Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/May 2019

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 18:22:01 31 May 2019 (UTC) [1].

---

Territorial evolution of Australia

Nominator(s): Golbez (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Following in the footsteps of FLs Territorial evolution of the United States and Territorial evolution of Canada, I offer Australia. Unlike the others, it includes the colonial period because, helpfully, no colonies joined it after it became a country so I avoid that complication. (and the colonial period was a lot more interesting!) Well-sourced, well-illustrated, and, at least at this time, appears comprehensive. --Golbez (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

• A longer lead would be nice, maybe summarize the major events and the difference between a state and territory.
• Along with that, the timeline overall is amazing but lacks context of what were relatively minor procedural changes and bigger ones that affected people. Some discussion about changes related the most populated areas could go in the lead.
• I recall seeing a gif somewhere, would go well at the top, especially since the images are somewhat small, with more blue sea than Australia in the maps. I know the table has all the same information but the maps are simply illegible.

Reywas92^Talk 06:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

• • Lede: I've tried to flesh it out a bit.
  • Context: When I originally made these articles, I wanted them to be just ... facts. No context, just say what happened and don't bother with why. But now that the initial information is in, I feel more confident going back and trying to supply context. I'll work on that today.
  • You might have seen it on Reddit, where I posted it last week? :) The maps I guess are designed to be clicked if you want to see what they say, I hadn't considered making a tiny version of the maps, without text, just showing the change in a visible form... do you think that might be worth the effort? --Golbez (talk) 16:17, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • I think that was it! Found it again at List of proposed states of Australia. I may let others comment if they think you should go through that work but honestly I think the tiny unreadable text in the thumbnails doesn't look great, and they didn't need to be extended through the sea for just two changes about uninhabited islands. They're terrific when bigger but not as good as thumbnails. Reywas92^Talk 18:38, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what you're referring to about 'two changes' to 'uninhabited islands' - you mean Heard + Macdonald? Removing those only shrinks the map a little bit- all of the other corners (Nauru, Cocos, South Island) are pretty close to their edges. --Golbez (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
      • And that gif was made by someone else based on an earlier version of the article. --Golbez (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        • Haha I only read until I saw your name credited for the original file, but it looks good. I did mean Heard and MacDonald but yeah the others are out there too. I suppose as a reader I'm not as interested in the low population territories but they're certainly parts of Australia that shouldn't be left out, but most changes don't involve them. Perhaps use different maps for Australian mainland and external territories (or pre and post-independence)? I guess the maps have the same small text as in the US and Canada map and it's not that necessary to read them – maybe just increase the size to 250px like the others! I thought your test change looked good though but I don't want this to be a ridiculous amount of work. Reywas92^Talk 20:06, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
          • It's not ridiculous, it's actually fun, but... I'm worried that if I put these up, the more detailed frames will be lost. Very few people will click through to see them... --Golbez (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Hope you don't mind I made the images bigger and legible to match the US and Canada articles. With the longer lead now, I support. A review on my FLC below would be appreciated. Reywas92^Talk 06:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments As above, the lead isn't long enough for a list of this size; one paragraph just won't do. You could try summarising the major events in rough chronological order and defining the scope for "Colonial history" and "Federation", ultimately to fill the lead to about three paragraphs in length. One of the two Australian history GIFs could go in the lead as well. Legend: is it necessary to indent it? I feel it should be flush against the left-hand side, although this is really more of a matter of taste. Capitalise disputed and area in the legend. Also, another entry to the legend could be made for the grey areas on the map. The dates in the first column of the tables don't look good text-wrapped – especially if they're broken into three separate lines; they should ideally be formatted to appear on a single line each. The Change Map table header can be simplified to just "Map". Your tables have scope attributes for rows, but not for columns. The Proposals for new Australian States link in the See also section should use the actual article's title, avoiding a redirect. Overall, this list isn't bad and has potential, but it needs some work, especially on the lead. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC) How's the lede now? Personally I'd kill the legend, if no one else minds then I will. It was never my idea. Added scopes and nowraps. Fixed the link. --Golbez (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Apologies for my delayed reply. Anyway: The lead definitely looks better. I would briefly list the "several small island territories" and link "a large claim" to Australian Antarctic Territory in the last sentence. Otherwise, there's a bit of room left for expansion of the lead, but I'll leave that up to your judgement. I think the legend is still somewhat useful, as it provides additional information that may not be otherwise apparent for other readers. Also, alt text needs to be added to all images in the article. That should be it for now. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC) I've linked and alt-texted and unindented the legend. Not sure what else more could go in the lede. --Golbez (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Support: comprehensive and detailed enough for my liking. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:04, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Lead image caption is a fragment, no full stop required. Done. "Key to map colours" now then, this is a probable MOS:COLOR violation, as we need more than just a colour to denote something, (Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information, so those map images need something more than just colours. Ehhhhh I mean, the info is already in an image. This isn't like using color to convey information that could be conveyed in text. Like if people have a list of cities and say "capitals are bold" or "capitals are blue". In those cases, yes, you need some other indication than formatting. But in this case, there is no browser text. And the map images do have something other than color, the labels. They only label the relevant changes, there are full maps which include labels, though I haven't thought of a way to properly integrate them in this article. Screen readers can't read text embedded in images. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Exactly. The images are entirely opaque to someone using screen readers; therefore, there's no way of sharing information in the image that they can see, therefore there's no problem with giving a color key. How would the color key be against accessibility, but not the images themselves? The images complement the text, and vice versa; so unless you're suggesting I change this to SVGs, I'm not sure I see the complaint. (Now, if the complaint was "the color key is bad and should go away," I'm fine with that, as I said in previous statements, but this one is about accessibility and that argument doesn't seem to make much sense...) So there's nothing in those images that isn't available by other means to people using screenreaders? The Rambling Man (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC) I'm sure there is, but that issue is far beyond the color key. If you want to talk about the nature of images containing more information than is accessible with screenreaders, I think we'll need a bigger discussion. Then again, the only information that's in the images that isn't in text is probably specific positional information, rather than information about the change. But again, this is far beyond the color key. How about this: Can you explain why any particular image would disqualify this article as inaccessible, instead of me stumbling along trying to figure out how the color key figures into any of this? :P --Golbez (talk) 07:43, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Well, the discussion has evolved. Initially my concerns were that the key and the associated images weren't compliant with MOS:COLOR, which is fair. Subsequently, I'm not also concerned that information exists in the images which is pertinent to the list which is only accessible to those who can see the images. I guess if you have sufficiently covered the details of each image in the text for each entry and/or included ALT text, then we're all good. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC) The alt text describes them as maps. The maps describe what is in the article text. I don't think we can ask for more, can we? --Golbez (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC) That's fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC) "all the islands adjacent in the Pacific Ocean" this looks like an unattributed quotation. It's attributed to the source that's done earlier in the graf; should I move the source to the end, or repeat it? Repeat. Never have unattributed, unverifiable quotes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC) welp okay " 3.6 kilometres " since this is an Imperial-esque article, let's at least provide conversions to miles. Done. Several statements without references in the Event column. Like? I've gone through this many times and thought I'd sourced everything I needed to, so I don't trust myself to be able to proofread my own work in this regard. Any quotes without a source inline, for example. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC) OK, hit all the ones I saw, removed one I couldn't source. The table isn't sortable so suffers from large amounts of overlinking. It wouldn't exactly make sense to be sortable (would I add a column of "all entities modified by this date"? [and yes I actually considered this at one point]), so is this necessarily a problem? I figured each cell should be self-sufficient in terms of linking. This isn't normal prose where one can trust earlier paragraphs to supply context. The last mention of an entity could be 30 cells earlier. We tend to try to avoid overlinking. That's all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Dozens of refs aren't comprehensively defined. You mean the ones using {{Cite Legislation AU}}? I guess I could add a manual 'access date' to them, but it makes me wonder if there's a reason they omitted that from the template? I don't know, I didn't look, but there are dozens of refs without publisher information, publication date, access date, author names etc. Not good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC) I'm not trying to be a dick when I ask this, but I am a bit unsober and run the risk of doing it inadvertently: Who would the author name, publication date, and publisher for a law be? --Golbez (talk) 04:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC) Publisher is the host for the website you're referencing. There may not be an author. I imagine a suitable publication date would be the date the law was put into effect, or even when the law itself was published to the general public. Access dates should be there if you can't find a suitable method for publication date. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC) We've both been here for a very long time, so please help me with this: Zero of the legislation citation templates include accessdate, publisher, author, etc. Could it be that these are allowed as exceptions? Sadly, WP:REF does not have any statement on the matter of citing legislation. I'm not necessarily against it, I'll do it if you feel the need (again citing your experience here) - I'm just wondering if we're building precedent rather than following an existing guideline. --Golbez (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2019 (UTC) I see that template is very limited. It is odd because at the very least you know the publisher is Australasian Legal Information Institute, you know the publication date of the legislation and you can always find out an accessdate (after all, the Australasian Legal Information Institute may unilaterally decide to change its URL structure at any point rendering this entire template usage dead). I suppose the limitations you're explaining are down to the dependency on a mediocre template. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC) I've gone through and cleaned up all the refs. --Golbez (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC) Enough for a ten-minute browse. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Thanks for taking a look. :) --Golbez (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support my (pedantic) issues resolved, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• "the vast, sparsely populated center of the country" - don't Australians spell "centre" the correct way same way as we do in Britain?
• link Letters patent on first use.
• Our article on Letters patent doesn't capitalise the P, but here you do. Not sure which is correct?
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Fixed; I coulda sworn I saw somewhere that said letters patent was always capitalized, but now I can't find it. Maybe I mixed up where our article said always pluralized. *shrug* --Golbez (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 18:21:56 31 May 2019 (UTC) [2].

