Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2015

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 Crisco 1492 12:53, 26 March 2015 [1].

---

List of cricketers who have carried the bat in international cricket

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(ping) 16:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

An interesting list. Given that we have only 10 cricketers performing this "feat" outside of Test cricket, I thought it's best to have all the three combined. Look forward to comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _(ping) 16:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – Only two queries:

• You might center the references in the table as they look much better than being on left.
  • I don't think that's a requirement. All the entries are aligned to the left and this one is no different. —Vensatry _(ping) 07:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
• How about using {{Tooltip}} for more clarification for Ref? --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 21:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Done —Vensatry _(ping) 07:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Initial quick comments from Harrias ^talk

• "Lords Cricket Ground" should be "Lord's Cricket Ground".
• I would prefer the "Name" column left aligned, but that is personal preference.
• The fixed column widths seem wrong, South Africa is across two lines on my screen when the home team.
• The runs column does not sort at all correctly for me, it needs a sortkey.
• The date is wrong for Test #6.
• Merge the last paragraph of the lead, which is only one sentence, into the previous paragraph. Harrias ^talk 17:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed all —Vensatry _(ping) 19:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• The first four sentences of the second paragraph are somewhat repetitive: "South African Bernard Tancred... when he made...", "England's Bobby Abel... when he made...", "Bill Woodfull of Australia... when he made...", "Australian Bill Brown... he made..."
  • Made some copy-edits —Vensatry _(ping) 19:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• "Australia has performed this feat more than any other country.." I think this should be "Australian players have..."
  • Done as suggested —Vensatry _(ping) 19:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• For some reason the column widths for the T20I table display differently than the two above, though it looks like they should all line up?
  • I don't have a clue here. What do you suggest? —Vensatry _(ping) 19:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I've had a bit of a play around with the column widths, and made the T20I table sortable (even though it only has one entry) and they now all line up fine on my screen. How does it look to you? Harrias ^talk 15:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
• Add "Inn." to the Key.
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• I think it would be worth adding a note for each instance of not all 10 wickets being taken as to why that was.
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
• The South African flags need time correcting: prior to 31 May 1910, South Africa did not have a unified flag, so it probably isn't appropriate to use one at all. From 31 May 1928 you can use {{cr|SAF|1958}}, and from 27 April 1994 the current one. Harrias ^talk 16:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• I've tidied these up a little bit. Harrias ^talk 15:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick drive-by comment......

• Is it worth putting something in to the effect that carrying the bat is far less likely to happen in ODIs and (especially) T20Is because it's much less likely that a team will lose all twn wickets.........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I tried finding a source for this. But sadly couldn't find any. —Vensatry _(ping) 10:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ~~~~

Comments "a batsman ending up scoring" not keen on "ending up", not even sure it's necessary. Image caption needs a full stop. "he made 206 against England" when? "A total of five ..." No real need for "A total of" here. "thrice" a bit archaic, three times is more standard. "and English cricketer" you've already said "cricketer", perhaps Englishman? "occasion where a player made centuries on two occasions" repetitive prose. "more number of times" missing something here, either it should be something like "more than any other country" and that would be better if you said "Batsmen from Australia have ... more than ..." etc, or else a different reword is needed. "to achieve this" would be better to reinforce "to carry his bat" rather than "achieve this" " is the most recent cricketer" in Test cricket, so make sure that's noted. " 84-in Zimbabwe's total of 205-against " if these are supposed to be spaced en-dashes, make them such! "the following year" -> The following year. "scoring 63 runs" I would add a comma before this clause and also note how many runs the Windies scored in total, for context. Not sure the M of Match needs to be capitalised for Test matches. In fact, for consistency across the table captions, you could just have Tests. You have Tied in the key but it's not used anywhere. Anwar's one was a tie. —Vensatry (ping) 18:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Innings 21, Kingston is a dab. I've not seen W.A.C.A. with full stops before... Russel Arnold has only one l in his first name. Ref 7, shouldn't the surname come first, per the other such refs? That's it for me, fundamentally a very good list, which needs a few minor tweaks. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC) Think I've fixed all. Thanks for the comments —Vensatry (ping) 18:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• I think you should incorporate "after all 10 wickets have fallen" into the first sentence. Because a limited-overs innings does indeed "end" at the end of 20/50 overs.
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• I think you should mention that Bernard Tancred's 26* remains the lowest made while carrying the bat.
  • Added as a FN —Vensatry _(ping) 19:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Delink the cities under Venue; they aren't relevant here.
  • As long as they don't fall into WP:OLINK, I see no harm in linking them. —Vensatry _(ping) 19:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

OLINK explicitly states "names of major geographic features and locations" are not usually linked, especially when "they are [not] particularly relevant to the topic of the article".—indopug (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it states only major locations. Since I've not added the names of the countries, it's worth linking the cities. —Vensatry _(ping) 19:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Make sure the widths of the columns of all three tables are the same so it looks orderly.
  • Made sure —Vensatry _(ping) 19:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Have you found sources that illustrate the implications of what happens when a batsman carries his bat? For eg, it often means he is the lone knight standing while the rest of his team have performed poorly; this is borne out by the fact that in a majority of cases the team of the batsman carrying his bat loses. It'd be great if you could squeeze a couple of lines on this in the lead.—indopug (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Sadly I'm not able to find any online source that elaborates the topic beyond its basic definition. Think @Harrias: has a collection of Wisden publications, which am sure will contain a lot of information about this. —Vensatry _(ping) 19:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support (once the cities are delinked, per above) A fine, well-sourced list.—indopug (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Well-written and well-sourced list, it meets the criteria.--Carioca (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

@Harrias, The Rambling Man, Indopug, and ChrisTheDude: Guys, requesting you to re-visit the nomination. —Vensatry _(ping) 19:47, 20 March 2015 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:47, 26 March 2015 (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 SchroCat 07:52, 25 March 2015 [2].

---

List of Navy Midshipmen head football coaches

Nominator(s): A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 16:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The third time was not a charm, so here it is for the fourth time. This, as the title suggests, is a list of head coaches for a football team. In its last two FLCs, it has received a combined total of one comment. All concerns from the now-ancient first nomination were addressed long ago, and I still believe that this is ready for the bronze star. Oh, and just as a side-note, this is a WikiCup nomination. Thanks to all who comment, - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 16:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Never mind. I forgot this doesn't count for WikiCup. However, since it's delaying me nominating something for WikiCup, reviews are still highly appreciated :). - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 22:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk Can you update the bit in the lead for the 2014 regular season, given I believe that has now concluded? Updated. Might be worth putting a note in to explain "..in win percentage, with a perfect 1.000." Given that 1.000 is clearly not an actual percentage. I tried to fit it in where it seemed best. Also necessary to explain the "17–3" terminology, this isn't widely used in the UK for example (even more so for "3–13–2"). Clarified. I tried out Template:Win-loss record for the first time and it appears half-decent. In the last paragraph, unless I'm misreading the table, isn't Ken Niumatalolo the leader now for bowl games, with 7? This is probably just a reflection of the lead stats not being up to date for the 2014 season? Yes, I completely forgot to update following the (rather poor) 2014 season. I believe I've made all the necessary updates. The key has a #, but the table has No. Made consistent, the No. looks better. I'm not a fan of the images at the bottom of the table, just creates a lot of white-space without adding much in my opinion. This is due to a point made at the first FLC that this list didn't seem illustrated enough with just the lead image. I agree that it creates a large amount of white space, but, at least on my screen, moving the images anywhere else creates just as much, if not more. Removing them seems like the best option, so I'm going to go be Bold and remove them.

Overall a pretty sound list, and I'm amazed it hasn't gained the support needed to pass previously. Harrias ^talk 16:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, and double thanks for the quick response time. I believe all of your concerns have been addressed. - A Texas Historian (Talk to me) 17:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support That tool-tip thing for the win-loss does work well, I like that! Nice list, hopefully you get some more reviewers, and supports! Harrias ^talk 17:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Sahara4u, Vibhijain, and Vensatry: Any chance that one or more of you can take a look at this? It's a great list, and it is on it's fourth review now without passing, purely through lack of reviews. I've reviewed each of your lists recently, and would consider it a great favour if you could lend A Texas Historian a hand by conducting a review. I know it is unfamiliar subject matter, but sometimes that actually improves the quality of the review. Thanks, Harrias ^talk 16:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support, although I would suggest fixing the following:
  • Move the wikilink on "independent schools" to the first use of the term (in the second sentence)
  • In the tooltip on "3-13-2", it indicates that the 2 refers to "2 draws". I don't know much about American football, but isn't a game where the scores finish level referred to as a "tie" rather than a draw......?
• Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. I've moved the link to the first instance, and yes, they are referred to as ties. The template appears to have been designed for use with English football, and it currently doesn't allow for changing it to ties. However, the term is a synonym, so I think readers should still understand. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 23:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support – this is a very good list with a solid prose. Happy to support this one! --Khadar Khani (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. - A Texas Historian (Impromptu collaboration?) 23:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Support – with some minor comments

• Ken Niumatalolo linked twice in lede
• In the image, alternative text should name the subject per WP:ALT.
• In simple math, percentage is a number or ratio always expressed as a fraction of 100. But here you've taken a 1.0 scale. I'm a "zero" in this topic, so can you please elaborate a little on this?
• The hyphen in "2009-10 NCAA ..." (in ref #12) should be an en dash.
  

—Vensatry _(ping) 19:13, 24 March 2015 (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. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2015 (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 SchroCat 07:53, 25 March 2015 [3].

---

List of Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Victorian Order appointed by King Edward VII

Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

This article lists those who have received the highest grade of one of the orders of knighthood in the UK at a time when Britain was a leading power in the world; the list includes foreign heads of state, notable British soldiers, courtiers and ambassadors, reflecting the diplomatic relations and social structures of the time. Due to the number of people awarded the honour since it was founded in 1896, it seems sensible to split it into appointments by reign, and this is the first, covering the appointments made by Edward VII (reigned 1901–1910). I believe the article is well-written, with a lead which introduces and summarises the topic well. This article follows the same format as the list of Queen Victoria's appointments which was promoted to FL in October 2014. It is complete and incorporates sorting on the name, country of origin and date of appointment of individuals. Similarly, all items in the list are reliably sourced, as is the lead. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC).

• Support - Great job. This is a very good list. But how about including birth and death date of the recipents in parenthesises after the name? Since many of the noble receipts share the same first and last name as their relatives it would help clarify who the recipients are when there is no wikilink. See the example below, where the recipient is the father Konstantin von Neurath and not his son of the same name (Konstantin von Neurath). P. S. Burton (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Name	Country	Date of appointment	Office	Occasion	Notes
Konstantin, Baron von Neurath (1847–1912)*	German Empire	21 April 1904	Lord Chamberlain to the King of Württemberg	Visit of the Prince of Wales to Württemberg

• @P. S. Burton: Thank you for your comments and for the linking you have done on the article. I appreciate what you're saying here, but my concern is that the original source does not specify their birth/death dates and, in some cases, doesn't even give their full names (e.g. Count d'Arnoso); therefore, this would require additional material to support those facts and some of the people, especially the foreign figures, are much harder to track down in reliable reference material (at least anything online). This is especially true where people don't even have articles on their own language wikis. This means that it may simply not be possible to add this information, at least not consistently anyway. Do let me know what you think. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC).

• Yes. you are probably right that it would be impossible to identify all recipients. P. S. Burton (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• @P. S. Burton: Thank you for your support, —Noswall59 (talk) 00:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC).

Resolved comments from Bencherlite

Comments: I find all the extra Christian names, titles, post-nominals etc rather distracting. E.g. "His Royal Highness Manuel Marie Philippe Charles Amelio Louis Michel Raphael Gabriel Gonzague Xavier Francois d'Assise Eugene, Duke of Beja" could perhaps be "The Duke of Beha (later Manuel II of Portugal)". I have removed the multiple Christian names from royals. I do feel that it works well with civilian/noble appointments, but, if it is a problem, I will remove them. Also the notes could be improved: e.g. (1) I would guess that the Duke of Teck got the award not because he was a captain in the Life Guards but because he was a member of the royal family, and e.g. (2) I'd rather not have to leave the article to find out who Paul Wolff Metternich was. Perhaps combine the "Office" and "Occasion" into one column ("Notes"), rename "Notes" as "Ref(s)", and say something about each one? At the moment, for instance, the table doesn't support the claim in the lead that several future kings were recipients of the honour - one has to click through on every possible name to find them, which isn't good enough from my perspective. BencherliteTalk 13:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC) In the case of the Duke of Teck, he probably did get the award because he was in the royal family, but no source explicitly states that; furthermore, I don't suggest that he got the award because of his commission—as the paragraph above the list states, it indicates his branch of service. The office column includes the information provided in the original gazette. I have kept the occasion column separate because it allows people to be grouped by occasion, which couldn't be done otherwise. Again, I can change this, and will do, if you think it's necessary. (See my response to your first point for the issue with the kings). Are we missing a visit to Italy and a visit to France in April/May 1903? Yes, I've added those now. Consider linking to former nations e.g. Austria-Hungary (which is down as "Austria Hungary" in Coudenhove's entry) Done with Austria-Hungary, German Empire and Russian Empire. Should the title omit the word "King" per the main article Edward VII? How would I rectify this? Shouldn't we have urls pointing us to the ODNB biographies where you're using it as a source? Done, with subscription needed tag added. Citation 9 isn't required, and if you want to retain it, it should be a note not a citation Retained as a note Citation 10 isn't required, because the lead is taken to be sourced from the table below already - we don't need to say that specifically. Removed Why do we need to know about women or the 1984 renaming of the lowest order? Neither are relevant here. Perhaps trim it right down to something like this: It was instituted with five grades, the highest which was Knight Grand Cross (GCVO); it conferred the status of knighthood on holders (apart from foreigners, who received honorary awards not entitling them to the style of a knight). I thought it was best to give a general overview, but I have changed to your version. Why is Salisbury "Amongst the most notable of the civilian appointments"? I have removed the "most notable" statement. That's enough for now, I think. A lot of work has clearly gone into this already but I'd be interested in seeing your replies to these points. BencherliteTalk 13:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC) @Bencherlite: Thank you for your comments, I have responded above, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC). Continuing from above. I really don't like "The Most Noble John George Edward Henry Douglas Sutherland Campbell, 9th Duke of Argyll KT GCMG" as opposed to John Campbell, 9th Duke of Argyll, and similarly for all the honorific titles and post-nominal letters. It's not the Wikipedia way to refer to someone, outside their own article, with a fistful of titles and honours either side of their name. Re the Duke of Teck etc. I'm not asking you to say that he got the GCVO because he was a member of the royal family. I'm asking for something like this: Name Country Date of appointment Notes Ref(s) Adolpus, Duke of Teck United Kingdom 27 January 1901 Captain in the 1st Life Guards and younger brother of Queen Mary, the wife of King George V [1][2] (Incidentally, what's the advantage of data-sort-value="X" instead of {{sortname}}?) You can combine the office and occasion fields because all of the "occasions" were awarded on the same date, so can be found that way (NB even at the moment it's not sortable by occasion, so you don't lose anything by combining the information it contains with another column). If you link Austria-Hungary once, you have to link it every time it appears as this is a sortable table. To get rid of "King" from the article title, the page would have to be moved. Perhaps that's something to decide/do after closure of the FLC as moving pages mid-FLC risks confusing bots and people! BencherliteTalk 17:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC) @Bencherlite: Thanks again for your comments. I have now gone through the whole list and removed every honorific (e.g. his majesty, most noble), post-nominal and all middle names where it is clear that it is a middle name (in some foreign cases, it is not always clear). I have retained military ranks and the prefixes "Sir", "Count", "Prince" and "Lord", which I believe is policy, but everything else has been trimmed back as requested. I can remove those too, but I don't think they are superfluous. I have removed links in the countries column. I have amended the Duke of Teck and his two brothers who received the award, as you requested; if there are any others, let me know (I can't think of any, but will check over once more). I have also merged the office and occasion columns as requested. Lastly, I don't have a particular reason for the sorting preference - I think it was just the first way I learnt to apply sorting to tables—I wasn't aware that it was functionally any different. Again, let me know if this is all correct now. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 22:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC).

