated suggestions from recent reviews to make this nomination go as smoothly as possible. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks again for your input. Mattximus (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support This very nice list is well organized and nicely presented. An Earwig checks show the potential of copyvio unlikely and WC3 indicates no dead links. Referencing is light, but heavy referencing seems unnecessary and everything is correctly sourced in the table headers to RS. The LEDE complies with WP:LEDE and represents an accurate summary of the list. I have an issue with the use of the "%" sign instead of "-percent", however, MOS:PERCENT has always been vague and unclear so will defer on that point. Images are sufficiently illustrative of the article and are all correctly licensed. I found no incidences of spelling or grammar issues. The article is stable with no outstanding disputes evident on the Talk page (last discussion was ~3 years ago) and no substantial, recent edits other than those of the nominator.

This is, overall, an excellent and important list presented in such a way that its expansion following the 2020 census will be fairly easy to accomplish, thereby ensuring its long-term utility to the project. Very nice job, Mattximus. LavaBaron (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! And yes that whole 2000 census column will be deleted and replaced by the 2020 census results since it's already quite out of date. Mattximus (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Hwy43

Comments by Hwy43 For all intents and purposes, the state is in the middle of the pack in terms of population and area. While this might just be a style thing, the word but in the first sentence that splices the state rankings of population and area together infers significant contrast. Since the rankings only differ by eight places, there is little contrast. Consider simply using and instead. Good call, changed. The opening sentence of the second paragraph states "... any unincorporated area with a population greater than two hundred inhabitants may propose to incorporate as a city, town or village." This then appears to be contradicted in the following sentences, where the minimum population thresholds for city, town and village status are stated to be 5,000, 1,000 and 200 inhabitants respectively. It is therefore evident that an unincorporated area can only incorporate as a village, and not a town or city, if it has more than 200 inhabitants. I added "depending on the population requirement" and the next few sentences describe this requirement. Does this make sense? An unincorporated area that has 5,000 people may incorporate as a city (just 200 is the minimum for incorporation of any kind). Still doesn't work. What about "... residents of any unincorporated area may propose to incorporate as a municipality if the area meets prescribed minimum population thresholds"? This introduces there are thresholds, then the next sentence introduces the three types of municipalities, and then the following sentence spells out the thresholds applicable to each. Hwy43 (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC) You are correct, that flows much better. Changed. The second-last sentence in the second paragraph ends in a wordy way. i.e., "... so as to take the municipality out of its present municipal class." Can this be simplified? Significantly simplified sentence. Now reads "The governor may change the classification of the municipality if the board of aldermen requests a change and a census shows that the population has increased or decreased to the extent that it is removed from its present municipal class" I still struggle with it. What about "... increased or decreased making it eligible for a different classification."? Hwy43 (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC) That works for me, changed. Mattximus (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Typically, a community that is "incorporated" is a "municipality". Thus, using "Incorporated" in the section heading, within an article about "municipalities" seems superfluous. Removed 2 instances of incorporated municipalities including header. Left one instance of the word "incorporated" since the next paragraph contrasts with unincorporated. Would that work? There is unnecessary capitalization in the label for the first legend item below the images. When speaking of a parish in general terms, it is common noun rather than a proper noun. It is usually only capitalized when part of the parish's official legal name (e.g., Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government). Good catch, changed. Reverse the order of the two legend items since the second one appears first in the default ordering of the table. Done There is inconsistent spacing between the dagger/double dagger and the last word in the two legend items. Fix the inconsistency and double-check a consistent approach is applied to all affected entries within the table itself. That said however, are the daggers/double daggers even necessary? Can't just the background colour do the trick? Changed. I was told that for accessibility reasons you must include a dagger of some kind when shading a box with a colour. Ah. I thought that might have been the case upon thinking further about it this morning. Hwy43 (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC) If Houma is not its own municipality (it is instead part of the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government), exclude it from the list, just like how the urban service areas of Fort McMurray and Sherwood Park, which are unincorporated communities deemed city-equivalents for certain purposes, are not listed as municipalities at List of municipalities in Alberta. There, content was provided instead explaining these two communities were not municipalities, but sub-municipal geographies of their respective municipalities. This is interesting. I will remove it, but I wonder if I should then add Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government, as it seems to function like a municipality. What do you think? If so I will have to add the three other consolidated governments: Lafayette, New Orleans, and Baton Rouge. There are only 4 in Louisiana. Yes, I think adding the four would be appropriate, and then you can include a note in the Terrebonne entry explaining that it includes Houma. If there are similar situations in the other three, add notes to their entries as well. Hwy43 (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC) Does the State of Louisiana also consider parishes to be municipalities? If no, is the Terrebonne Parish Consolidated Government an exception to the rule and considered a municipality? This is a very good question, which I do not know the answer yet. I will