---

Romania in the Eurovision Song Contest

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is in a very good shape at the moment, it is well-written and sourced. I wanted to have it as a GA nomination, but it turned out it had too many tables for that. I'm very apperciative of comments. Thank you! Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:16, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Support from Lirim.Z

Resolved comments from Lirim Talk

* The lead is too short. It has about 1217 characters, not even enough for a DYK. The total prose in the article is over 4000 characters, more than enough for a DYK. DYK requirements are based on the total prose in the article, not just the lead, so that argument is not really appropriate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC) The lead needs references Symbols like a † or a ‡ should be used in the legend and in the table, so colorblind people can identify the colored cells remove "style="width:100%"" in the table, looks awful on big monitors —Lirim

Comments from Chris the Dude

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk)

**"Romania has participated in the Eurovision Song Contest 19 times after making its debut in the 1994 contest and has since placed six times within the top ten." => "Romania has participated in the Eurovision Song Contest 19 times since making its debut in the 1994 contest and has placed in the top ten six times." "In 2019, for the first time, a seven-piece international jury" => " In 2019, for the first time, a seven-person international jury" I would centre-align all the number columns in the table "Photogallery" is not one word in English. It should either be "Photo gallery" or just "Gallery" That's all I spotted on a first pass, other than Lirim's points above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Everything fixed so far! Thank you for your comments ... Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Support from Eddie891

• Support My comments can be seen on the talk page Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from A Thousand Doors