• Support some of your phrases in the notes end with a full-stop, others don't. Best to make it consistent. Perhaps the same is true of your references (or it might be that my glasses need cleaning again). Apart from that, we're now into "I might have done it differently" territory in some respects, which isn't a reason to oppose. For future lists, you can save yourself some typing by using {{sortname}} (which even handles names you don't want to link). Well done. Bencherlite^Talk 21:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bencherlite: I will look over the full-stops and learn to use the sortname template. Thank you for your comments and your support, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC).

• What sets the criteria for which people have notes and which don't? I'd keep the list self-contained, meaning that there should be short biographic information for all of them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Crisco 1492: The information in each note is taken from the original gazette and consists of the occasion given for the appointment, and the person's office. For most knights, this effectively gives the reason for the appointment. In some of the older sources, appointments are seldom given, and so the notes column is left empty unless I can find the information elsewhere. Bencherlite pointed out that royals received orders for being royal, and so I ought to explain their relationship to the King. Otherwise, I never intended to add biographical information in itself because I felt it was out of the scope of the list, and also because it might create inconsistency: you can see how many of the foreigners lack articles on the English Wikipedia (a shame, I know) and this is telling about the English-language sources available online. I wouldn't know where to find reliable information about members of the Austrian Royal Household, Portuguese nobility, or the Japanese diplomatic service, and so some may lack information. I have just finished my term at University, so I am free to spend some time over this, however. If you could be a bit more specific about what and how much information to include, I can have a look at it. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:12, 17 March 2015 (UTC).

• In most cases we have articles on the individuals (a blessing, really) so a single sentence should be easy for those. "King of Siam", etc. Occasion of the appointment may be available, though I wouldn't be sure of that. Basically, it's fine and dandy to have a list of people made knights grand cross, but we should standardize whether we give the reason why or not. Otherwise it will be confusing for individuals not familiar with the subject. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:19, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Crisco 1492: Thanks for your reply. I've added info to the empty notes columns. There are still four or five for whom I can find very little, but they are titled, so perhaps that will suffice to explain their importance? Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC).

• That works better. Guess it's enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• letters patent - why the lower case?

• Done

• Of those 97, six were members of his own family, three were Indian princes, one was an Archbishop, 31 were - Per WP:NUMNOTES, comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in numerals.

• Done

• Link The London Gazette on first mention. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Done

I've corrected each of these. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2015 (UTC).

• Support on prose. Good work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support, —Noswall59 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2015 (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. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2015 (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 SchroCat 07:56, 25 March 2015 [4].

---

List of York City F.C. players (25–99 appearances)

Nominator(s): Mattythewhite (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the criteria. It is the second of a three-part series of lists headed by List of York City F.C. players, which has been a featured list since October 2007. Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This is great. Can you clarify sourcing for me? I recently worked on an FL and it felt like every cell of the table needed a reference. You have a column of refs that is barely populated. Clarify that and I am happy to support.

I'll go through the sourcing column by column. Positions are cited by either Batters, Windross & Jarred, Soccerbase or an individual reference in the Ref column where necessary (e.g. Michael Coulson). Club career, apps and goals come from a combination of refs 14 & 15 in the key. International selection and caps are referenced individually in the Refs column. Loans in the Notes column are referenced by either Windross & Jarred or Soccerbase. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Other notes: The image MOS is not perfect since you have people facing away from the text. Making adjustments would either screw up the layout or reduce images. I recommend keeping them all.

I've just stumbled across MOS:IMAGELOCATION, and I was completely unaware of what it recommends. I would agree with keeping the images as they are. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the key should be an independent section but it is in depth enough that I'll yield to whatever is considered best/standard.

I've gone with what has been done on other featured lists, like List of Birmingham City F.C. players, List of Lincoln City F.C. players, and List of Malmö FF players, which include key sections. I feel there's enough content to justify it having its own section. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Should the other lists be wikilinked in the lead?

They are linked directly below the list, which I think is a logical location, and in the template at the bottom of the page. So I think it would be a bit OTT to include them in the lead too. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Cptnono (talk) 04:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, Support. The aesthetics of the blank columns irks me but presenting that much data is better than I could have done. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• In the Positions key, you have "Full back" and "Half-back", be consistent and either use a hyphen in both, or neither.
  • Hyphen added to full-back. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Note F needs clarifying: I know what you are saying, but it could be read as "While at Yeovil, Dunphy was the first player capped by the Republic of Ireland."
  • I'm not sure about rewording it as that, as the emphasis wants to be on him being the first player capped by any country, rather than the Republic of Ireland. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, you misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that it be rewritten as that, but that the note could be interpreted as meaning that. Harrias ^talk 11:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I see. I've removed "by his country", this should remove any ambiguity. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
• Why are some of the players not linked in the table?
  • The players not linked did not play in any fully professional leagues and as such are not deemed notable accoring to WP:NFOOTBALL. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• The last sentence of the first paragraph in the lead looks as though it would be better suited in the second paragraph. Though personally, that whole piece explaining the list would be better suited in the Key section.
  • I've moved the last sentence of the first paragraph into the second. I'm a little reluctant to move it into the Key, as it wouldn't match the bullet-pointed format used there, and that is it used to explain the contents of each column. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• The last paragraph of the "Introduction" needs a reference.
  • I chose not to reference these two sentences as the content in them, like in the list, is supported by the general references. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Given that "England amateur" doesn't capitalise all words, I think it should be "Wales semi-pro". Harrias ^talk 18:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Changed as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• My only concerns are as follows:
  • "The club's first team have competed in numerous nationally organised competitions, and all players who have played between 25 and 99 such matches [...] are listed below" - this suggests that only matches in national competitions are included in the totals, but Midland League matches are included and that was not a national competition
    • Removed "nationally organised" to make it clear that all competitions are included. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Now that you've made that change, "all players who have played between 25 and 99 such matches" doesn't really make sense. I'd be inclined to change it to something like "all players who have played between 25 and 99 matches for the club's first team" or something like that......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
        • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
          • Actually, now I look at it, it still doesn't look quite right. Maybe try "The club's first team have competed in numerous competitions, and all players who have played between 25 and 99 first-team matches....." - with this change made I'm happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
            • Reworded as suggested. Thanks for the comments and support. Mattythewhite (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The last sentence of the Introduction starts with a numeral, which the MOS says should not be done
    • Reworded. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Think that's it.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Struway2

• I don't usually comment on prose, but it might be an improvement to turn the second sentence round so that the link from "elected", to a Football League-specific page, is more appropriately placed. Something like "Formed in May 1922, the club failed to be elected to the Football League for the coming season, but succeeded in gaining admission to the Midland League."
  • Reworded as suggested. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• In the key, you've missed out the |alt= bit in the double-dagger template call, and you might want to clarify that it's York City's Clubman of the Year
  • |alt= added and added to text. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• In the Fairclough image caption, "injury hit" should be hyphenated, as should "extra time" in the Leaning caption
  • Hyphenated. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• If the stats are correct as of match played 7 March 2015, shouldn't the accessdate for their source be more recent than August 2013?
  • Accessdates updated where needed. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Are Caribbean Football Database, englandstats.com, and Dragon Soccer reliable sources?
  • Caribbean Football Database: I'm not sure as to its reliability, but I've replaced it with Soccerway anyway. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • englandstats.com: Their website states who "designed, maintained, researched and updated" their content, and it probably doesn't count for much but I've never encountered any issues with the site's accuracy. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Try the FA profile, which confirms Mr Hulme played for England, but not till long after he left YCFC. Struway2 (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Thanks, I've replaced it with that ref. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Dragon Soccer: same drill as Caribbean Football Database. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Sorting for the club career column is inconsistent. E.g., when sorting the column in ascending order, if the two years are in the same century, the end year also sorts ascending: so 1923–24 sorts before 1923–25 sorts before 1923–26. But if the range goes over the century boundary, it doesn't: 1998–2000 sorts before 1998–2001 sorts before 1998–99... Should it be consistent?
  • I think the only way to remedy this would be to write the years in full, although this would contradict MOS:DOB. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    • It wouldn't, in fact. Notes at that section exempt year ranges in tables specifically because of the century-sorting problem. To be fair, I changed various lists to the what-was-then MoS-compliant format last close season, and didn't realise it messed up the sorting until several months later, at which point I changed them back. Somewhen in the meantime, the MoS was changed to include that exemption. Struway2 (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Year ranges written out in full. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
• I'm not comfortable with sourcing the post-07/08 "other" apps/goals to Soccerbase plus a list of twenty-nine newspaper match reports, especially as there's no explanation of why they're needed or what they cover. Or, for that matter, the unexplained extra newspaper links for league apps/goals. See e.g. WP:CITE#Additional annotation. Struway2 (talk) 13:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The league apps/goals contains additional refs for where Soccerbase have made errors, and they are not needed in other apps/goals as they apply only to league appearances. The sourcing of the appearances has long been a concern for me, and it's arisen out of Soccerbase excluding excluding FA Trophy and Conference League Cup appearances. I will try and replace the newspaper pieces with Non-League Club Directory refs sometime soon. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Yes, I've used Soccerbase plenty long enough to know why you might need 29 match reports as well :-) Are the competitions that Soccerway covers e.g. FA Trophy from 10/11 onwards, equally error-prone? The problem is the reader doesn't know why, and doesn't know what any of those 29 match reports are supposed to be referencing. The explanations and annotations do need to be in the article, whether in a separate notes section or in with where the refs are now. If you want to keep them all together in one giant reference, like they are at the moment, it'd be more helpful if they had a bit of structure. E.g after the Soccerbase ref, put something like "Soccerbase has no data for a number of competitions:" and then group the match reports by season:
      • For the 2008–09 FA Trophy and Conference League Cup, see
      • 1st match report
      • 2nd match report...
      • For the 2009–10 Whatevertheyremissingthisseason Cup, see
      • 11th match report
      • etc etc etc
    • {{plainlist}} is a useful tool, and more accessible than using <br>s.
    • As to the league apps/goals, if any of those extra refs only affect one or two players, like for omission from a lineup or awarding of a dubious goal, I'd be tempted to put them on the row for the player(s) concerned, with an explanatory note. Struway2 (talk) 12:03, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
      • I've structured the apps/goals ref in the way you recommended, and have used {{plainlist}} to separate the sources. I've moved the league apps/goals sources to the rows for the players concerned and have included explanatory notex. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Reckless182

• The first thing I notice is the left alligned text in the international selection section. Now I don't know if there is a MOS for this, but I would prefer for it to be centrally alligned as all other text (except for the player names) are centrally alligned.
  • I've looked through Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables for guidance on this, but haven't found anything explicit. The example tables at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Tables#Appropriate use show text aligned to the left for cells containing substantial text. And having done a preview of some left aligned and some centre aligned, I think they look more presentable left aligned. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Same section as above. I'm inclined to disagree on the inclusion of youth and B team selections, most certainly for youth teams. I just don't think that it is notable enough to include.
  • I would prefer to include them for the sake of comprehensiveness, by presenting the players' highest level of international representation per country rather than just senior level. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
• Have you considered colour-coding the players marked with symbols? It would perhaps increase the ability for readers to find what they're looking for.
  • I'm not opposed to this, but I'm concerned about what would be done with the colour-coding if there was one cell with multiple symbols. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Good job with the list! --Reckless182 (talk) 22:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - A very good list in terms of its technical composition as well as meeting all the criteria of what a Featured List should be. I'm not overly enamoured with the idea of including the national teams represented by some of the players as I don't think such a column would be present if York City was a more prominent club that had international players as a matter of course, but its inclusion has a rationale, even if I don't agree with it. – PeeJay 19:17, 23 March 2015 (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. - SchroCat (talk) 07:39, 25 March 2015 (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 SchroCat 07:55, 25 March 2015 [5].