try to dig around. If so there is then another issue, since Lafayette city and parish are also under a Consolidated Government but within this parish are other independent municipalities (Lafayette,_Louisiana#Government_and_politics). I'm not sure how to proceed here, I will have to think about it, but welcome any advice! I did find this quotation that makes it look like consolidated parishes are functional municipalities. "The City of Lafayette's status within Lafayette Consolidated Government as stated within the charter is a legal entity with "urban service districts" and "...shall exercise all powers granted by general state law and the state constitution for municipalities..." and "[the 5 other municipalities] did not want to be integrated into the parish government when the vote was taken. They each continue to elect their own mayor and own council.". So it looks like this "municipality" governs the entire parish minus those 5 incorporated places which continue their independent municipal corporations. [19] According to legislation, the term "municipality" is defined to include "any incorporated city, town, or village." Meanwhile, the Louisiana Municipal Association (LMA) states "The LMA is a statewide member organization that advocates for all 303 municipalities and 2 parishes". The 305 members can be viewed in the municipal directory by simply clicking "Find" without filling out the form. So the article says 304 municipalities and the LMA says 303. Meanwhile, the LMA says 2 parishes and your research above indicates 4 consolidated governments. Could you audit the LMA municipal directory with the list in the article to determine which one entry in the list article might not be a municipality and which two consolidated governments aren't LMA members? Hwy43 (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Yes my list is based on the 304 that were present at the time of the 2010 census, but I will begin auditing to find the discrepancy. The link you sent also lists the incorporation date, which I'm tempted to add as another column. This may take a while, so I can send you a ping when I'm done. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Does it also every refer to cities, towns and villages collectively as "urban municipalities"? If so, consider renaming the section heading from "Incorporated cCities, towns and villages" to "Urban municipalities" or simply "Municipalities". I have not seen the term "urban municipalities in any reference so I chose the latter of your suggestions and just called it "municipalities" That is all for now. Great list per usual. Look forward to hearing back. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Thanks for your review! I have made all the changes except for those related to the consolidated government as I'm wondering what your opinion of those will be. I have also applied your suggestions to the other 4 American lists I've brought up to Featured List: List of cities and towns in Montana, List of municipalities in Maryland, List of municipalities in Mississippi, List of cities and towns in Alabama. So your review is going a long way. Mattximus (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC) You are welcome. A couple of replies for now. I'll look at the others later. Hwy43 (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Mattximus, thank you for addressing my minor observations thus far. My responses to your responses is complete. I don't anticipate going any further and look forward to your replies. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC) Hwy43, thank you for your thorough review: I have taken your advice and added all 4 consolidated governments to the list, as well as incorporation dates. The first two were easy, both New Orleans and Terrebonne Parish had census data that was coterminous with their parishes. However, both Lafayette and Baton Rouge appear to govern the city and the unincorporated territory of their parish. To calculate these numbers I took the Parish population and area and subtracted the municipal units that are not government by the Consolidated Governments. Would this be considered original research, I've added notes to these which I hope are thorough? I've also found the discrepancy in the municipal directory you suggest I audit. It appears Jefferson Parish is on the list [20] and I have no idea why. It does not appear to be a municipality at all... Please let me know if my approach was acceptable. Other than that, I believe I've answered all your comments. Thanks again. Mattximus (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support with pleasure. I'm satisfied. Great work! The only final things I recommend are centering the numerical contents of the final four columns just as done to the three numeric columns before them, and making sure the quantity of municipalities mentioned in the lead is correct with the recent additions to the table. Hope you don't mind my subsequent copyedits. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Municipalities are granted powers to perform any function required by local governments" Are no powers reserved to state level?

Changed the wording by removing "any". Does that work?

• "The largest municipality by population in Louisiana in 2010 is New Orleans with 343,829 residents, and the smallest municipality by population is Mound" I do not think you need to repeat "municipality by population".

Nice catch, changed.

• As there are only three notes I would not put them in three columns.

Good idea, however I'm now thinking of adding a new column for incorporation date now that a new source has been found, meaning the notes would then become necessary.

• Is the overall decline in population between 2000 and 2010 worth commenting on?

I considered this (talking about the effects of Hurricane Katrina), but I thought it might be a bit beside the main point of the article, and also the 2000 data is quite out of date and I have templates created for easy transition to the new census data when it is done in a few years. A new population trend will emerge with different explanations.

• Looks fine. These queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your review! Mattximus (talk) 21:27, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm not sure if you have time, but I've made population and area changes to two consolidated governments (Lafayette and Baton Rouge) by adding the unincorporated areas of their parishes into their population total, since the municipalities also govern these lands. I've added notes detailing why, but I'm not sure if this is original research. I've also added a column on incorporation dates. I'm not sure if these changes warrant discussion/change your vote. Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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