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments Looks good overall. These are my edits; please revert if you disagree with them. Per MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD, "Romania" doesn't need to be in bold in the opening sentence. Could the Year column be centralised in the two tables? Could you maybe write a couple of sentences to introduce the Commentators and spokespersons and section? Maybe just say what the purposes of the roles of commentator/dual commentator/spokesperson are, and who has normally done them. Rather than having empty cells in the tables, consider using Template:TBA. Per MOS:OVERLINK, common languages (such as the ones in the Contestants table) don't need to be wikilinked. Alina Sorescu is sorting incorrectly in the table. I may have more comments coming. Incidentally, my current open FLC is Radio Times's Most Powerful People. If you've got the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: Hi and thank you for your (first) comments. I believe I have adressed everything, but please check out the text I wrote for that section since I'm not sure it's alright. I'll also look over your FLC tomorrow. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2019 (UTC) Looks better, but I do still have more comments. This article is probably going to be promoted to FL, and, since it'd the first list of this type to get the bronze star, it'll set the precedent for similar lists to follow, so I'd like us to get it right. I've made some more changes here; again, please revert if you disagree with them. Rereading the article, it's a bit repetitive at times. For such a short amount of prose, you say three times that Romania unsuccessfully tried to qualify in 1993, that the 2010 entry placed third (Romania's best result alongside 2005), and that they were disqualified in 2016 due to non-payment of debts. I'd suggest shortening the image caption (get rid of everything after "Playing with Fire") and remove the repeated facts from either the Contest History or the Contestants section. I've done the caption and the removal of the 2016 repetition. Yet, the 2010 case is only mentioned twice (lead and section), which I think is alright, and the 1993 case needs to also be mentioned in "Contestants" since there was a similar case not mentioned before an the reader would need some context (provided by the 1993 case). Does that make sense lol? I packed everything from the "Contestants" section in "Contest history". I think everything is better now and there is more logic. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC) All the images need alt text. Some of the sentences in the Selection process section have a lot of citations – the final sentence, for example, has six, which makes it look cluttered. The third sentence is only nine words long, yet has four citations. Can these be reduced in any way? I tried to sort things out a bit If televoting wasn't introduced until 1998, how did the 1100 households select the entrant in 1993? Some people probably went door-by-door to collect the people's opinions, wrote it down, and handed it to TVR. That's the only method I can imagine. "In 1994 and 1996, regional jury panels were introduced." This confused me – how can something be introduced twice? Also, do we know what form these regional juries took? How many were there, how many people sat on them, and over what region did they cover? No information is giving on the juries and this methodology. I replaced "introduced" with "hired". "The following lists Romania's entries for the Eurovision Song Contest along with their result." -> This entire sentence can be deleted. The table is self-explanatory enough without the prose needing to point out what's going on too. Do we know why Romania didn't participate in 1995, 1997, 1999 and 2001? No information on this, probably just lack of budget or interest. Also, is there any reason that we don't know who the commentators were from 2002 to 2009? There are no sources on the internet to (at least reliably) support the claims that were made on the previous version of this article. @A Thousand Doors: Thanks again for comments... I have responded to some of them, otherwise everything has been done I believe. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC) Also note I added a few new sentences in "Contest history". Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC) There are several references that seem to cite to the Eurovision Song Contest as an actual event, rather than as a television broadcast (e.g. citations 34 to 44). I don't think I've ever seen events cited to in this way before, and I don't see how a reader would be able to verify what the article says based on these references. Pinging FLC's sourcing expert User:PresN for their opinion. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:11, 27 April 2019 (UTC) It's not appropriate to cite the event directly. A citation should be to something that (at least theoretically) can be verified- tracking down a recording of a tv broadcast may not be trivial, but could theoretically be done; tracking down the actual historical event is impossible without a time machine. The distinction is subtle, but real. --PresN 20:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC) I'm a bit confused. Can you teach me how to cite this then? I'm new to this kind of citation... Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:41, 4 May 2019 (UTC) The overriding guideline here is "Say where you read it". Wherever it was that you found this information, cite that. Happy to help if needed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Everything I can do is to link to a video of the full show, allowing the reader to check by themselves; I did that now. Hope it's fine. Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC) This article has improved significantly over the last couple of weeks, and I'm quite close to supporting its promotion, but I would like it to be spot-on first. Per MOS:CURRENCY, "100,000 euro" -> "100,000 euros". Done. Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC) "strong reactions against the decision". From whom? It may be worth adding a sentence or two here to elaborate on who the strong reactions were from, and what they said. It may then be worth splitting that paragaph into two at the "In 2008, Nico and Vlad..." sentence. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC) Done. The reactions were from fans of Eurovision, thus I added "observers". Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC) @A Thousand Doors: I answered to your comments. Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Speaking of the 2016 disqualification, did Romania successfully go through the pre-selection process, only to be disqualified before the Grand Final? If so, were they then replaced by another country? Were any other countries also disqualified for this reason? What was Ovidiu Anton's reaction to all this?

They had chose their entry and assigned a semi-final to possibly qualify for the Grand Final eventually, yet they were removed from the show due to the reasons mentioned. There was no country that took their place, they were simply just removed; one country less in 2016 simply. I don't think Anton's reaction is relevant here, but I included something about the overall reaction.

The reason I ask this is that the article says that Romania qualified for every ESC Grand Final "except for 2018 and 2019". This implies that they did qualify for the Grand Final in 2016, but your comment seems to be saying that they didn't. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:18, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm afraid we'll have to let this as it stands right now, since saying the coutry didn't qualify in 2016 would be technically wrong. Also, a sentence about their 2016 exclusion follows directly after "except for 2018 and 2019", so the reader shouldn't be confused.Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

"saying the coutry didn't qualify in 2016 would be technically wrong". Why? You said earlier that they were were assigned a place in a semi-final, but they were then removed before it went ahead. Unless I'm missing something, it sounds to me like the country didn't qualify in 2016. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@A Thousand Doors: If you're a Eurovision fan, you normally use "didn't qualify" when saying that a country did not receive enough votes from the public and juries in the semi-final to pass into the Grand Final. However, this didn't happen to Romania since they didn't even participate in the voting phase in the semi-final. Thus, saying "didn't qualify in 2016" would confuse readers. Also, until 2016, the Eurovision site reported that Romania had a "100% qualification rate" to the Grand Final when they, according to you, "didn't qualify" in 2016. So, clearly the Eurovision site also doesn't see the 2016 as a non-qualification, rather as a forced withdrawal. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from The Rambling Man

I know this may sound like a pain, but given we'll be seeing Romania in, at least, qualifying in a matter of days for this year's event, I'm going to delay my review until after the dust settles on that, so ping me once the article has been updated post-contest if you would be so kind? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Romania did, again, not qualify with a masterpiece of a song :( .... Anyway, you can start commenting on the article if you wish. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Maybe that's better than qualifying and finishing rock bottom... I will do my best to get to it later, having a somewhat busy day today. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose from 169.231.45.113

• The main table on the page features redundant symbols and leaves important information, such as Romania's status in 1995. More importantly, the table does not match other country's related pages, such as Greece in the Eurovision Song Contest. The page should be formatted in such as way to include crucial information and keep a uniform among the other many related pages. Furthermore, it should not have its formatting changed and information left out simply to try to get featured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.45.113 (talk • contribs)

The table is meant to have those symbols and the formatting is unlike the page given, since this one is a FLC. Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Source review

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk)

*To add to the point earlier about the events themselves not being valid sources, if the YouTube video links aren't from an official site of some kind and are bootleg recordings, they are probably copyright violations for our purposes and we shouldn't have links here. In that case, you'll want to remove the links entirely, although the cites to the broadcasts can remain. Are refs 20 to 25 all from an official National Finals site, or are they from somebody's personal website? The GeoCities lineage makes it harder to tell for those of us not familiar with the subject, as most pages from that site aren't reliable. If unofficial, these are unreliable and you'll need to find replacements. What makes ESC-History (ref 3) a reliable source? Ref 4, a cite to a printed book, is missing a page number. That should be provided for verifiability. The link-checker tool is showing that the second external link in the infobox, which is the same address as ref 1, might be dead, so that's worth checking. If it is dead, I recommend removing it from the infobox and switching to the archived version in ref 1 by filling out the deadurl parameter of the cite template. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC) @Giants2008: Hi there again! I removed the section "Selection process" and combined it (a shortened version) in "Contest history", since I couldn't find enough sources on the internet to back the "unreiable" ones. Please tell me what you think of that move. Also, I replaced that book citation with a ref. (The infobox link is working). Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

All of the changes look good to me. I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:12, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Closing statement: I'm discounting the oppose from the ip address; the inconsistency of formatting from non-FLs is a reason to adjust the other lists, not to oppose this one, and I don't think 1995 needs to be in the table for the reasons stated in the prose- it's not required that every year, even those where they did not compete, be listed. As to A Thousand Doors' concerns, I'm convinced that "did not qualify" is a term of art in this area, meaning that they competed but did not qualify to the finals, and is distinct from being disqualified as a nation prior to competition. As such, and with the source review passing, I'm promoting. --PresN 18:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 18:21:58 31 May 2019 (UTC) [3].