---

World Fantasy Award for Best Artist

Nominator(s): PresN 22:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hot on the heels of World Fantasy Award for Best Anthology, which just passed, comes FLC #32/? in this eternal series, and #6/10 for the World Fantasy Awards: the World Fantasy Award for Best Artist. Given since 1975, it's the fantasy literature community's award for the best fantasy artist of the year. The list itself is a combination of the other World Fantasy Award FLs, and my prior FL Hugo Award for Best Professional Artist (which is the equivalent award for the science fiction/fantasy Hugo Awards). As always, I've incorporated comments from prior FLCs, such as last time's suggestion to merge the "year" cells together, so hopefully this should be smooth sailing. Thanks all for reviewing! --PresN 22:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support I've read the lead and compared it the other lists in this series and it seems this is up to their standard. The list could perhaps use a few pictures illustrating some of the art to give the reader a taste of what this award is rewarding, but as it is now, it looks clean. I only have a minor quibble: the other lists appear to wikilink every winner, even if there is no page to link to at the moment. I think that approach would be useful here, so that if pages are created in the future, they will automatically link to this soon to be featured list and vice versa. Nice work! Mattximus (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• I've now redlinked the winners; thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Support A comprehensive and well-written list. Just one minor point (optional): you have used rowspan for years which seems pretty good, I was wondering if you could do the same with the references. But since its fellow lists follow the same format and this one is written after them, I leave it on you. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 16:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• I left the references un-rowspanned for consistency, since for some other lists individual lines might have different references; I also don't like moving from left to right going non-rowspanned to rowspanned, as I think it makes it visually confusing. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Fair enough. If you could have a look at one of my noms. :) --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 19:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Crisco comments

• book critics such as The Guardian - The Guardian is a newspaper, not a critic
• I still think preceding works better than previous for "calendar year" (I swear I've brought this up before); having one "preceding" also avoids repeating "previous" later on.
• For art (which is predominantly visual), must we add the clarifier "in English"?
• Repetition of "prestigious" in the second sentence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Changed to "sources"
• Swapped all previous calendar years to preceding calendar years- looks like you haven't suggested "preceding" before, though you did once express confusion on whether previous meant the prior calendar year or the last 365 days.
• Dropped it; the "English" was meant to refer to the written works also mentioned in the sentence but since the article's about art/artists it's not so important.
• changed

@Crisco 1492: addressed your concerns. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 18:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Looks ready! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2015 (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. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2015 (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 SchroCat 07:54, 25 March 2015 [6].

---

List of scheduled monuments in Sedgemoor

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 21:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The fifth list (of seven) of the Scheduled monuments in Somerset. The 79 items in the list range in age from the Neolithic to World War II. It follows the format of the others, but incorporates the lessons from the previous nominations.— Rod ^talk 21:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It is customary now to add the image towards the end in the tables? I think I prefer the images near the left side in first or second column like I've seen in Peter I. Vardy's. Also, why are some red links and others not?♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The position of the image is set by Template:EH listed building header and Template:EH listed building row which is used on all the Somerset lists of scheduled monuments. There are a few redlinks for sites I think have a reasonable chance of an article (and I will create a few more of these) other titles are black as it is unlikely they will ever be notable (or have enough sources) to write an article about them - this was advised in one of the previous nominations within this set.— Rod ^talk 21:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Minor comment on BC/BCE usage – we should be consistent using one or other. Also spacing of BC/AD should be consistent – using a non-breaking space to keep the year and prefix together. Keith D (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• I have tried to standardise on B.C. - have I missed any?— Rod ^talk 21:45, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you have caught the one I saw. Keith D (talk) 22:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Hi Rod, good work. Can I just check that this is complete. I've copied the table into Excel and it's counting 78 rows excluding the header. A search at English Heritage (Where = Somerset, SedgemoorWhat = Heritage Asset Type/s (Scheduling)) gives 79 results. I may be missing something, but I thought I'd ask. Kind regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC).

• Thank you. It appears I missed "Round barrows 600yds (550m) NW of Longbottom Farm" (1006223). I don't know how that happened, but it appears to be two old Pastcape records combined (referenced in the list). Could I ask a big favour (only sort of related to this nomination). I can't quite work out how you loaded the wikitable into excel so could you run the same test on List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset and List of scheduled monuments in Mendip which are by far the largest of the set (and therefore potentially more prone to this error).?— Rod ^talk 14:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, I have repeated this for the two you've mentioned and double checked the results: the Wikipedia tables contain 182 rows in West Somerset (compared to the 202 I get on EH), and 228 in Mendip (compared to the 234 I get on EH). I discovered, while working on my GCVO lists that, if one can highlight the whole table on Wikipedia, copy it and then paste it into Excel (it should be the default if you press Ctrl+V, but can also be done by right-clicking and going "Keep Source Formatting" under "Paste Options" or "Paste Special"). I am using Excel 2013, so I can't say if this will work with earlier versions, but it may well do. Tables can also be copied from Excel and pasted in Wikipedia using Visual Editor, which can work surprisingly well (although it cannot keep formatting). If you need any other lists checking, then I'd be happy to go over them. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, I guess it's better to know now though. Regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC).

• Thanks, I will try the list to excel trick at some point but, in the meantime, will go searching for the missing entries before bringing the lists anywhere near FLC.— Rod ^talk 18:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• List of scheduled monuments in Mendip now done - one of them (1421084) was added since I created the list!— Rod ^talk 21:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Further comments from Noswall59

Lead: Okay, the second and third paragraphs are well written and summarise the article well. I have a few comments regarding the first:

• "historically largely marsh", should this be "marshland"? I don't know, but this reads oddly to me.
• Do we need to know about King's Sedgemoor and West Sedgemoor? I don't see them mentioned in the article.
• What are the Somerset Levels and Moors? (I know what they are, but perhaps just something to explain their importance or relevance to this article).
• "Historically the area was known as the site of the Battle of Sedgemoor." I am not sure that this is relevant, but I don't think you need to start with "Historically"; how about "Westonzoyland, a village in the south of the district, was the site of the Battle of Sedgemoor (1685), the final battle of the Monmouth Rebellion." Although, this still feels out of place. Perhaps you could give very brief account of Sedgemoor's history and include it there.

Table: I am happy that it's complete, illustrated where possible and meets the standards of previous articles in this series. Providing no one else turns up any issues, I am happy with it.

References: seem fine to me.

Stability: no problems here.

I look forward to hearing your responses to my comments above. Once again, good work, —Noswall59 (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC).

I've copied half a paragraph from Somerset Levels explaining the history of the area and removed the irrelevant information from the first paragraph of the lead. Does this explain the context more fully?— Rod ^talk 15:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, although this new information will need to be cited. Also, you only need one "low-lying" - either Sedgemoor is part of the low-lying Levels, or Sedgemoor is a low-lying part of the levels. Either suffices in describing Sedgemoor itself and avoids repetition. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC).

Citations added & 2nd "low lying removed.— Rod ^talk 18:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have been looking through some of the sources and I can't see where it says that "Motte with two baileys immediately east of Bristol Road, Down End" dates to c. 1100.

• According to our article on Down End Castle this is from recent work cited to Prior 2006 (which I don't have a copy of). The NHLE entry was last updated in 2000 so may not take this into account. I have added prior to the citations.— Rod ^talk 19:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• A look at "Sections of the Sweet Track..." show that "Dendrochronological work shows that the timbers for the Sweet Track were felled in the winter/spring of 3807/6 BC and that the track was probably built in one episode soon afterwards. The felling date for the timbers for the Post Track is 3838 BC, some 30 years earlier. The radiocarbon dates for the Sweet Track gave a range of between 4050-3800 BC."

• Are you saying that because this site include both tracks the date given should be 3838 - 3806 BC, or similar?— Rod ^talk 19:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• For "Brick and tile kiln west of East Quay", the source states that the kiln was founded in 1858.

• There used to be six kilns at the site, only one survives. The sources I've seen do not confirm that the survivor was the first built (1858) although I agree the first one was. Therefore I am nervous about being to specific with the date of this one.— Rod ^talk 19:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• For the church cross at St Mary's, Nether Stowey, the source states 14th century.

• Changed.— Rod ^talk 19:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Dudley seems to be working his way through these, so I will stop there for now. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 11:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC).

Okay, I am declaring my support for this article. Another excellent list. Many thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC).

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk The distances/areas are generally metric (imperial), but at least one is imperial (metric). Try to remain consistent. ("Chapel E of Adscombe Farm", "Multi-period site on Brean Down", "Wimblestone standing stone" and "World War II anti-aircraft rocket battery and bombing decoy control building 265 m north east of Ashridge Farm" are imp (met)) I've flipped most of these - but remember some discussions (somewhere) about not converting "3 inch guns" as this is a proper name rather than a descriptive measurement.— Rod talk 10:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Similarly, the Brent Knoll entry has "1.6 hectares (16,000 m2)", which isn't the most useful conversion, while most other entries have "X hectares (Y acres)" Changed Gough's Old Cave: should "12.5000 years ago" be "12,500 years ago"? Harrias talk 10:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Changed. Thanks for the comments.— Rod talk 10:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC) Wimblestone standing stone should be "A 1.5-metre (5 ft) high stone slab." rather than "A 1.5 metres (5 ft) high stone slab."

• Support – another wonderful piece of work. Harrias ^talk 18:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "A Palaeolithic flint tool found in West Sedgemoor is the earliest indication of human presence in the area." I find this irritatingly vague. How old and which species of human? The source is RS so it presumably provided details. I would expand or leave out.

• I don't have the book cited but the arguments about whether this was naturally occuring or the result of human activity is explored in this source (p 12) but doesn't give specific dates or human species - I'm happy to take this out if needed as there does not seem to be agreement among researchers about it.— Rod ^talk 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• I would leave out if you cannot check the source. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Removed.— Rod ^talk 21:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• "dating from the 3800s BC." Perhaps dating to the 3800s BC?

• Changed.— Rod ^talk

• Glastonbury Lake Village. You need to say Iron Age - you are jumping from 3800 BC without explanation.

• Added, however I'm now thinking about this as Glastonbury Lake Village will appear in List of scheduled monuments in Mendip as it falls within that local authority area, however the site is on the Levels.— Rod ^talk 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Lake villages" Why is Lake capitalised? Also I would define lake village. Not sure whether you can link to Crannog, which is supposed to be Scottish and Irish, although it appears to mean the same thing.

• Capitalisation changed (except where part of proper name). I'm not sure of a definition of Lake Village which is any different from Crannog.

• Maybe link to crannog. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Linked.— Rod ^talk 21:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• "a string of settlements were set up along the Polden Hills." A pedantic point but you say above that Sedgemoor is south of the Polden Hills so are the settlements in the area?

• Puriton, Bawdrip, Woolavington, Cossington, Stawell, Chilton Polden, Edington, Catcott, Shapwick and Ashcott are in Sedgemoor however Walton and Street are in Mendip.— Rod ^talk 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Some of the oldest are Neolithic" Why 'Some of'?

• "Some of" removed.— Rod ^talk 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• "More recent sites include several motte-and-bailey castles and church or village crosses which date from the Middle Ages." A bit clumsy. I would say "Medieval sites include several motte-and-bailey castles and church or village crosses."

• Changed, however I thought the wp preferred term is Middle Ages rather than medieval.— Rod ^talk 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Originally Athelney was a small island in swampland." Well it is a matter of taste, but I think that the fact that Athelney is where Alfred hid from the Vikings before coming out and defeating them at the Battle of Edington is worth mentioning.

• Sources reporting this (eg this) often have caveats such as "believed to be" or "reportedly" and although there is good eveidence he satyed at Athelney this may not have been immediately before the battle.— Rod ^talk 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think there is any doubt. It is stated as fact in Abels' biography of Alfred. If you look at the source again the doubt is whether he built a fortress while he was there. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Added.— Rod ^talk 21:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• "demolished by John Harewell in the 1380s." I think it would be clearer and more interesting to say by the Bishop of Bath and Wells.

• Added.— Rod ^talk 20:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Some bowl barrows are dated Neolithic to Bronze Age, which is vague. Looking at the source for 'Bowl barrow 300 m north east of Tyning's Farm', this is in the general information about bowl barrows. The description of the site says it is Bronze Age. This may apply to other barrows.

• I've been through all those dated Neolithic to Bronze Age and changed to Bronze Age where the NHLE source supports this.— Rod ^talk 13:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Chapel E of Adscombe Farm" Above you have "north west of Coppice Gate" - spelled out and not capitalised. I take it this is copying the source but I would correct it.

• As discussed above (in collapsed comments from Harrias) I've kept with the (sometimes strange) titles from English Heritage in the NHLE to help searching. Their data sheets have been developed over many years (and they don't seem to have a MOS) so don't have a consistent style. In an attempt for consistency across all 7 Somerset lists I've not changed the capitalisation etc.— Rod ^talk 13:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• "It is possibly the site of Cynwit Castle" This is from a source about Cannington Camp. As a statement about Cynwit Castle it sounds odd! All my sources say that battle site was in Devonshire. I would delete.

• Removed— Rod ^talk 21:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Gough's Cave. Given as Palaeolithic, but the only date given is 7150BC which is Neolithic. The source is a dead link. There should be plenty of sources as it is an important Upper Paleolithic Magdalenian site. According to Pettit and White, The British Palaeolithic, p. 440, it has by far the largest number of "lithic items" of any British Magdalenian site, c 2200 including 550 retouched tools.

• I've added a skull cup from 14,700 B.C. + ref. The fact it is included in Pettit and White's book supports the Palaeolithic claim, but I don't have a copy of that book.— Rod ^talk 09:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• "dating from approximately 12,5000 years ago." presumably 12,500.
  • I have looked out of curiosity at Gough's Cave in the Upper Palaeolithic and I am confused. Pettit and White, in their authoritative 2012 survey, say the finds were in Gough's Cave, Sun Hole and Soldier's Hole and do not mention Old Gough's Cave or Great Oone's Hole. They mention the 14,700 years BP date for the skull cap, and suggest that all the finds are around that date, apart from a few flints which may date to 13-14 k BP. This is very different from horse bone dating to 12,500 years BP, which must be wrong as it is in the Younger Dryas Ice Age, and no evidence has been found of human occupation then. However, as the date comes from an RS I am not sure what you can do about it. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I preusume it is Goughs Old Cave we are querying here? If so this date list from Archaeometry supports the 12,500 ±150, however I can't find it in this paper.— Rod ^talk 20:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have found out why the Goughs Old Cave date looks wrong. EH gave an "uncalibrated" C14 date. This means that they gave the raw date which had not been adjusted for variations in the amount of C14 in the atmosphere at different times. The true "calibrated" date would be around 2000 years earlier. See User talk:Mike Christie#C14 dating. I am not sure how you can deal with this but 12,500 BP is wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• You could always contact EH, under their minor corrections procedure. and they are generally appreciative and (eventually) change their data sheet. I have done this for the wrong number of spans in a bridge and a 20th century water tower they described as an 18th century dovecot - in both cases the data sheets were put right (after a while).— Rod ^talk 16:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• As they put it - "c.12,500 radiocarbon years ago" - it is not wrong, just confusing for the non-expert. Leaving out the word "radiocarbon" in the article makes the date wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks - typo fixed.— Rod ^talk 21:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Great Oone's Hole. "from which flint artefacts from the Palaeolithic have been receovered." I would say Late Upper Palaeolithic as in the source. (Presumably Magdalenian as in the previous two comments). Also typo.