---

Radio Times's Most Powerful People

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Radio Times's Most Powerful People was a series of listings created by Radio Times from January 2003 to June 2005. I have been working on this list for a while now, and I believe that it meets the FL criteria. I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• In the first sentence of the TV comedy section, comedy randomly has a capital letter when it doesn't anywhere else

•  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Gervais, Norton, Lucas and Walliams are not linked in the prose in this section at all. I realise they were all linked in the lead, but standard practice is to link again on the first usage in the body.

•  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Risque is usually spelt with an acute accent on the e.

•  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• TV drama section starts with "Following the success..." - this may be pedantic, but is there any evidence that the previous polls were a success? On what basis were they a success?

• ✓ Rewritten A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• "As of May 2010, Ross keeps" - I would change "keeps" to "kept" giving that May 2010 was nearly nine years ago.

•  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Why is no station listed for Chris Evans? As far as I can see from his article, he was broadcasting on Radio 2 at that point.

• Simply because that's what the sources did ([4] [5]). I'm willing to change this if it's an issue. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Think that's it from me.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for the review, Chris! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough on the last point. Maybe you could add a footnote saying something like "the poll did not identify Evans with a specific station" or something like (better-worded than) that, just because it looks a bit jarring to have it missing for one person....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 17:11, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Nice one, now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Chris! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For this part (Following the publication of the Most Powerful People in TV Comedy polls, in July 2004 Radio Times), I believe there should be another comma after “2004”.

• ✓ Rewritten A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• For this part (was the highest new entry and the highest-placed female), I would say “woman” instead of “female”. Something about using “female” as a noun always seems off to me, but it could be a cultural/American v.s. British thing.

•  Done A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Is there any information on why the Radio Times stopped doing these listings?

• None that I can find, unfortunately. They were never exactly a massive deal; I suspect that they were simply quietly retired. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• That is what I thought, but thank you for clarifying this for me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Great work with this. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the review! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 18:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you for the support! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:16, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments – Just a couple thoughts from me:

• TV comedy: "The list was first published in January 2003, and was topped by Ricky Gervais. Gervais...". Try not to have the name repeat from the end of one sentence to the beginning of another like this, as it's not optimal prose.

•  Done Replaced with "The comedian".

• Radio: I see "forty" and "70" in close proximity, and a "40" later in the section. A particular style of spelling out the numbers or not should be chosen here. Since other numbers seem to be given in numeral form throughout the article, I'd change the "forty" into number form. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Done

Thank you for the review, Giants! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support – My couple of nit-picks have been addressed and I don't see any further issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, Giants! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:10, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 18:21:59 31 May 2019 (UTC) [6].

---

List of teams and cyclists in the 1962 Tour de France

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 20:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

A fourth Tour de France teams and cyclists list following my FLs of 2012 (FLC), 2013 (FLC) and 2014 (FLC). The 1962 Tour de France article became an FA last month. BaldBoris 20:02, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "bowed to pressure from their team's extra" => "bowed to pressure from their teams' extra"
  • "In the beginning of February 1962" => "At the beginning..."

    Changed to "In early February 1962". BaldBoris 21:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  • "which had 12 teams of 12 cyclists (132 total)" - pretty sure 12 x 12 is 144......?
  • "the French cyclists were outnumbered" => "French cyclists were outnumbered"
  • "the largest numbers of riders from a nation were Italians at 52" => "the largest number of riders from a nation came from Italy (52)"
  • "Of start list of 150" => "Of the start list of 150"
  • "Altig lost it the follow day" => the following day
  • "between the end of stage nine to the end of eleven" => from the end.....
  • "The follow day, British" - following day
  • Green and yellow jersey icons also need some sort of symbol, as colour-blind readers may not be able to tell them apart

    I took the background colour idea from List of Tour de France general classification winners, but I'm not too sure about it. BaldBoris 21:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

• That's what I got on a first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  All done. BaldBoris 21:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I fixed a couple of typos but am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment this is a really nice piece of work, I've scanned over it twice in the past couple of weeks and struggled to find anything, but one thing did spring out to me just now, that in one of the captions you mention a very intriguing sounding "super-bad luck award". I'd be fascinated to know more about this, particularly as it's not mentioned anywhere else, nor linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks. I did think readers might wonder that. There's no article at present, but it's mentioned in the main. The only info I could find on it was in the self-published Tour de France book (see "Meeste pech"). The author has also found most of the winners and has listed them on his site. It seems to have been of equal importance to the still active combativity award, which with the unluckiest award was given after each stage and an overall one at the end of Tours. It appeared between 1952–1967 and 1977 and 1978. There have been other similar awards in the Tour around that time e.g. most elegant and most kind. Do you think a note is needed? BaldBoris 21:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – Like TRM, I'm straining to find criticism, but I do think the third note could use a reference for Flandria–Faema–Clement winning the team time trial, as that's not mentioned anywhere else. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Done. BaldBoris 22:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Support – My only concern has been taken care of. Very good work on this list. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment

• In the "By nationality" table, it shows France with 7 stage wins, but only 6 are accounted for in the same cell.

• Everything else is very nicely done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:47, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  Thanks. Fixed the above, good spot. BaldBoris 22:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• No, it still says France won 7 stages and lists 5 riders, 1 of whom won 2 stages, for a total of 6 stages. NatureBoyMD (talk) 22:40, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

My edit didn't save. BaldBoris 23:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Support everything looks good to me now. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:21, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 18:22:03 31 May 2019 (UTC) [7].

---

List of Cardiff City F.C. managers

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've given it a complete overhaul in the last week or so to expand, reference and tidy the existing base. I believe this now brings into line with other similar managerial lists. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Resolved

*Quick drive-by comment: the photo caption "A photograph of a man with blind (sic) hair" made me chuckle :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC) Haha oops, fixed that. Kosack (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2019 (UTC) Even after the fix you still had the alt text showing as the photo caption. I have fixed that for you -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 23 April 2019 (UTC) Comments "This chronological list comprises all those who have held the position of manager of the first team of Cardiff City. Each manager's entry includes the dates of tenure and the club's overall competitive record (in terms of matches won, drawn and lost), honours won and significant achievements while under his care. Caretaker managers are included, where known, as well as those who have been in permanent charge." - I would say that this should be immediately above the table, not in the first paragraph of the lead. Obviously this will significantly reduce the lead, but I think it needs beefing up anyway..... I used the base of this opening explanation from other FLs such as List of York City F.C. managers and List of Birmingham City F.C. managers, both of which have significantly shorter intros as well. Kosack (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC) Those lists were both promoted quite a while ago (nearly 12 years ago in the case of the York one!) and standards have changed over time. I would say that the lead needs to be more of a summary of the whole article, and the above quoted text should be moved to above the table.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2019 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: I've moved the opening paragraph to above the table and expanded the lead to a few paragraphs. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2019 (UTC) No source for anything before Fred Stewart's arrival positioning of ref 5 looks a little odd - why not at the end of the sentence? The ref only supports the first half of the sentence. Kosack (talk) 09:10, 25 April 2019 (UTC) "two years after the cup triumph, Cardiff were" - earlier you had "In 1920, Cardiff was elected" - so is it singular or plural? - fixed "Spiers had previously been assistant manager under Frank Buckley at Wolverhampton Wanderers but his move to Cardiff was his first managerial appointment" - no source "wages during Wartime" - wartime is not a proper noun, doesn't need a capital My phone autocorrect keeps insisting on a capital for some reason, that one slipped through the net. Kosack (talk) 09:15, 25 April 2019 (UTC) "The board were able to persuade Spiers to rejoin the club and he led a side built around players brought through by his youth system to the First Division in 1952." - no source "Morris claimed his only silverware during the 1955–56 season by winning the Welsh Cup but was unable to prevent the club's relegation from the First Division the following year." - no source "He left the club in 1958 to manage Swansea Town and was replaced by his assistant Bill Jones who had previously managed Barry Town and Worcester City. Jones led the team back to the First Division in 1960 where they spent two years before being relegated." - no source for any of that "winning the Welsh Cup, a feat he achieved seven times during his tenure." - no source "He led the team to the semi-final of the competition during the 1967–68 season," - as the most recent competition referred to was the Welsh Cup, this reads like that is the competition being referred to, when it clearly isn't - fixed "However, O'Farrell departed after 158 days in charge after being appointed manager of the Iran national side." - no source "First team coach Jimmy Andrews took over as caretaker manager......becoming the youngest manager in the club's history at 34."- no source for any of that "Morgan was moved into a general manager role" - no source "In March 1984, he left the club after being offered the managerial role at Sunderland. " - no source "Alan Durban....replaced by Frank Burrows who won promotion in his second season" - no source There's clearly a pattern emerging here where large chunks of the text are unsourced. Perhaps you could go through and check/fix the sourcing and I'll then complete the review? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Hi, all of the information above is sourced to the ref that immediately follows it. Rather than finish every sentence with the same ref, the ref is listed once it stops providing info or there is a paragraph break. Kosack (talk) 09:08, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Further comments from ChrisTheDude

• "manager Jimmy Scoular reached the semi-final of the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup in 1968" - the team reached the semis, not the manager
• "successive relegations to the Fourth Division under Alan Durban" - were they twice relegated to the Fourth Division (which the wording implies), or were they relegated twice and ultimately wound up in the Fourth?
• "the outbreak of World War II saw" - the outbreak of a war doesn't have eyes. I suggest using "led to"
• "Burrows moved on in 1989 after leaving" - last two words are probably redundant
• "Cardiff finished 22nd during the end of his first season" - I've lost track of which division they were in at this point so might be worth re-stating it
• In two of the notes, the word "both" is redundant
• Not a quality query, but just a query - what the heck was the Century Cup? I've never heard of it. Is it actually significant enough to mention?
• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the further comments, I believe I've amended all of the issues raised. Kosack (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments I love the lead image of Colin, especially with the recent internet memes of him leering at the camera... Joy,. If only there was a free version of that image floating around. Kosack (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC) "professional football club" could just expand that football out for the avoidance of doubt to association football, after all the majority of our readers aren't clued up enough to understand this isn't a gridiron club... - Done Who or what (committee?) managed the club before it turned professional? Probably should be noted in the lead and included in the table. - Reworded I wouldn't be able to provide stats for the committee's time in charge from the amateur Welsh Leagues so it would result in a blank row really. Is that still worth including? Kosack (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC) " Whilst some managers (Len Ashurst, Eddie May, Cyril Spiers) have had the job on two occasions." hmm? - Reworded Oddly, I deferred reviewing the Romania in Eurovision Song Contest list based on "flux", and it may be the same when Warnock gets the flick in the next few weeks I guess... who knows?! On a similar note, shouldn't Warnock's last season be included here now it's complete? - Updated "Information correct as of 21 April 2019" I think we need to ensure this is updated as of the end of the 18/19 season. - Updated Ref ->Ref(s). - Done Please use consistent numbers of decimal places for the win %. - Done Mullen and Williams are piped to redirects. - Done The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC) @The Rambling Man: Apologies for the lateness on seeing to these, slipped my attention somehow but at least Warnock's future has been resolved during that time. I've addressed all of the issues above, let me know your thoughts. Kosack (talk) 21:00, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from NatureBoyMD

• Lead: "In the 1960s, Cardiff began competing in European competition..." The "competing"/"competition" repetition is a little clunky. How about something like, "In the 1960s, Cardiff entered European competition..."? - Done
• Lead: Link the first instances of "caretaker managers" and "managers". - Done
• 1939–1995: "Spiers had previously been assistant manager under Frank Buckley at Wolverhampton Wanderers but his move to Cardiff was his first managerial appointment." Add a comma after "Wanderers". - Done
• 1939–1995: "Spiers had agreed to take a cut in wages during wartime but the Cardiff board refused to restore his original wages after the end of the war." Add a comma after "wartime". - Done
• 1939–1995: "The board were able to persuade Spiers to rejoin the club and he led a side built around players brought through by his youth system to the First Division in 1952." Add a comma after "club". - Done
• 1939–1995: "He left the club in 1958 to manage Swansea Town and was replaced by his assistant Bill Jones who had previously managed Barry Town and Worcester City." Place commas before and after "Bill Jones".- Done
• 1995–: "He was unable to prevent the club's relegation from the Premier League and a poor start to the following campaign led to his dismissal in September 2014." Place a comma after "League". - Done
• Table: Neil Warnock has an extraneous empty cell needing removal. - Done
• Table: Bill Jones has an honour as "runner-up". All others render this as "runners-up". - Done
• Table: Fred Stewart, Jimmy Andrews, and Eddie May need their honours changed (for example) from "2 Welsh Cup" to "2 Welsh Cups". - Done
• References: Several references use title case (ex 3, 37). Others use sentence case (4, 10, 13). The General refs all use title case. They should all use the same style.

Everything else looks good to me. NatureBoyMD (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, made a start on these. Will finish the rest asap. Kosack (talk) 08:34, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@NatureBoyMD: I think I've addressed all of the issues above. Let me know if there is anything else. Kosack (talk) 10:13, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Well done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:02:49 26 May 2019 (UTC) [8].