• Done— Rod ^talk 21:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Longbottom Farm earthwork. "Between the Prehistoric and Medieval periods" - this could mean renewed at various times. I would prefer "unknown" which is what the source seems to basically say.

• Changed.— Rod ^talk 08:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Earthworks from a bank and ditch which may have marked the Compton Bishop estate" - should be "the boundary of..."

• "boundary of" added.— Rod ^talk 08:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Roman settlement site, Anglo-Saxon and Norman royal palace, and St Columbanus' Chapel. Why is this only designated Anglo-Saxon? Acccording to EH it also has "extensive area of Roman occupation including buildings whose foundations survive close to the modern ground surface".

• Done.— Rod ^talk 08:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Soldier's Hole, Cheddar Gorge. Another site just described as palaeolithic. Palaeolithic is a meaningless term as it covers anything from primitive homo 2.6 million years ago, barely more advanced than apes, to modern humans 10,000 years ago. Soldier's Hole is a Late Upper Palaeolithic site which should have a more extended description.

• Changed the age column & added "Radiocarbon dated to 35,000 years ago to c.10,000 years ago".— Rod ^talk 08:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Sections of the Sweet Track and Post Track, 650 m east of Canada Farm. Date of 3807 or 3806 BC must be dendrochronological. This is worth mentioning.

• Added.— Rod ^talk 08:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Two pieces of a timber trackway identified when water levels found as the site is waterlogged or under water normally." This does not make sense. Presumably you mean that the trackway was exposed by an unusually low water level.

• Changed.— Rod ^talk 08:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• Another first rate list. Some more nit picks. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2015 (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. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2015 (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 SchroCat 07:55, 25 March 2015 [7].

---

63rd Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating the 1991 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from FrankBoy (Buzz) 22:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

;Comments from FrB.TG: "Commonly referred to as the Oscars" " Kevin Costner was the fifth person to win the Best Director Academy Award on his directorial debut.[9] He also became the fifth person to earn Best Lead Actor and Best Director nominations for the same film.[10]" These two sentences can be merged with something like "Kevin Constner became fifth person to earn the Best Director for his directional debut, and to earn nominations for Best Actor and Best Director for the same film." Again, winners are not listed in "boldface" as claimed in the list. If I am not wrong, there is ongoing edit war regarding the usage of {{double dagger}}? In the caption of the image present at Ceremony Information, you can simply say "Billy Crystal hosted the ceremony". I think Bibliography looks better below references, ain't it? Anyways, this one isn't a requirement. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 11:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Done: I read your comments and have swiftly responded. Don't worry about the edit war regarding bold markup. That's moreso in more recent ceremony. I forget to change this ceremony's markup (which happens occasionally). --Birdienest81 (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Support — FrankBoy _(Buzz) 22:36, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolved concerns from SNUGGUMS

I meant to get to this sooner, but here is my review now: None of the links in "See also" except for List of submissions to the 63rd Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film really pertain to this ceremony, so I'd remove all the others FN5: Should have Arthur Ochs Sulzberger as publisher FN30 and Staci Lynne Wilson's Animal Movies Guide contain HARVref errors; install this script if you haven't already in order to see them Very good work overall. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Done: I fixed everything you mentioned. Ref 30 was missing the year, and thus it was causing the error. Thank you for your help; --Birdienest81 (talk) 05:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Support, now worthy of FL Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:01, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Question what are Academy Honorary Awards, Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award, and Academy Special Achievement Award for? Nergaal (talk) 17:18, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• Academy Honorary Awards are given for to any person or company for a lifetime achievement or significant contribution to the film industry as a whole. The Thalberg Award is given toward “creative producers whose bodies of work reflect a consistently high quality of motion picture production.” A Special Achievement Award is rewarded to a group or individual for a technical achievement toward a single film, but has no category for it or not enough nominees for a category.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

So where can a reader of this article find this information out? It is not explained nor linked in the article. Nergaal (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• They could always scroll down to the template that contains links to the non-competitive awards.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope you agree that was a bad joke on your behalf. For example artist's awards list give a brief explanation of the awards, so please do that here too. Nergaal (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• I was not joking. This is about primarily the ceremony itself not about each individual award. The artists awards you pertain to such as Grammy Award pertain to a specific award such as Best Salsa Album, Latin Jazz Album, etc. (only one award). This list deals collectively the awards as a whole. If I were to give explanations about the honorary awards, tomorrow, somebody might ask me to add description to the two sound awards because the average person does not know the difference between sound mixing and sound editing. As such, I can't base the list on everyone's personal preference. So, I'm leaving it to the respective Oscar award categories as the source of explanations.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You are telling me that during the ceremony they say "And the Thalberg Award goes to X" instead of "And the Thalberg Award for creative producers whose bodies of work reflect a consistently high quality of motion picture production goes to X?" Nergaal (talk) 03:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• No, they don't present honorary awards like they do with the competitive awards. Usually, the presenter gives a one minute speech describing the recipient, then a montage highlighting their work is show, and finally the recipient then comes out. It would be too long to describe it. Here's is how the Thalberg Awards was presented in this video from the Academy's official YouTube account (no career montage is shown due to online copyright issues for movie clips).

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Birdienest81: I agree with Nergaal. The issue lies with the fact that the title of the respective sections can't be linked like the other awards e.g. Best Actor to other pages where they elaborate on the awards. It means the reader would have to search for that info themselves when a simple one or two sentences about what the award is, and why it was given to this person in the section of this article would help especially as they are awards given separately from the rest by the Governors only on certain occasions. Cowlibob (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support: The only thing I would fix is capitalizing the word media in Philadelphia Media Network for Ref 8 and linking Philadelphia Inquirer and Philadelphia Media Network since it is the first mention of both company and newspaper. --Jagarin 06:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed: I've fixed those problems promptly.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support. Comprehensive, well-written and well-sourced list, it meets the criteria. --Carioca (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments –

• Comma needed after parenthetical AMPAS in the opening.
• Winners and nominations: "the" needed in "Kevin Costner became fifth person...".
• Ceremony information: Typo in "Despite losing eight members of her band in an plane crash two weeks earlier".
• Ratings and reception: Some kind of punctuation (maybe a colon) is needed after "won three of those nominations". Giants2008 (Talk) 02:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Done: I have fixed everything you mentioned. Thank you for your help.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• You missed the first and third items, because they were still there when I re-reviewed the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed: Added comma and changed 'an' to 'a.'

--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support: The list is worthy of FL indeed.Ionutzmovie (talk) 03:42, 21 March 2015 (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. - SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2015 (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 SchroCat 09:29, 17 March 2015 [8].

---

List of Narcissus horticultural divisions

Nominator(s): Michael Goodyear (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria, and is a useful resource for this genus, as a supporting page to Narcissus ... Michael Goodyear (talk) 06:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Narcissus is currently GAN, and supporting pages should be of similar standard.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Update: Narcissus is now GA, as is the other supporting page, Taxonomy of Narcissus --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• I know nothing about this subject but as it has no reviews I will give it a go.

Thank you --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• The lead appears to assume that Narcissus is the formal name for daffodils but this is not explained. It should be clarified.

Paragraph dealing with formal and informal names added.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The list of Narcissus horticultural divisions provided by the Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) is widely used and cited." Widely used and cited is vague. I suggest something like "The British Royal Horticultural Society (RHS) is the international registration authority for the Narcissus genus, commonly known as daffodils."

Reworded to explain this--Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Division 13, which includes all wild daffodils, is the exception to this scheme." Exception in what way?

Reworded to explain this --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• color. As this article is about a classification by a British society, I think it should use British spelling - colour.

Agreed, probably started its life under a US editor. Changed throughout as per WP:MOS --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• There are no references for the definitions in the table.

Unsure what you are looking for here - this whole page is about the RHS list with their definitions --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

For added clarity, added the same reference to all column header titles --Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Notes are below references, but they are usually above.

OK. That does seem to be the order in WP:MOS, though I must admit in all the hundreds of pages I have written I have never noticed that preference before!--Michael Goodyear (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• There are inconsistencies in the references. 1 is missing isbn. 2 does not have date in brackets - and is no author available? 4, 5 and 7 no date (5 is dated 2015 - have you checked for changes as you accessed it 2014?). 6 non-standard date. 11 and 12 commercial catalogues are not suitable references. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

1. I don't recall ever seeing an isbn atrached to the original RHS list, but managed to find one in a library catalogue--Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

2. Correct. Cite only brackets dates if author or editor known. Retrieved and inserted --Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

4,5,7. Putting meaningful dates on websites is always tricky. Added the copywrite dates. Some like 5. are on automatic update, so updated retrieval date--Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

6. Looks bot generated. Corrected --Michael Goodyear (talk) 05:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

11, 12. While in general we try to avoid using commercial sources as references to avoid the appearance of promotion, sometimes this is important for other reasons. In this case larger well established nurseries have considerable experience in growing daffodils often over many generations, and provide much useful information. In the case of the reference to 'Division 14', the whole point is that here is a major supplier providing bulbs under that name, and the reference is appropriate. In both cases I have added additional non-commercial references and reworded the section to make the purpose of those references clearer. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this before since not being part of a formal review process your comments did not trigger a notification. I will look through them and respond --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I have now revised the page as per the above comments. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Support. Looks fine to me, although I would take out "This page describes a list of Narcissus horticultural divisions." This is close to starting the article "This is a list...", which is forbidden. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Done - the problem was working the page title into the opening sentence. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Seattle

• Dead links

The joys of linkrot. All links were checked at nomination, but one website has completely revamped itself invalidating all existing links. I think the easiest solution here is simply to remove them, although archived urls remain a possibility. All remaining links rechecked. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• This list of Narcissus horticultural divisions We don't start articles "This article of ...", and the bold link violated MOS:BOLD, and the bolding itself is an awkward phrase. Articles shouldn't incorporate awkward phrases just to get a phrase for bolding.

I checked all FLs in Wikiproject Plants, and they all get around this by omitting the word 'list', so I have now followed that example. I was not sure which bold violation specifically you were referring to, but I took out the link. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• ISBNs should be consistent, with the hyphen; see WP:ISBN for a converter

What exactly do you mean by a converter? I have gone to the source documents listed here, and in all but one there are no hyphens in the ISBN quoted on them--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC) I eventually retrieved hyphenated ISBNs for all citations from Amazon. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 2 needs an ndash for the alphabetical range; ref 6 has a superfluous parenthesis; ref 4 a .pdf could be added to the URL so it formats as a PDF, like ref 10: refs 4 and 10 likewise need a "|format=PDF" parameter added

2. Substituted

4. .pdf added

6. I cannot see any superfluous parentheses, please specify - all parentheses were added by cite templates, anyway.

4&10. 4 already had format=pdf, added to 10.

• What makes "The Plant Expert" and "Brent and Becky's Bulbs" reliable sources?

RS. Well that is always an interesting question. The second one of these sources is now moot, since that specific link is currently dead, but for the record they are a major grower that have been cultivating Narcissus plants for over 100 years and are often cited in the horticultural literature, so yes they know what they are talking about. Reliability is derterminable from a number of perspectives. One is how they viewed by peers and other experts and another is triangulation with other sources. If all independent sources agree on something, it is likely that the information is reliable. In this case I provided three congruent sources to make that point. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• It is widely used since the RHS is the international authority for the registration of such cultivars. is this original research?

OR. No, that statement comes directly from the RHS' own literature. To make that point clearer I have placed a reference directly on that statement together with a corroborating reference from another organisation. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• perianth segments/tepals ("petals"); (470 in 2009/2010) MOS:SLASH recommends against use of the slash

Slash. Punctuation replaced --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• (See List of Award of Garden Merit narcissus) this probably should be in the "See also" section

List. Moved --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• The "List of divisions" seems superfluous to the "Definitions of Divisions" section below

Actually I think they are complementary depending on the level of detail the reader wants to get into. The first use is a conveniently accessed list of names, while the second goes into each name in much more detail. That is why they were give separate section headings. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's a stretch for the reader to scroll a bit further down the page for a better list of the information. The first "List of divisions" wouldn't seem to help readers much without the actual RHS definitions, which are provided directly below. Seattle (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Very well then removed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• The "Colour Code" section is entirely unreferenced

I think that happened when paragraphs got moved around - replaced --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why header colors are needed in the "Definitions of Divisions" section. I don't think year of registration should be included either, as you only have three identified years. The heavier borders seem unnecessary as well, as well as the large table headers (this applies to the "Colour Code" section as well)

Colours. If you mean the alternating blue and white, it is because it breaks the table up and therefore easier to read by emphasising the columns.Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Years. True - I didn't have all the dates but do know and have included them for each category Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Borders. Borders were included for the same reason as colours - to make the table easier to read. Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Column titles. Surely titles should always be in larger type? Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that, if formatted correctly, the columns shouldn't be too difficult to disambiguate from one another without added colors; I think the same for borders as well. There might be one or two exceptions, but I don't think featured lists follow that format. Seattle (talk) 00:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Very well then, all colours and borders removed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• I wouldn't recommend spanning number 11 in the "Definitions of Divisions" section; the table really should be sortable, save for the "Definition" and "Example" section. I think the "RHS Colour Classification" section should be sortable as well, and the span on "W" likewise removed.