---

AFL Rising Star

Nominator(s): Allied45 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

This is my fifth instalment in a campaign to increase the number of Australian Football League FLs (there have been four successful promotions since August 2018). The AFL Rising Star is a prestigious annual award presented to a standout young player in the league. Allied45 (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "if a player is suspended during the season, they may be nominated" => "he may be nominated"
  • "as long as they still satisfy" => "as long as he still satisfies"
  • Why are the refs in a smaller font?
• Think that's all I've got......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:11, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisTheDude (as always!); these have now been fixed. Allied45 (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:59, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Support from Lirim.Z

• The scope in the table should always be the fist column. I would swap the year and recipent columns and add scope=row to the recipent
• From when is the logo used in the infobox?

--Lirim | Talk 15:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Lirim.Z, I have applied your suggestions. Allied45 (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Our discerning readers should be able to tell that the picture in the infobox is the current logo without the aid of a caption.
• There seems to be too much black background around the logo. A crop might be needed.
• MOS:SMALLFONT specifies that <small> tags shouldn't be used in infoboxes.
• I'm not sure it's very useful to include the "country" parameter in the infobox. It's an Australian rules football award presented by the Australian Football League... it isn't going to be in New Zealand.
• most any club has achieved in a single season 'single' is unnecessary.
• five votes, four votes, three votes, two votes and one vote ... players they regard as the best to fifth-best during the season respectively. 'Respectively' is unnecessary, it is quite obvious the best player will poll the most votes.
• These votes are tallied, and the highest number of combined votes wins the medal. reword to 'the player with the highest total of votes wins the medal'. Again, it is quite obvious the votes will be tallied, and the medal is awarded to the player, not the number of votes.
• the maximum number of votes a player can possibly achieve is not consistent replace 'possibly achieve' with something like 'amass' or 'poll'. 'Possibly' is redundant to 'maximum' and 'achieve' is not quite the most precise verb to use.
• have achieved the maximum votes similarly, 'amassed' or 'polled'.
• satisfies the age and games played qualification rules reword to 'age and experience criteria' or similar
• As a result, there have been 'as a result' is unnecessary
• There are two Sydney players featured. Instead of Mills, what about using e.g. McGrath?
• Buckley was the inaugural AFL Rising Star winner but Riewoldt was the 2002 AFL Rising Star 'winner' is probably unnecessary, but at least ensure you're consistent.
• polled the maximum votes possible when he won the 2010 AFL Rising Star maybe reword to 'maximum votes possible in the 2010 AFL Rising Star'? A bit more concise.
• Do clubs publish their own websites? I was under the impression it was Telstra Media, same as AFL.com.au.

Excellent work as always Allied45. – Teratix ₵ 09:15, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Teratix, this is all done. I am not sure if my efforts at cropping the logo were successful though (it appears different in my browser...) — Allied45 (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Very odd. I played around with it a bit but I'm still getting that thick black border. Ah well, it's not the worst thing in the world. Final comments: either convert the external link to use the official website template or remove it entirely since it's already linked in the infobox. Also, WP:IMAGESIZE discourages specifying image width in px except when there is a good reason, so consider converting the infobox's image_size parameter to image_upright. – Teratix ₵ 12:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Done and done, thanks Teratix :) — Allied45 (talk) 07:46, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Support. – Teratix ₵ 11:56, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments Since 2019 is linked in the infobox, I'd expect to see it in the table, even if just as a TBC. "The award was sponsored by Norwich Union from" maybe a digression, but WHY? Norwich, in Norfolk, in the UK, sponsoring this AFL event?? Can we use club's full names for the benefit of those who haven't heard of any of them, e.g. Sydney -> Sydney Swans? "There have been 11 players" -> "Eleven players have been..." Otherwise looks good. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2019 (UTC) Thanks The Rambling Man, I have implemented these suggestions. I have distinguished that it was sponsored by Norwich Union Australia, as the company had an Australian operation at the time. I have applied the full club names in the lead, however I left the links in the tables as they were as they use the commonly-used club templates (such as Template:AFL Syd). This seems to be the accepted way to display the club names in tables as per the WikiProject Australian rules football style guide. — Allied45 (talk) 06:19, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support – looks good to me. Great job on this! Can't wait to see more AFL lists in the future! – zmbro _(talk) 20:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the references are to reliable sources and are well-formatted, and the link-checker tool reveals no problems. Spot-checks of refs 8, 24, and 27 showed no verifiability concerns. I'd say this source review has been passed with flying colors (or perhaps colours). Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:02, 26 May 2019 (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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 16:21:56 17 May 2019 (UTC) [9].

---

Municipalities of Baja California Sur

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm continuing my goal to create an "encyclopedic atlas" by bringing all lists of municipalities in North America up to a consistent, high standard (progress can be seen here for those interested). I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks to everyone who regularly reviews these lists! Mattximus (talk) 12:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I honestly can't suggest any improvements.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:07, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support Short but consistent with the others. I would suggest for this and others though a map of the municipalities like File:Los Cabos en Baja California Sur.svg. Reywas92^Talk 00:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Reywas92, I made a map and added it to the page. I'm not a very good map maker though, what do you think? Mattximus (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Love it! Reywas92^Talk 22:25, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Comments "July 2, 1822 and " comma after 1822. INEGI isn't consistently linked in the refs. Nothing much else here, good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC) Thanks The Rambling Man! Two easy fixes, both are done. Mattximus (talk) 23:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support my (trivial) concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 16:21:27 17 May 2019 (UTC) [10].