Spanning. I am not sure what you mean here - the rowspan x 3 for Division 11? The point being that this is a subdivision, quite recent too --Michael Goodyear (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sort. I added 'sortable' to both tables, but I am not entiely convinced it would be an improvement. As far as I know placing sorts only on selected columns is tricky. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Spanning W. When you refer to removing spans - do you mean make every item a separate row? How does that improve it? --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I collapsed the Ws for simplicity --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Both tables need "! scope="col"" tags for accessibility; see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial for more information

Scope. Scope tags added to all column titles--Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Photo caption "Narcissus 'Geranium' 8W-O" needs a reference to define it as such

Reference added --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Do you have references that the "Example" in the "Definitions of Divisions" section is an example of the definition?

Each one has been checked on the RHS searchable registry --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

A reference has been added to the column heading to make this clear --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• It might be better to just quote the definitions verbatim from the RHS rather than paraphrase... there's close paraphrasing in the list now.

I don't think that would be a very good idea. One attempt has already been made to delete this page for copywrite violation because the definitions were too close to those on the RHS website, necessitating rewriting them all. That was after responding to a similar request to this. If we used the RHS definitions I am sure we would get a speedy deletion. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This list does not meet featured criteria. Oppose for featured status. Seattle (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe have responded to all your comments and accommodated as many as I could--Michael Goodyear (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Additional comments responded to --Michael Goodyear (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I think there's still one border on row number 12, and the "Definition" and "Cultivator Example" columns should be unsortable. Otherwise, I'm happy to strike my oppose from this nomination. Seattle (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that, now taken care of. Thanks. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose struck. Thanks again. Seattle (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Tim riley

Support – Only a few quibbles:

• Is it really "The American Dadffodil Society" – mentioned twice? If crossed my mind that this might have been a quaint spelling brought over on the Mayflower, but Googling suggests that it isn't.

Quite right! fixed --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• In the lead and the Cultivar Example column, the Manual of Style would have us use double rather than single quotation marks for the names.

No. The convention for cultivars laid down by the RHS is: in single quotation marks, with capital initial letters.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Gosh! That's me told! Who am I to referee between the Wikipedia MoS and the RHS? Tim riley talk 23:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is a discrepency, the MOS says: Cultivar and cultivar group names of plants are not italicized, and are capitalized (including the word "Group" in the name); cultivar names appear within single quotes (Malus domestica 'Red Delicious', while cultivar groups do not Cynara cardunculus Scolymus Group).--Michael Goodyear (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Refs: you mix ten- and thirteen-digit ISBNs (the latter are preferred) and hyphenate them strangely in places. For future reference, there is an excellent site here that rescues you painlessly. For present purposes these are the ISBNs you want:
  • ref 3: Kington 1998 978-1-874431-69-5
  • ref 4: Brickell 2008 978-0-415-27344-2
  • ref 9: Kington 2014 978-1-907057-50-2

Bibliography

• • Hanks: 978-0-415-27344-2
  • Kamenetsky: 978-1-4398-4924-8

Interesting - but those were the formats used in the actual publications cite. Very well I have replaced them and bookmarked the converter. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)--Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That's all from me. I much enjoyed this page, which is decidedly a compliment from a persistent refusenik at gardening. Tim riley talk 08:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou - all changes effected --Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments by Crisco

• Paragraph starting "Growers register ..." repeats some information. I think it would be better if information on the RHS was in the same place. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Material reorganised accordingly Michael Goodyear (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I wasn't saying to make it in its own section. Just to rework things so that you didn't repeat the same information. Compare "It is widely used since the RHS is the international authority for the registration of such cultivars" and "RHS, the international registration authority for the genus", for instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think that it still says that, though. The question is, whether you support the list in its current form, or want further changes.--Michael Goodyear (talk) 15:57, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'm quoting from the old version. I didn't recommend moving everything out of the lead and into the body. What you had was good, just needed tweaking. Having everything in the body... it makes it look like the list wants to be an article, but can't get there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• I will admit to getting a little bit confused by all the changes. So what I have done is restore all text to the lead, leaving two tables, so it looks more like a list than an article --Michael Goodyear (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

• This is what I meant... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I see, thanks. --Michael Goodyear (talk) 18:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Support on prose. Looks much better now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 10 March 2015 (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. – SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2015 (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 Crisco 1492 14:37, 8 March 2015 [9].

---

Laurence Olivier on stage and screen

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier was a superlative actor who was—alongside Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud—one of the finest of his generation. He was a huge presence on the stage, in film and in theatrical management – and he was active in radio and on television too. This list has had a major makeover recently, in line with the Olivier article itself, which is now FA-rated. All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – I worked with SchroCat on the Olivier biographical article, but he has laboured alone on this list. (I forged a note from my mother asking for me to be let off.) I am filled with admiration for the comprehensiveness of the coverage and the precision of the detail. I've learned a bit from this fine page (e.g. that LO returned to the role of Stanhope in 1934, which I didn't know.) Three passing quibbles, barely visible with the naked eye:

• I think, on a second reading, I might re-examine the 8 June 1970 – 1 August 1971 entry for The Merchant. Other NT productions at the Vic and round the country are not shown as "National Theatre (Xxxxx Theatre)", and I'd be inclined to blitz the "National Theatre" and the brackets. And ditto for the Long Day's Journey three rows lower down.
• I believe I read somewhere while we were working on the biog that Akash was not technically a hologram but some species of film projection onto something or other.
• We have "Co-Director" ("As director", 16 September 1968) and "Co-director" ("TV" 19 December 1976).

That's my lot. Thank you for a top-notch page, SchroCat. Tim riley talk 15:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld comments

• " In 1946 he produced, directed and appeared as Henry V of England in Henry V" —1946? I'm very good with film years and could have sworn it was 1944! Timothy Dalton has the same problem!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• "He also won the Best Actor award for Hamlet", -can you state the year?

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I think you might add a bit on some of his most prominent stage roles in the lede and the years he did them and a bit more on his later film roles from 1950s onwards, Sleuth and Boys in Brazil spring to mind in the 70s. Just something to ensure there's a basic balance I think. Perhaps something like "He later received Oscar nominations for roles in Richard III (1955), The Entertainer (1960), Othello (1965), Sleuth (1972), Marathon Man (1976) and Boys in Brazil (1978)". I don't think that would bloat it too much with mentioning that and would give a good balance and make it more comprehensive to read without looking at the list. Just a suggestion.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Done. - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• "Throughout his career Olivier appeared in radio dramas and, from 1956, appeared on television, in both acting roles, and as an interviewee." -seems like there's some unnecessary punctuation here, perhaps reword to "Throughout his career Olivier appeared in radio dramas, and he made his television debut in 1956" - I think that should suffice. I don't think I'd mention in acting roles and as an interviewee.

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• "with an Honorary Award honorary award " -how many honorary awards is that!

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Who is Hall? I see no previous link of the full name.

• Done - SchroCat (talk) 09:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Not essential but it might be more informative if you stated the actual channels in the television section in the notes section to make it more resourceful. In the United States rather than just "First shown on US television", if I was an American reader I'd probably want to know if it was NBC or ABC or whatever for reference purposes. If it's too much trouble don't worry.

• Unknown, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Ref 97- What is Genome?

• It's a BBC project name/website name. - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Refs 98 and 99. "Today's Special". The Argus. 3 January 1969. p. 16." -you state the author in ref 99, do you have the author for 98? "Willey, George (15 March 1970). "Majr Dramatic Event Due". The Argus. p. 39." -is that a typo of major? There's also an inconsistency there with dates with one in brackets, you'd expect the sources to be identical in formatting and content given it's the same publisher.

• Yes, it was a (now corrected) spelling mistake, no there is no journo name given on the second one, and no, there is no inconsistency. For some unknown reason, the formatting of the date field changes depending on whether the journalist's name is known or not. Yes, it's bizzare, but there you go! - SchroCat (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Doc, I think I've covered all these points - many thanks for your time and thoughts here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Support — Good job, will make a nice supplement to the main FA. And I'll be using it within the next few weeks as there's a few of his films I've been meaning to see!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Ssilvers comments

Just a few comments from me:

• Instead of talking about his Awards in the narrative introduction, I think you should only mention his most important (enduringly famous/admired) performaces on stage, radio and screen (whether they won awards or not), the way you do in the intro to the main article, beginning with "In 1930...." Also mention the most important broadcasts, since that is a section of this list article. Then, just note the awards and noms in the Notes section of the tables (but give the totals numbers in the narrative intro).

• I think others (like Dr. Blofeld above) would expect the awards to be mentioned up top - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Fine, but I was suggesting two items of greater importance: (1) When people look at a List of performances article, they are usually looking at the tables for more information on particular performances than is given in the person's main article. So I think you should add the nominations and awards to the Notes column. (2) In the intro, you need to have some information about which of these broadcasts listed are of particular importance or were particularly well-received. Once you have done (1) above, I think that Dr. B. might agree that repeating the awards in the intro (except for the total number of Oscars, Emmys, etc.) is redundant and is not why people would come to this article. But, as I said, removing these redundancies is the least important part of my comment above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• There's a long-standing consensus against including the awards as part of the notes column. Ordinarily there is a table (or set of tables) covering the awards on these pages unless, like Olivier, they have a page of their own. Re. your point 2, is that about the radio bradio broadcasts? If so, there is very little information about the radio broadcasts at all, so I'm going to struggle to come up with any detail to add I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• OK, although I'd feel more comfortable about it if you would link me to somewhere that it was discussed, or an example or two that convinced you that it is a long-standing consensus, because the Notes column seems to me like an obvious place to look for this info, and generally more helpful than the bloated awards tables in awards sub-articles (which, I know, are customary, even if stupid). -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:15, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I'll dig some strings out where similar lists have had his point discussed. - SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• If a production played nightly, and you know both the opening and closing dates, you can give an estimated number of performances. If the production had Wednesday and Saturday matinees, that is 8 performances per week, except that London th eatres were usually dark on Christmas Day.

• That's OR - any reviewer following would oppose on that basis. We cannot guess that all the runs had 8 performances, or that Olivier appeared in all eight. The sources are happy to leave gaps in their presentation of the figures if they don't know, and that is where I would feel more comfortable. - SchroCat (talk) 21:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• I think that steps into WP:OR a little too much. In a 3-month run, we don't kno how many performances he missed, or whether he did all the matinees, etc. If it wasn't clear enough for the sources to identify the number, I don't think we should try and do it by guesswork. - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• OK. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I think you should remove the amateur theatre productions at the top of the table, and just put in a footnote that he performed in more than half a dozen productions at school, mostly Shakespeare, playing Brutus, Puck and also female roles, including Kate.

• Yep, although I've left the note in the text above the table, rather than as a footnote: I think it's OK there, but happy to move if you think otherwise. - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Looks good. I made a copy edit to conform the style of the sentence to the previous two sentences. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I think you should say a little more about his radio career in the intro, since that is a whole section of this article.

• A little more added, but there really isn't too much in the sources on this - somethong of a forgotten medium! - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• As I said above, what I think is missing is some qualitative description about the broadcasts (why did he choose these subjects, or choose to broadcast at all) and which of these broadcasts were of the greatest importance or were best-received. For example, were the WW2-era broadcasts supposed to be morale-boosting, while the others were commercial sponsor-driven, and so forth. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Why he chose a particular subject etc is outside the scope of any filmog I've seen, and this is a list of what he did professionally and when. Even in the main biogs of Olivier, his radio work is shoved into a distant third or fourth place, as he wasn't a radio performer: he was a stage performer who moved into films, and then TV, (oh and he appeared on radio too from time to time). It's a very much forgotten part of his career, but quite a minor too, when one looks at the bigger picture. This is also how we have previously covered Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud. - SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the radio broadcast table show what role(s) he read?

• Not provided in the sources, unfortunately - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Does that information appear, perhaps, in some kind of BBC listing? What source does Tanitch give? I'm only asking because this is a FLC, and so I just want to confirm that all reasonable sources have been pursued. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Tanitch gives no sources, he just provides the list. I've looked at newspaper and BBC listings for the time and they show the programme name only too, unfortunately. This is how we've previously covered similar performers such as Richardson and Gielgud. - SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Ssilvers (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Ssilvers - much appreciated! I hope I've done justice to your suggestions. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Support – Thanks for the explanations. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks, Ssilvers - your time and thoughts are much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Really good list you have produced here, SchroCat. After getting Olivier's article to FA status, this sure looks like its on its way to FL as well. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Many thanks Ssven2 - much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 21:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from A Thousand Doors

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks good overall. These are my edits. I haven't had a chance to look over the lead yet, but I've got some comments regarding the tables. Was he in Oedipus, The Critic AND Uncle Vanya all on 1 May 1946? Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC) The opening dates for the second run of Antony & Cleopatra look like they might be wrong. Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Why is Henry VII italicised in All Star RADA Jubilee Matinée? Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC) The date for the 1954 production of Night of a Hundred Stars looks wrong; could be a copy-paste error. Twaeked - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC) How come the 1958 production of Night of 100 Stars has no role specified? There's nothing shown in the sources, unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Assuming that the dates are correct, the Brighton run of Three Sisters needs to be below the 1970 run of The Merchant of Venice. Switched - SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Similarly, Sybil needs to be below Saturday, Sunday, Monday. Wrong date: now changed- SchroCat (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC) The Chances, The Crucible, The Proposal and The Tumbler need to sort under C, P and T. Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC) In the Actor table, roles such as Henry V and Richard III aren't wikilinked, but in the Filmography they are. Personally, I think wikilinking is the way to go. Linked - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC) I'd put the "All the productions were for BBC radio." note at the top, personally. Done. -SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC) The radio broadcasts that begin with quotation marks all bunch together at the top of the table when sorted. Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC) I'm not sure that "Filmography of Olivier" is the right caption for the Television table, given how there's another table with almost the exact same caption at the top of the page. Similar lists go with "Television appearances of [whoever]". Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Was "Laurence Olivier: A Life a one-off programme or an episode of a series? Italicised - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC) I think my main problem is the fifth column in the Actor table. With so many cells empty or with just single numbers in, it just doesn't look that pleasing aesthetically. Similar lists (such as the Terry-Thomas, David Niven, Hattie Jacques and Stanley Holloway ones) have Notes columns instead, and spell out "109 performances" in full, rather than just "109". Personally, I think this looks much neater. You could put the "Also director" info in there as well. The other filmogs don't have as complete a list of number of performances to add, which is why this one has been split out (as we did with John Barrymore on stage, screen and radio). Its a judgement call when it comes to whether there is enough information to justify dedicated column, and in this case I think we can, as it stands. - SchroCat (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC) I'm also seeing title case in a few places where I would normally expect to see sentence case. "Birthday Gala", for example, doesn't strike me as a proper noun, but if "Bob Hope Birthday Gala" was the name of the production, then obviously it needs to be in italics. Similarly, "A Celebration in memory of Michel Saint-Denis" seems to me that it should either be "A Celebration in Memory of Michel Saint-Denis" or "A celebration in memory of Michel Saint-Denis". I'm not sure whether those are formal titles or not. I've gone for not, and italicised accordingly - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Hopefully I'll find some time tomorrow to look over the prose. I doubt that I'll have much to say. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC) All done which require no return to the sources to check: I will do the remainder shortly, once I am back with the material. Thank you for your thoughts and sharp eye. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC) All now sorted. Thank you - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC) I'm not that familiar with Oedipus Tyrannus – is "Suppliant, Guard and Servant" one role or three? Three minor parts, often covered by one actor - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC) The reason I ask is that there is a bit of inconsistency within the table with regards how multiple roles are presented. Sometimes it's with an ampersand (e.g. "Romeo & Henry V" and "Oedipus & Mr Puff", other times with a slashes (e.g. "Presenter/speaker" and "Speaker/prologue"), and on one occasion with an "and" (i.e. "Suppliant, Guard and Servant"). I think it would be best just to stick with one format. I'd go with the "and"s myself. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Host/Performer White Tie and Tails" – I wasn't entirely sure what this meant. He hosted the evening overall, and he was also a performer in White Tie and Tails? Yes - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Perhaps "Host/Performer in White Tie and Tails" might be clearer then. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Dr Astrov" or "Dr. Astrov"? I'd go with the latter. I've gone with the former, which is standard in BrEng. - SchroCat (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC) In that case, "Dr. Ivan Chebutikin", "Dr. Christian Szell", "Dr. Jan Spaander", "Dr. Anthony Wainwright", "Dr. Totenkopf" and (presumably) "Supt. Newhouse" also need to be changed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC) "Also Director" or "Also director"? I'd go with the latter. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC) The lead looks good. You use the word "important" twice in quite quick succession, so it might be worth changing one of them. I also think it might be worth stressing that the Special Award for Henry V specifically – the way it reads at the moment, it would be easy to assume that the award was for Olivier himself. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC) All tweaked and sorted, I think. Many thanks for your thoughts. - SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Two final comments:

• WP:DATERANGE suggests using unspaced en dashes for ranges of days within the same month, i.e. "7–12 August 1944" rather than "7 – 12 August 1944".
• If Oedipus and The Critic began in October 1946, then it needs to be between the two King Lears.

Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:47, 8 March 2015 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2015 (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 Crisco 1492 14:37, 8 March 2015 [10].

---

Salman Khan filmography

Nominator(s): FrankBoy _(Buzz) 11:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is my fourth filmography and this one is about a mainstream actor of Hindi cinema. Like the other three, it is well-sourced and well-written. Criticism on my work and suggesting improvements will be appreciated. FrankBoy _(Buzz) 11:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolved concerns from SNUGGUMS

Here's my 2¢: "Salman Khan is an Indian film actor, producer, playback singer, screenwriter, and television personality" is overkill, just say he's an actor and maybe television personality. For Main Tera Hero, "various Gods" should be under the "role(s)" field with "voiceover" being in "notes" field The Being Bhaijaan documentary should just be merged into one film list with the others Bollywood Hungama is used excessively, try to have more reference diversity Pretty good list overall Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC) @SNUGGUMS: Thanks for the input. I have resolved all of the above. I have replaced around 15 BH sources and hope that's enough. --FrankBoy (Buzz) 22:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Support looks good now :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Gracias! :) --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 22:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

De nada! Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Support — This is a good list. My only query is that you might want to archive the references to prevent dead links. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. I have not archived the links yet. I will probably do it sometime later. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 08:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Krimuk90

• In the first two sentences the word "film" appears thrice. The first and third occurrences are redundant IMO.
• You don't make a "breakthrough role", you either have a breakthrough (or make a breakthrough) in something or by doing something.
• "He starred in several films,.." No context. I think you mean in the early 1990s.
• " Khan suffered a brief setback in his film career with several Hindi films" He has acted only in Hindi films, so why repeat "Hindi films" here?
• "with several Hindi films, ..., none of which fared well commercially." There is no link between these parts of the sentence. Please rephrase.
• Please begin a new paragraph by mentioning the subject by his last name.
• Would be interesting to mention that Andaaz Apna Apna was a commercial failure. That would better explain the "now" in the sentence.
• "played the titular role"
• "Karan Arjun (1995), which emerged as the year's second highest-grossing Hindi film.". Which year? It's not mentioned before.

• Krimuk90, 1995 is mentioned in the parenthesis.

Oops, my bad.

• Why is KKHH described as a dramedy? It's always cited as a romantic drama.
• "In 1999, Khan starred in three critically and commercially successful productions; the comedy Biwi No.1, the romantic drama Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam, and the family drama Hum Saath-Saath Hain.". The three films were hits, yes, but baring Hum Dil none of them were critically acclaimed. Infact Biwi No. 1 and Hum Saath Saath Hain received negative reviews.
• Please change "goon" to something more formal.
• Surely there's a better way to describe his role in Baghbaan than an "adopted orphan"?
• Why is there a critic review for Tere Naam in his filmography page?

• Why not? His performance in the film is considered one of his best, so I think there is no harm to mention a critic review.

Well, if we have a source that says his role was critically acclaimed, then we can add that. But adding one from a critic like Taran Adarsh who dishes out superlative reviews for almost every actor is completely unnecessary in a filmography page. In his biography, of course, that will have much more significance. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, you seem to be right. Anyways, I have removed the review. How about this one, Krimuk90? Sify is a very good source according to me. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 06:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think it's necessary to have a critic review in his filmography page, especially for an actor who has done such a wide range of work. Others might weigh in their opinion here.

• "He played protagonists in several top-grossing Hindi films:". You can say, he went on to play the lead role in...
• "the second instalment of the Dabangg film series" -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 09:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. I have resolved all of the above. As for his role in Baghbaan, I can not think of anything else at the moment as his role was not more than of a 20 minute appearance. I think that we can have something like "a child who stands by his parents" or "appeared briefly". What do you think? --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 11:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Note: User Ssven2 has changed the info. as "made a brief appearance", which is certainly better than "adopted orphan". No? --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 17:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay, better. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have made quite a few tweaks to the lead in this revision, and will now abstain from either supporting or opposing the nomination. Anyway, I think the lead is much improved now. Good luck! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 06:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support: My only suggestion is to remove the red links unless you plan to make articles of that topic yourself. Other than that, it looks fine to me.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 08:09, 8 March 2015 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2015 (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 Crisco 1492 14:37, 8 March 2015 [11].

---

List of tied Twenty20 Internationals

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 12:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, an interesting little list. At the moment it is pretty short, and though it will certainly grow, it is unlikely to do so quickly. I have followed the tableformat of List of Cricket World Cup finals rather than the format at List of tied One Day Internationals, as I believe the former provides better information and adheres more closely to our MOS. I already have an FLC open (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of World Series Cricket international centuries/archive1), but it has been stable for a while now, with three support votes and no outstanding concerns. Harrias ^talk 12:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Seattle (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

*I previously left some comments at Template:Did you know nominations/List of tied Twenty20 Internationals, with an inclination that it might end up here. Those have been addressed. A Twenty20 International can have three possible results; think this should be a colon Done. Harrias talk 11:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC) I prefer non-centered text, but, as far as I know, that's a matter of preference I'm pretty ambivalent on this. I'll leave it as it is for the moment, but if others make similar comments, I don't mind changing it. Harrias talk 11:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC) This page links to only two other pages on Wikipedia; can you add it elsewhere? The tournament year articles would be prime candidates; 2012 ICC World Twenty20 for example. I've added in a number of extra links. Harrias talk 11:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC) The following might be differences in American vs British English, but I'll list them anyways: Zimbabwe won it 3–1 not sure "it" is needed here Done. Harrias talk 11:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC) including two occurrences not sure "occurrences" is needed here Seattle (talk) 04:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Done. Harrias talk 11:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I haven't been able to spot any issues. Miyagawa (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support: a very good list, meets the criteria. Happy to support this one! --Khadar Khani (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)

Comments from —Vensatry (ping) Page nos. are needed for PDF refs. Added. Harrias talk 17:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC) An explanation could well be added for "no result". I'm not sure this is necessary, as it isn't really relevant to the actual article, more an aside, and I have linked to Result (cricket). Harrias talk 17:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Image needs WP:ALT Added. Harrias talk 17:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Wisden Cricketers' Almanack -> the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack I'm a bit unsure about this. "the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack" doesn't work, because there has been more than one. I think it is grammatically fine as it is, which does follow the formatting used in the source article, but if it reads awkwardly to you, then I think it would be better as "the 2007 Wisden Cricketers' Almanack". Harrias talk 17:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC) You're right! So will it not be better to add the year of publication here? —Vensatry (ping) 12:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Done. Harrias talk 21:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC) "In all, there have been eight tied Twenty20 Internationals". Needs "as of ... " per WP:DATED Added a footnote. Harrias talk 17:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC) Why is "International Cricket Council" alone linked twice in the refs.? No reason. Fixed. Harrias talk 17:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC) —Vensatry (ping) 19:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC) @Vensatry: As always, thanks for your comments and thoughts! Harrias talk 17:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support – Looks solid. @Harrias: Can you have a look at this one when you get time? —Vensatry _(ping) 17:24, 4 March 2015 (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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2015 (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 SchroCat 20:36, 1 March 2015 [12].

---

List of works by Georgette Heyer

Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is close to meeting the FL criteria. This list details the works by the British author Georgette Heyer (an article which is already a FA). I feel this list would complement the main article nicely.

Thanks in advance to all reviewers! I will work on reviewing some other nominations on this page promptly. Ruby 2010/2013 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Adding a quick note that I am unsure if the main image is permitted or not. If it is, I know that I will likely need to update the image page to reflect this new usage, but think that I will need a little guidance in what to do first. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 00:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

This is very much out of my usual scope but I couldn't resist as she sounds so interesting. I don't think the image would be permitted as fair use but Crisco 1492 could clarify that. Yes, I would be very interested in hearing Crisco's opinion! Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Heyer married later that year; she would later travel with her husband, a mining engineer, to Africa and Eastern Europe, experiencing new cultures that influenced her stories". How about. --> "Heyer married later that year. Her travels with her husband, a mining engineer, to Africa and Eastern Europe enabled her to experience new cultures which would subsequently influence her stories." I like your wording. Now added. Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "In 1922, her first short story" Now added. "A prolific novelist, beginning in 1932 Heyer typically released one romance and one thriller each year." There's some punctuation missing I think. Added another comma. Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC) "Today....." This needs to be reworded maybe "Posthumously...". I try to ensure that statements are credible forever or if not have a time marker on them however unlikely that the opinion will change. Eh, I see what you mean about standing the test of time. But I seriously doubt that Heyer's popularity will change -- her Regency novels are her claim to fame, so much so that her other efforts receive relatively little attention in scholarly works. I did try changing the wording a little anyway, but nothing else seemed to be working so I went back to the original language. Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Tables need to be sorted so that titles are not sorted by "the" or "a" Done! Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC) I don't think format column is needed for any (barring one) of the tables as all of the entries are of one type (except for the short stories) which is already highlighted in the subheading. I've removed the "format" column from all but the short story table. Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC) List also has a duplicate arguments category indicating one or more of the refs have a repeated parameter to fix e.g. publisher=|publisher= I see the hidden category too but cannot identify what is triggering it. Do you know of a script that would help me find it? Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Cowlibob (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks so much for reviewing! Let me know if there is anything else. Ruby 2010/2013 03:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC) BlueMoonset has made some very valid points below so I'll await your reply to them, before I make my opinion felt. The duplicate argument error though has been fixed kindly by Frietjes. Also, here's the script she used for future use: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:Frietjes/findargdups Cowlibob (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Thanks to you and Frietjes for helping address those errors. Ruby 2010/2013 04:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC) @Ruby2010: I've moved up the short stories into the 20s section and did some copyediting, hope I didn't mess up the prose. I would also suggest separating the Georgian and Regency novels as BlueMoonset suggested below. Loving the addition of pictures, I would suggest using this picture from the FA instead for the Regency era [[13]] with a similar caption as the one used in the FA. Would be nice to include one for Georgian era as well. Cowlibob (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2015 (UTC) I've switched in your suggested image and added another as well. I've also copyedited the lead a bit. I'm concerned about its length and am wary of augmenting it too much (at a certain point, readers will need to turn to the main article to gain a bigger picture of Heyer, after all!). Take another look, if you could, and let me know what you think. Thanks! I truly appreciate the time you've put into this so far. Ruby 2010/2013 03:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ruby2010: I asked over here about the main image [[14]]. It's what I surmised, an image of the author would be "decorative" on this list so not fair use hence needs to be removed. You've already got plenty of images later. Also, could you please add alt text for the images for accessibility? Otherwise, I support this list. Good job. Cowlibob (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing, and for supporting! I have removed the lead image per everyone's advice and added alt text to the remaining images. Thanks again, Ruby 2010/2013 02:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from BlueMoonset

I'm acquainted with Heyer's work. I'm glad to see this list, but it still needs a fair amount of work before I can support it for Featured List status.

• The combination of Georgian and Regency strikes me as artificial and somewhat misleading. The Georgians tailed off shortly after the Regencies began, and I frankly think that, since she is best known for her Regency novels, these two should be separate categories.
• There is talk about the 1920s and 1930s, but nothing to characterize the subsequent decades. That's a serious omission.
• "A prolific novelist, beginning in 1932 Heyer typically released one romance and one thriller each year." This makes it sound like she continued this forever, when it was for only eight years. World War II started, she missed a year, did two more, and then nothing for almost a decade until her final two in the early 1950s. She wrote for nearly two decades after those final two mysteries. Also, "thriller" and "detective fiction" are rather different genres; the article needs to be consistent about this.
• The Short Story table uses three different formats for the titles; quoted roman is the standard for short stories. If The Bulldog and the Beast should indeed be in italics, then it's not a short story, but a longer length.
• I'd like to suggest that her second Georgian, The Transformation of Philip Jettan, be made to break between the two titles so the table isn't so impossibly wide.
• "As one of the pioneers of the Regency genre": this is a problematic sentence, because it implies that there were others, and the Regency period novel in the comedy of manners form was her creation alone.

—BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC) (and 04:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC))

Definitely some great suggestions! I completely agree about better articulating the timeline of her novels, and will get to addressing this and your other comments soon. ("Bulldog and the Beast" should not be in italics -- I think I accidentally introduced them when adding a new sort template the other day). Will report back here once I've worked on enacting your suggestions. Ruby 2010/2013 02:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've done some more work on the lead, so let me know what you think. This included attempting to finesse out her timeline a bit more, and also implementing your other stylistic concerns. Ruby 2010/2013 04:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• Ruby2010/2013, I did a bit of work on the third paragraph, because I thought there needed to be a bit more emphasis on the Regency, and the fact that after 1953, every novel she published was a Regency. I didn't come up with appropriate source citations for the new text, though I imagine I could find something in my copy of Jane Aiken Hodge's The Private World of Georgette Heyer if you don't have a source readily available.
• It might be appropriate to note that her husband was her collaborator on detective novels, and provided the plots for them (Hodge, p. 40). In the final paragraph, I removed the Austen sentence: my feeling is that it was a bit vague ("have been compared to the works of Jane Austen" could mean almost anything), and the whole didn't strike me as adequately reflecting what the source was saying. I don't think the list suffers from its absence, and I think the previous sentence works better as a summation.
• I should say now that I will not be able to support this nomination so long as the Georgians and Regencies are lumped together, which was my first point above, and remains unaddressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

• Understood. I plan to spend some more time this weekend on your suggestions, and will reply here again once I think the lead is worth looking at again. I don't have access to The Private World of Georgette Heyer, so I would most definitely be much appreciated if you could add anything useful from that source (such as a succinct opinion on her Regencies since, as you say, more emphasis may be needed there)? Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Hi BlueMoonset, I have completed an overhaul of the lead and would appreciate you giving it a second look. The Georgian and Regency novels have now been separated out in the lead, hopefully in a clear way. (I will separate them out in the actual list tomorrow - just getting a bit late today). I have also added a bit on Austen back into the lead - let me know what you think. Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 04:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ruby2010/2013, you've done some great work, and I've just made what I hope you will feel are some minor emendations and corrections to the article. I'm on the verge of supporting, but the sole thing that is keeping me from doing so is the caption to the Brontë image: it makes a claim about the contents of the Brontë essay that is not mentioned elsewhere, so I think you need to provide a source citation for that caption. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• I couldn't find a third party source that analyzed Heyer's essay on the Bronte sisters, so I've edited the caption to be more neutral. Thanks again for all your comments! Ruby 2010/2013 04:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Brontë caption now fits the title of the essay in question. I should probably mention that according to Hodge, Heyer apparently wrote other articles—there's one alluded to in 1929 for the Sphere, about rhinos, from when she was in Africa with her husband, who was then a mining engineer. Also, a number of her novels were serialized in Women's Journal, including The Foundling. I don't think either of these are sufficiently germane to affect this review. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hmmm... how interesting! I had thought my copy of Georgette Heyer: A Critical Retrospective included all of her published essays. I don't have access to Hodge's book, but please feel welcome to add any additional essays if you come across them. (And thanks again for the support!) The serialization aspect would probably push the lead too long but I appreciate you mentioning it. Ruby 2010/2013 04:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

Seems fine from a first glance, comments to come within a few days..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, here's my review.....

• "Georgette Heyer (1902–1974) was a British historical romance and detective fiction novelist"..... let's be more specific, she was English

• Changed to English. Ruby 2010/2013 03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Heyer married later that year" belongs in her main article rather than here

• I modeled this list after List of works by E. W. Hornung, which does include personal details about the subject. I don't really see a reason why this type of personal detail should be removed, but I'm willing to be persuaded. Ruby 2010/2013 03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• "Her travels with her husband"..... George Ronald Rougier should be mentioned by name

• Have added Rougier's name. Ruby 2010/2013 03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The author had an ambition for many years" → "She had aspired for many years"

• Reworded. Ruby 2010/2013 03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• "particularly in Heyer's use of wit, setting, and marriage as a plot driver"..... not sure if "use of wit" is neutral

• Another editor also had an issue with the sentence and removed it. Ruby 2010/2013 03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

This shouldn't take long to fix up. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing! I believe I have finished replying to your concerns. Let me know if there is anything else! Ruby 2010/2013 03:19, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You're quite welcome :), I now support Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Another Believer

• Comment: Looks good overall, thought I do find the numerous appearances of both "worldcat.org" and "WorldCat" redundant. Is the website necessary to include more than the first time? Also, this is not required to pass FLC, but I think the list would look better if columns widths aligned as you scrolled down the page. Perhaps columns widths could be set? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks so much for commenting! I have forced the table widths to be consistent, and simplified the Worldcat citations. Let me know if there is anything else! Ruby 2010/2013 06:08, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Hmm, the columns do not align down the page as I had hoped, but I now see that not all tables have the same number of columns, and this consistency is not required for FL status. I did notice something wrong for The Nonesuch's entry. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:17, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, Another Believer, the final table has one extra column which throws it off from the others a bit. How necessary do you find the column on "format"? It's really there to differentiate the short story collection from the others, but I'm not sure this is needed? Thoughts? Ruby 2010/2013 03:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't find the Format column necessary. I also notice that tables include a Year column, but some tables include full dates and not just years. Is Date a more appropriate column title? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Another Believer, thank you again for commenting! (Sorry for lag in reply). I have converted year to date, and removed the remaining format column. Please let me know if there is anything else! Ruby 2010/2013 04:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Espresso Addict

• The tables seem complete and well referenced; there's even one work in there I didn't know about! I think the lead might need more work for Featured List status. It's very hard to summarise all of Heyer's oeuvre in a short space but issues not dealt with that leaped at me whilst skimming the online sources include:

• The move from melodrama to comedy of manners, which is highlighted in several of the sources.
• Unconventionality & self-determination particularly of her later heroines; several sources discuss their being essentially modern heroines placed in impeccable Regency backdrops.
• The division into classes of Regency/Georgian romance vs [serious] historical fiction is muddied by serious romances like An Infamous Army and A Civil Contract. Also many of the early romances have detective/thriller plots. I think the "Historical novels" label should read "Other historical novels".
• Mention critically panned in her lifetime. AS Byatt leading the modern critical response.
• Continued popularity (eg Arrow reissues, library borrowings).
• Suppression of the early contemporary novels.
• Modern perceived difference from other Regency romance writers based on perceived historical accuracy.
• Debt to Austen.

• I'm ambivalent over the suggestion to split the historical romances into Georgians vs Regencies; they are usually just lumped together as romances as distinct from her non-romance-focused historical novels & her detective fiction. It might be better to include a column stating which time period these novels are set; colour coding might be a possibility. This would need to be referenced to secondary materials. There are several fansites that give dates for all the novels but I don't know how easy it would be to source respectably. I know Hodge gives some of the dates but does she do all?
• Seconding the suggestion to mention that Rougier did her detective plotting for her. This seems well attested.
• The first sentence seems clumsy and omits the other genres that she wrote in. What about Georgette Heyer (1902–1974) was an English author particularly known for her historical romance novels. ?
• A minor issue, but you repeatedly use "stories" when you mean predominantly novel-length works; as Heyer also wrote short stories this is confusing. Perhaps "works" would be better?

PS Ping me if you want me to respond; I have intermittent internet access at the moment. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright, Espresso Addict, I have completed an overhaul of the lead section. While I did not incorporate all of your suggestions due to space limitations, I believe I have employed most of them. Could you take another look and let me know what you think? Let me know if anything in the lead needs to be worded differently -- in particular, the language on her historical detail and Austen's influence may need tweaking. Thanks! Ruby 2010/2013 04:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This is much improved! I'll make some minor tweaks to the lead's wording but I'm prepared to add my support. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the support! Your comments were very helpful. Ruby 2010/2013 03:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

Support. A fine piece of work. Thorough, well laid out and impeccably sourced. Three minor points on the prose of the introductory section:

• The second sentence is more than fifty words long, and could do with breaking up.

• Done (by another editor, I think Blue). Ruby 2010/2013 03:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• "The first, Regency Buck, was published in 1935 as a best-seller" – "published as a best seller" looks rather odd. It was published and then became a best seller, surely?

• Same, done (by another editor, I think Blue). Ruby 2010/2013 03:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

• There are two "howevers" in the lead, both of which weaken the prose and would be better dispensed with, I suggest. Tim riley talk 11:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• Both "howevers" have been removed. Thanks very much for your support! Ruby 2010/2013 03:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

Support I think it is a very well-written list. It has a professional standards of writing. Although I feel the lead is a bit long, it is quite engaging and introduces the subject very well. The list is comprehensive and the table is formatted properly. You have used images wherever necessary, have not crowded the list with overuse of images and last but not the it is stable and I have not seen any edit war in the recent timing. Well done Ruby! --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 18:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree the lead is a bit long but I cannot think what to exclude - editors here have offered their feedback on what ought to be included, and I agreed with their suggestions. Anyways, I very much appreciate your support. Ruby 2010/2013 03:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

No, no, I'm not asking you to trim or exclude the points. As said before, it introduces the subject very well and it's just a feeling of mine. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 11:16, 27 February 2015 (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. – SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2015 (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 SchroCat 20:35, 1 March 2015 [15].

---

List of South Africa Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(ping) 07:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts created the basic article. I expanded the lead and tidied the list up a bit. Look forward to your comments —Vensatry _(ping) 07:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Vensatry. Looks in great shape and as the same standard of the Pakistan article. I'll look for any obvious problems and fix them as needed. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The lead states "The five-wicket hauls have come against six different opponents, more frequently against England: 14 times." That's unsourced and the Pakistan article lists the number of times against the other teams too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Added a ref. Since the SAF list is more than double the size of Pakistan, we need not list the frequency against every single opponent. —Vensatry _(ping) 08:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments "with 22 of them being South African cricketers." no need to repeat "cricketers". Done —Vensatry (ping) 18:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC) "more frequently against " you mean "more against England than any other nation" - the frequency isn't the issue here, the sheer number is. Done —Vensatry (ping) 18:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC) " 10 different venues, with six " would opt for ten rather than 10. Done —Vensatry (ping) 18:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC) "Out of the 22 occasions, 12 have resulted in losses, six in victories and the rest were drawn" rephrase, something like, "Of the twenty-two matches where a South African has taken a five-wicket haul, twelve have ended in defeat, six in victory and the other four in a draw". Or something. Done —Vensatry (ping) 18:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC) "The match happened to be his" happened to be -> was. Done —Vensatry (ping) 18:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC) "As of January 2015, Sydney Burke and Alf Hall are the only South African debutants to collect ten or more wickets in a match.[10" this is interesting but it's jarring where it's placed, considering you're talking fivers before and after this single sentence.... Okay now? —Vensatry (ping) 18:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC) "is the latest cricketer" -> "is the most recent South African..." Done —Vensatry (ping) 18:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Link "figures" or "bowling figures" the first time. Done —Vensatry (ping) 18:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC) "Vernon Philander has conceded the least number of runs while taking a fifer" -> "Vernon Philander has conceded the fewest runs while taking a fifer." Done —Vensatry (ping) 18:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Is this Test debut or International debut? Are ODIs counted here? It's not clear from the title but I'm guessing it's just Test cricket, probably need to clarify that. That's about it on a quick blast through. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Isn't it clear from the title when it reads "List of South Africa Test cricketers who have taken five wickets on debut"? Besides, there are only a handful of players who have taken a fifer on ODI debut. Donald is the only SAF cricketer among that. —Vensatry (ping) 18:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Ok, I can see where my possible confusion came from. Perhaps it's "South Africa cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut"? After all, a Test cricketer could debut in other forms of the game.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC) True, but this one follows the convention of the existing lists. We have a featured list in this category. What say? —Vensatry (ping) 07:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC) Not sure I'm worried about other lists or some perceived convention. How about: "List of South Africa cricketers who have taken five wickets on Test debut"? Uses exactly the characters yet is more precise. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC) This one looks perfect! I'm ready to move this page once we're done with this nomination. We can probably have a discussion at WT:CRIC so that every other page can be moved accordingly. —Vensatry (ping) 19:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC) Fine by me! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Have the remaining concerns been resolved? —Vensatry (ping) 17:13, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment

• Vensatry, could you please tweak "with X (number) of them being". I find it so repetitive. Also, don't you think that the sixth line of the last para is long? I think it needs to be reworded into into separate shorter sentences. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 13:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• I don't understand what's being repetitive here. Could you please be more specific? As for the second one, it's a parallel construction and I cannot think of an alternative at the moment. Thanks for the comments. —Vensatry _(ping) 18:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• In the first paragraph, I can find three instances of it: "with 22 of them being South African players", "with fourteen of them coming against England", and "with six of them coming from the Newlands.." It's not a major concern, but it gets a little bit monotonous to read. I don't know if it can be reworded, but I feel it should be tweaked for a better prose. As far as the second one is concerned, I agree. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 18:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Ah, are you referring to the preposition? —Vensatry _(ping) 19:21, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Umm, yep. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 19:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