---

List of World Heritage sites in Malta

Nominator(s): Tone 11:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Following the style of some other lists of World Heritage sites that have been promoted to FL, this one meets the criteria as well. Tone 11:21, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "making its historical sites eligible for inclusion on the list". I would delete "historical" as the tentative natural sites are also eligible.
• "this site took place in 2015.[4]<.[5]" I assume that "<." are typos.
• Ħal Saflieni Hypogeum. The description seems excessively brief considering that there are only three sites.
• "subterranean structure dating back to the Saflieni phase" This is not in the UNESCO source, which says that they date to the "Żebbuġ, Ġgantija and Tarxien Phases of Maltese Prehistory, spanning from around 4000 B.C. to 2500 B.C." Wikipedia Megalithic Temples of Malta has Ġgantija, Saflieni and Tarxien Phases dating 3600 to 2500 BC. There seems to be some confusion, but you need to follow the UNESCO citation.
• "It was probably originally a temple, but it became a necropolis in prehistoric times." There is also confusion over this. There is no mention of a temple in the citation. The summary says "Perhaps originally a sanctuary" but in the main text it "seems to have been conceived as an underground cemetery". I think it is safer to follow the main text.
• Megalithic Temples of Malta. This is also short and unsatisfactory. You say they were constructed between 3600 BC and 700 BC, but the source in the 4th and 3rd millenniums.
• I regret I have to oppose as the descriptions do not follow the sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess most of the issues can be blamed on the fact that I was working with a pre-existing text that I did not want to modify too much. I'll see what I can do, I think I can rewrite all problematic sections. --Tone 08:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Please check again. I significantly expanded two descriptions. Curiously, the hypogeum intro in the reference contradicts the rest of the description there (which I now followed). Other issues fixed as well. --Tone 19:14, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• I think you need to write all the descriptions from scratch as there will be others apart from those I checked which are wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I can do that. Give me a couple of days. --Tone 20:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: I think this should work. I expanded a bit and, apparently expectedly, found out that some of the linked buildings in the descriptions were not in the references. Promptly removed. --Tone 16:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Dudley Miles has Tone fixed your issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• Further comments
• "between the 4th and 3rd millennium BC" It would be better to say "during the 4th and 3rd millennium BC" as in the source.
• "were likely important ritual focus of a highly organized society" This is ungrammatical.
• "dating back to the Antiquity" This is both ungrammatical and vague.
• "transformed into a purely military outpost" This is an exaggeration. The citation mentions non-military structures, including the cathedral. It would be worth mentioning that the citation emphasises archaeological deposits and Baroque architecture.
• "Series of catacomb complexes, developed from simple Phoenician and Hellenistic rock-cut tombs to more complex types in Roman Empire." This is misleading. If I read the citation correctly, the site is late Roman and Byzantine (mid 3rd to 7th century).
• I have checked a selection of citations. The article is improved but still some way off FL standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Dudley Miles: Checked. Thanks for the eagle-eye reading :) I reworded some parts. The "purely military outpost" is from the source but I added a mention of the cathedral, makes sense. Ready for the next review, I think. --Tone 19:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking through this again I still find issues:

• "was again discovered in 1902". "again" implies previous discovery, which is incorrect.
• "Pottery and stone and clay amulets". This is ambiguous. Maybe "Pottery vessels and stone and clay amulets"
• "including The Sleeping Lady". This will mean nothing to readers and needs a few words of explanation.
• "among the oldest free-standing structures in the world" This should be oldest stone free-standing structures.
• "Malta was recording seven such sites on its tentative list". This is an odd construction. How about "Malta had seven sites on its tentative list"
• I have not checked the tentative sites but the details are excessively brief considering that there are only ten in total. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Fixed. I follow the example of previous FLs where more attention is on the sites and less on the tentative ones. See Croatia for example. --Tone 18:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

• The details on tentative sites in Croatia are grammatical. The Malta ones are an odd mixture with the first sentence not grammatical and succeeding ones grammatical. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support. I have copy edited the tentative sites and trust the changes are OK. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z

1. Why is it once "UNESCO data" and in the other table "UNESCO criteria"?
2. Are there any other sources? Literally the entire article is sourced through UNESCO sources. An article should incorperate sources by different authors.

—Lirim | Talk 16:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• • @Lirim.Z: Regarding the data and criteria, this is a style we have decided to use for these lists. Tentative lists often get renominated or modified while the WHS have their fixed numbers. This is why we don't have the serial number on the tentative list. As for the sources, I see your point. However, the unesco pages are considered reliable and the most accurate sources one can get on the topic - I often consider including more information in the description but ultimately stay with what is there in the nomination. --Tone 19:48, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Only using one publisher to cite this article fails: WP:FLCR Comprehensiveness.--Lirim | Talk 20:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• @Lirim.Z: You're right. I added two more non-UNESCO sources. Does that work? --Tone 20:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support— No other issues in my opinion.Lirim | Talk 23:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tone: Do you plan to continue with this nomination? --PresN 19:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I was waiting to see if there were more comments to address them in a single editing session. I think I can get it fixed by next week, does that work? --Tone 20:35, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Tone I guess "next week" is now "last week", what's the deal? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

We had another round of comments, I fixed all that was found to be missing. --Tone 16:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Just checking in as nobody had responded to your question. No problem, I can probably take a look at it myself tomorrow? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man I have source checked the WH sites and they needed substantial changes but I am happy with them now. I have not source checked the tentative sites. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments Some ongoing flux with whether it's Site or site. This article title and prose appear to be out of sync with the general Wikipedia-wide consensus right now. People keep changing that, I don't have a perfect solution here. For nomination's sake, I can change it to Site if that helps. --Tone 20:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Ħal-Saflieni Hypogeum appears to be hyphenated (and is currently piped to a redirect). The UNESCO source does not use the hyphen, neither do sources in the target article. It seems someone once moved the article without providing sources why the hyphenated name is better. Reverting that move. --Tone 20:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC) "in Paris, France in 1980" no need to link France, and needs a comma after France. Fixed. --Tone 20:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC) "As of 2018" can this be 2019? Yes, no new tentative sites have been added since 1998, actually. --Tone 20:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC) Why doesn't "Coastal Cliffs" have any criteria numbers? Sources provide none. I suppose the reason is that the nomination goes back to 1998, maybe the criteria for the inclusion to the tentative list have been more relaxed then. --Tone 20:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 16:21:49 17 May 2019 (UTC) [11].

---

List of songs recorded by the Smiths

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Now that Lennon's list is featured, it's time for my next song list, this time by the English rock band the Smiths. I believed they deserved better than this so here we are. This one was a little more challenging since out of the 74 songs they recorded, maybe 40–50 were singles, so I made separate symbols for regular singles and for B-sides. B-sides I have the compilation album they were released on and what song they were the B-side of. I did this because having both as the same color seemed to overfill the page, which I thought was too much. As always I'm open to any comments or suggestions anyone might have. Happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• "of which included 70 originals" => "which included 70 originals"
• "The Smiths' often addressed" - there should not be an apostrophe on Smiths
• A major query is how you indicate the album against some songs. You list "Oscillate Wildly" as being from "The World Won't Listen", but you list "Shoplifters of the World Unite" as simply "non-album single", even though it was on the same album. You show "Panic" as "non-album single" but with a footnote saying it was later on "The World Won't Listen", which "Shoplifters...." doesn't have. And "Rubber Ring" is shown as being from "The World Won't Listen" but also with a footnote saying it was later released on "The World Won't Listen", which makes no sense. So that's four different inconsistent ways of indicating tracks that are on that album. Similar problems occur with tracks that are on "Hatful of Hollow"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude Sorry I've been away but now I'm back. I think I got everything taken care of. I must've missed the times I listed both albums in a note and in the table. Thanks for the comments! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I would remove note a. The songs in question were originally on an earlier album, so I don't think you need to note that they were also later on another one......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:09, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

• "The band formed in Manchester in 1982" — "band was formed".