• Okay now? —Vensatry _(ping) 08:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Perfect! Support — FrankBoy _(Buzz) 10:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support. It looks great after the improvements suggested above, and it is well-referenced. --Carioca (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• "the" is needed before "Top 100 Bowling performances of all time".
• Note 1: First word of "First class cricket" shouldn't be capitalized. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Fixed both. Thanks for the comments. —Vensatry _(ping) 08:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk Generally, the prose section needs a fair bit of work, I've listed a number of the most obvious concerns below: The third sentence repeats "cricketers" unnecessarily; I would just finish the sentence ".. out of which 22 were South African." Done —Vensatry (ping) 09:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC) The last few sentences in the first paragraph all sound a bit clunky: they could do with significant work to help the flow. Something more like; "Amongst the debut performances, there are a couple of prominent trends; fourteen of the twenty-two five-wicket hauls have been made against England, and six of the twenty-two were at the Newlands Cricket Ground in Cape Town. A debut five-wicket haul did not correlate with a victory for South Africa, as they only won six of the matches, losing twelve and drawing four." Rephrased the text slightly. Where have I correlated the debut fifer with the result of the match? —Vensatry (ping) 09:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC) In the language that you do use, avoid Noun plus -ing, such as "..with six of them coming.." Done I think —Vensatry (ping) 09:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC) Debutante refers to a girl being presented into "society", you want "debutant". I thought both to be a variation of American and British English. Thanks for enlightening this old fogey. :) —Vensatry (ping) 09:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC) "The match was his only representation.." This seems a little clunky, "appearance" would probably be preferable. Done —Vensatry (ping) 09:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC) The Alf Hall / Klusener sentence is very repetitive, the two halves are written in exactly the same format. Moved one to FN —Vensatry (ping) 09:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC) "Klusener's bowling figures along with George Bissett's 5 for 37 runs were included.." I think there should be commas around Bissett's part: "Klusener's bowling figures, along with George Bissett's 5 for 37 runs, were included.." Done I think —Vensatry (ping) 09:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC) In the last sentence, "..stand next to.." isn't really encyclopaedic language: perhaps use "..is second only to.." Done —Vensatry (ping) 09:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC) The Key only has a few minor issues: For the date, the two options aren't needed, so it can just be "Starting date of the match." I would move Inn. up to between Date and Overs, as that is where it appears horizontally. The ‡ should specify that "The bowler took 10 wickets or more taken in the match." The table is very good, all works as expected and looks professional. Harrias talk 16:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC) All three done —Vensatry (ping) 09:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC) "..after the country started playing competitive cricket in 1991.." I think this needs to be clarified more for the non-expert. Perhaps, ".. after South Africa's return to international cricket in 1991.." Added a FN —Vensatry (ping) 09:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC) I think this needs clarification inline, as at the moment it gives the impression that South Africa did not play competitive cricket at all before 1991. Harrias talk 13:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Done I think —Vensatry (ping) 16:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• @Harrias: Anything left? —Vensatry _(ping) 17:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Just the one above that I've responded to, I think. Harrias ^talk 13:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support, looks good, thanks. Any chance you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tied Twenty20 Internationals/archive1? Harrias ^talk 16:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – with two minor comments:

• "A five-wicket haul on debut is regarded as a notable achievement by critics" is theoretically ambiguous and could be made fireproof if reordered as "A five-wicket haul on debut is regarded by critics as a notable achievement."
  • Good catch! —Vensatry _(ping) 16:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• In the first para we have both "22" and "twenty-two" – either is fine, but we should be consistent.

Otherwise nothing but praise for a fine piece of work. Tim riley talk 08:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thanks for the comments —Vensatry _(ping) 16:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support sorry, I forgot to come back and add this. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2015 (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. – SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2015 (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 SchroCat 20:38, 1 March 2015 [16].

---

Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards

Nominator(s): KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

After successful taking Kangana Ranaut's article to FA-status, I am nominating a well-written and well-sourced listing of all her film roles and awards. As with my previous nominations, I look forward to lots of constructive comments. KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from FrB.TG

It's a good list but some minor points

• "three upcoming projects": I wouldn't include I Love New Year as an upcoming one as it has been shelved. Also, is it important to mention "upcoming projects"?

Changed to yet-to-be-released.

• "highly successful" sounds like puffery. Instead you can mention the thing that makes Krrish 3 "highly successful".

Tweaked.

• The Star Guild Awards were known as Apsara when she was awarded for Fashion, so I suggest: "Previously known as Apsara" => "Also known as Apsara".

The footnote already mentions that.

• Koimoi.com should be Koimoi. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 10:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the comments FrB. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:05, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Support — FrankBoy _(Buzz) 11:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments Looks good overall. These are my edits, please revert if you don't agree with any of them. Might be worth saying that Ranaut "has appeared in 29 Bollywood films as of 2015" (or some other similar construction). {{As of|2015|lc=y}} is good for this. Added. "Appreciated" doesn't seem like the right word to me. How about "lauded", which is what the original source uses? Changed. Science fiction film is the only film genre that you link to. Any particular reason for this? I've removed the wikilink. If you sort the actress table by year, I Love New Year jumps right to the top. I'd suggest using something like {{Sort|2016|TBA}} to keep it at the bottom. Done. Using the Cite news template for citation 61 puts it in the unfortunate position of having a second terminal punctuation mark for GR8!. It might be best just to ditch the template and use <ref>[http://www.gr8mag.com/posts.php?id=1884 "4th GR8! Women Awards 2014, Middle East"]. ''GR8!'' Retrieved 4 February 2015.</ref> instead. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC) Changed. @A Thousand Doors: Thank you for the comments! From your edits, I have made one change, per my edit summary. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 02:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC) The biggest sticking point for me is the article's title. There was a lot of heated discussion last year about whether or not titles of this format were appropriate or grammatical, and the discussion eventually closed with no consensus either way. Personally, I couldn't support an article with this title becoming a FL. WP:TITLEFORMAT specifically states not to use titles "suggesting that one article forms part of another", giving examples such as "Azerbaijan/Transport" or "Azerbaijan (transport)". Although it doesn't specifically mention it, the spirit of what it's saying suggests to me that "Azerbaijan, transport" would not be appropriate either. Would you be willing to move the article to a different location? As was shown numerous times in the discussion, this is more about the ignorance of some over the use of a comma. "Kangana Ranaut, roles and awards" is entirely correct, and it's rather underhand to threaten nominators by withholding your support on the basis of something that is perfectly adequate. - SchroCat (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC) I followed the format based on two FLs: Ralph Richardson, roles and awards and John Gielgud, roles and awards. I don't have a personal preference here and am open to suggestions. There were a few that were suggested during the discussion. "List of roles and awards of Kangana Ranaut", "Roles and awards of Kangana Ranaut" or "Career history of Kangana Ranaut" would all be names that I would be happy to support. Personally, I reckon a good rule of thumb is to think about what the opening line of the TFL blurb for this list would be, then reverse engineer the title from that. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Changed to "Roles and awards of Kangana Ranaut". Comprehensiveness seems good. The only question I had after reading the article was about the box office flops that are briefly mentioned. Which films were they? Is there any reason in particular why they didn't succeed? They were a series of films in which she briefly played the romantic interest to male protagonists. In her biography, these are mentioned in greater detail, and how she signed them due to a lack of good offers. Sounds interesting. Any way that this could be included in the prose? In your final paragraph is getting too large, you could probably get away with splitting it just before the sentence about Krrish 3. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Added info. Though I haven't split the final paragraph, as it looks better this way IMO. If she received her "Best Actress (Popular Choice)" Screen Award for both Krrish 3 and Shootout at Wadala in equal measures (which the source seems to suggest) it seems odd to have just Krrish 3 in the Film column, and Shootout at Wadala shunted away in the Category column in a tiny font. I didn't want to repeat the nomination for both films, because she received just one nom for both of them, though I'd be open to other options. Repeating the nominations would certainly be a bad idea, but, personally, I'd have something like, say, "Krrish 3 / Shootout at Wadala" in the film column, perhaps with an inline citation to a footnote explaining that the nomination was for her roles in both films. But it's up to you. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC) Changed, with a footnote. Thanks for the suggestion. :) Not really a FL requirement, but it might be worth considering adding some archive URLs to your online refs, just in case they ever go dead. WebCite and The Internet Archive are probably the best for this. It's not obligatory though. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: All done, though I haven't archived the urls yet. I'll probably do that sometime later. Cheers! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support No other outstanding issues that I can see. I've made a few final edits here; please revert if you don't agree with any of them. One last thing that I would note though is that the Role column sorts all the characters by their surnames. From what I can tell, it seems to be customary on Wikipedia to refer to fictional characters by their first names rather than their surnames (maybe for WP:WAF reasons, or something). WP:FA#Media and WP:WikiProject Fictional characters/Quality content both list fictional characters by their first names. It might be worth resorting that list in the same way. Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Actually, in all the actor/actress FLs, the character names have been sorted by their last names. Also, during my first few FLCs, I was asked by various editors to sort them by the last name. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 01:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, sorting by last name is common practice. - SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Excellent work, once again!

--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 11:46, 27 February 2015 (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. – SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2015 (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 SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2015 [17].

---

Kareena Kapoor Khan filmography

Nominator(s): BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ (talk · contribs), FrB.TG (talk · contribs), Krimuk90 (talk · contribs)

We are nominating a well sourced filmography of Kareena Kapoor Khan. Comments on how to improve the list will be highly appreciated. I will be more than happy to resolve any of them. FrankBoy _(Buzz) 07:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

• Can you rephrase "Indian actress Kareena Kapoor, credited as Kareena Kapoor Khan after her marriage, has appeared in over 50 Bollywood films. " as "Kareena Kapoor, credited as Kareena Kapoor Khan after her marriage, is an Indian actress who has appeared in over 50 Bollywood films."
• "The last of these emerged as the highest-grossing Bollywood film in overseas to that point," — "The last of these" and "to that point" can be rephrased as "The last of the three" and "at that time."
• "and she was awarded a Special Performance Award at Filmfare" can be rephrased as "she won a Filmfare Award under the Special Performance category".

Tweaked it to "..earning her a Special Performance Award at Filmfare". I think that reads much better.

• A quick question — Was she always under house arrest in Kurbaan?
• again the phrase "to that point" after 3 Iditos can be rephrased as "at that time" (not that "to that point" is wrong but it sounds anonymous, maybe that's just me .)

• Hi Ssven2! we have resolved your concerns except "to that point" one as I think it sounds more encyclopedic than "at that time". Much appreciated , FrankBoy _(Buzz) 12:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ssven. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Support — Ssven2 ^{speak 2 me} 16:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Bede735

This filmography meets all of the requirements for a stand-alone list. The prose section is well-written, comprehensive, and effectively introduces the subject. The article structure and article style comply with MOS guidance. The tables are formatted nicely, uncrowded, and visually appealing. The tooltip on Refs is helpful. The lead image has an appropriate license reviewed by an administrator. It's nice to see you did not crowd the article with excessive images. Finally, the list appears stable from its recent history. I have a few suggestions:

• In the first paragraph, following the lead sentence, you may want to add one additional sentence before moving directly into the history of her film appearances. Maybe something like, "She is known for playing a variety of characters in a range of film genres—from contemporary romantic comedies to crime dramas."

• I think that this being a filmography page really does not need such, does it? It directly states her career history and not what she is known for. Since this filmography is written after other featured filmoraphies, I have not added any. They should be on one's biography. Don't you think?

• The first sentence in the second paragraph is a little awkward. Perhaps rephrase it to, "Kapoor's portrayal of a prostitute in the 2004 drama Chameli proved to be a turning point in her career, earning her ..."

• Done.

• In the first table, correct the piped link to Aśoka. It should be Aśoka (film).

• Done.

• In the first table, per WP:OVERLINK, remove two duplicate links for director Abbas–Mustan, one each for Suneel Darshan, J. P. Dutta, and Satish Kaushik, three for Priyadarshan, and two for Rohit Shetty.

• The directors are all wikilinked because the column is sortable.

• In the Bibliography section, the Edgar citation is missing the year parameter. I know the year appears in the title, but the year in the citation refers to the publication year, and this title could have more than one edition.

• I am not sure whether or not the date of publication is 2009 and that is not available.

I hope these comments help. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, @Bede735:. They have been taken care of. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 20:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Support – Bede735 (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Tks fellas – Sven and Bede. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 23:07, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Nice list, just a few items before a support.

• "emerged as the highest-grossing Bollywood film in overseas to that point" - 'in overseas' sounds awkward without a noun after it. Maybe overseas sales

• Done.

• "However, she followed this with roles" - 'this' is ambiguous, replace with 'this early success' or something

• I couldn't think of anything else. Used "this early success", thanks for that.

• "However, her sole release of 2014," - nothing to play the however off of, reverse to "Her sole release of 2014, however,"

• Done.

• Ref. should be Ref(s)., since some cells have multiple

• Done.

• "Also playback singer for song" - playback singer?

• Yes, playback – Bollywood uses a pre-recorded song in the song's music video and the actors lip-sync.

• link BBC in the documentary table

• I am not sure if I need to link this as we need to link the title (which is unknown) and not the producer or such.

• Redirects: Sooraj R. Barjatya, Rediff.com

• Done.

• First book in bibliography missing release date/year (2009, according to the copyright page)

• "2009" is the part of the book's title and I am not sure if the year 2009 is the date of publication. There is no publication data in the website.

--PresN 19:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• @PresN: Thanks for the review. I have resolved almost all of the above. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 20:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• I'm fine with the remainder, switching to support. --PresN 22:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you! --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 09:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

• According to Microsoft's spell-check, "instalment" has only one "l" in both British and Indian English. No other quibbles about the prose.

• I am not very sure about this. I, therefore, have replaced that with the world "film".

• The list looks authoritative and complete. I note that more than half the citations are to the same site: "Bollywood Hungama". I have checked against a cognate FL filmography (Rani Mukerji's) and as I see that the same site was used for nearly half the citations there, I assume it is acceptable to rely so heavily on it here.

• Perhaps the source Bollywood Hungama is the only one which contains each information about the film, I mean acting credits, info about crew etc.. And it's a leading entertainment website for Hindi cinema. In fact if you read some featured filmographies related to Bollywood, you'll find that more than half of the sources are published by BH.

• I notice that the last three films listed have not been released yet. I know little about cinema and avoid it on the whole, but I have noticed the stern warning in the film section of the GAN page: "Please do not nominate articles on films that have not yet been released; as details within the article may change: they will be failed". On that basis, applying the same reasoning to FLC, ought the three unreleased films to be included here at the moment?

• Upcoming film is not included unless filming for that film has begun. And filming for three have/had begun.

That's all from me. This article is clearly a labour of love and I wish it well, though I refrain (purely because of my ignorance of the topic) from formally supporting. – Tim riley talk 07:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thanks for the comments. --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 09:37, 24 February 2015 (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. – SchroCat (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

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