• Done

• Is there any wikilink related to one-off recording contract for readers who might not be aware of its meaning at first?

• There actually isn't

• "Despite their chart success, tensions began growing in the band, mainly between Marr and Morrissey and the band's label;" — Could there be a little more explanation as to the cause of this? Just to let readers know.

• Done. Put it into a note.

Other than that, nothing more to add from me. Neat list though, BeatlesLedTV. Address my comments and thou shall receive my support.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:39, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Ssven2 Thanks again for the comments! :-) – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome, BeatlesLedTV. You have my support.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 04:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I just have one issue. Is "YouTube Music Sucks" a RS? The rest is fine. Yashthepunisher (talk) 19:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Yashthepunisher Actually have no idea. Couldn't find anything about it in the pages on RSs but so I don't risk it I just removed it. Other sources already being used explain the info anyway. Thanks! – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support the nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• No comma after 1982 in second sentence (not followed by independent clause)
• No commas around "Hand in Glove" (it's a restrictive appositive)
• Same for the follow-up singles
• would announce -> announced
• No comma after keyboards
• In the key, "Indicates" is superfluous
• Both tables of contents includes notes and references: Remove links from the second or just hide the first.
  • Though I'm not sure the second is even needed; the list isn't that long to require it, and it doesn't work when sorted differently. Up to you.

• Removed

• Fix 1960s in note 1, but actually I don't see why a detail like that even belongs as a note. Either it's important enough to include in the main text or it's not important enough to include at all. You could add further details about anything in the summarized lead of their history, no reason why this is special or relevant to the list of songs.

• Removed note

Reywas92^Talk 07:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Reywas92 All done. Thanks so much! – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Looks great! Reywas92^Talk 21:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments "70 originals and four covers." should be 4 covers per MOS. " independent record label Rough Trade Records" sea of blue. What does this mean exactly? "underground success" jargon really, especially for non-UK folks who may be thinking that means underground. Sortable tables means all linkable items should be linked every time. Otherwise good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC) The Rambling Man Thanks for the comments. Other than 'sea of blue' all taken care of. What does that mean exactly? – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC) WP:SEAOFBLUE. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2019 (UTC) The Rambling Man Oh I got it. Removed first link. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

PresN this is good to go I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 16:21:41 17 May 2019 (UTC) [12].

---

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Surrey

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the latest in my lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and is in the same format as FLs such as List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• Bordering counties and local governments are irrelevant to SSSIs and are not needed here at all but if you're going to insist, they at least should not be the first paragraph. Start with the actual topic of the list.

• This information has been supplied in many SSSI lists by myself and others and has never previously been objected to. I prefer to stick to the generally accepted format, but I have moved the paragraph as you suggest. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Banstead Downs duplicates "scrub" and "which"

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blackheath: scientific names are italicized

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Blindley Heath: "a rich flora"

• OED shows "a rich flora" as correct. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Reywas92^Talk 19:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your review. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

• No other major issues then. Support Reywas92^Talk 19:19, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments "As of January 2019" you can make that May, I just checked. "NCR[7], " refs after punctuation please. " aculeate hymenoptera" sea of blue. Be consistent, either link "fly" (or "flies") each time, or never. " Lower Cretaceous Weald Clay Group" sea of blue. Be consistent with whether you use commas for numbers over a 1000 or not. Otherwise, and as usual, excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2019 (UTC) All done. Many thanks for your review The Rambling Man. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• I fixed a typo and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 16:21:34 17 May 2019 (UTC) [13].

---

List of Nashville Sounds coaches

Nominator(s): NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it merits recognition as a list of high quality. It is modeled on List of Nashville Sounds managers which is a FL. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• This may be a dumb-ass question from someone who isn't hugely familiar with baseball (although I did once throw the opening pitch for the Peoria Chiefs), but it sounds from the second paragraph like bench coach is a pretty damn important role. If that's the case, why has the team never had one before this year? Might be worth clarifying that......
• What is a "relief corps"?
• And who are the "staff" that Dabney coached?
• What is a "roving crosschecker"?
• Think that's all I have...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:04, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: I've explained the relatively-new-to-baseball bench coach role, reworded jargon from the second two points, and linked "crosschecker" to "Scout (sport)" which sort of explains it.) (A crosschecker is like a scout supervisor. Let me know if you think anything more is needed on these points. NatureBoyMD (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Nice one - now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments Lead image caption has a few examples of sea of blue. Avoid use of "hash" (or "pound" in some parts of the world) to mean "number" or No. What makes some of these coaches so non-notable that they aren't even redlinked? Otherwise a good list, not sure why it's languished here for so longer with so little comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC) I've corrected the first two points. Regarding the third, I've redlinked one coach who meets WP:NBASE. Of the other five, none of whom meet WP:NBASE, two or three are still coaching in the minors. It is possible they could one day coach in Major League Baseball, satisfying WP:NBASE, but I don't know if the possibility is enough to warrant the red link. Thoughts? NatureBoyMD (talk) 14:32, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed and/or resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments –

• The bit about the Sounds winning the 1982 league title in the Garland caption needs a cite, since it isn't mentioned elsewhere.
• Since being a minor league baseball coach doesn't cause a person to meet the baseball notability guidelines, I'd say it's reasonable to leave them unlinked, as there's no real way to know the active ones will be promoted in the future.
• In refs 111 and 113, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel should be italicized as a print publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

• All done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 01:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Everything looks good after the fixes. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was successful by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 09:55:55 6 May 2019 (UTC) [14].

---

List of Slovenia international footballers

Nominator(s): Snowflake91 (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because all the issues from the previous nomination in 2017 were addressed, and the article meets WP:WIAFL criterias. Snowflake91 (talk) 14:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "Prior the Slovenian independence" => "Prior to Slovenian independence"
  • "Shortly after the independence" => "Shortly after independence"
  • "Since 1992, a total of 197 players have represented" => "Since 1992, 197 players have represented"
  • "Only the players with at least ten" => "Only players with at least ten"
  • "Prior debuting for Slovenia in 1992" => "Prior to debuting for Slovenia in 1992"
  • The last three footnotes are not complete sentences so should not have full stops
  • "Represented Yugoslavia prior Slovenian independence" => "Represented Yugoslavia prior to Slovenian independence"
• Think that's it from me.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Snowflake91 (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Allied45

• In the second paragraph of the lead, it states the "first official match" is in 1992 and "first competitive match" is in 1996. Is there a difference between official and competitive matches?
  • "Official" is any game that is recognized by FIFA as official, namely a friendly matches, while the competitive matches are World Cup/Euro qualifiers; removed the word "official" for the first game. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• "and is one of the smallest nations ever to qualify for the World Cup." --> ambiguous, is it smallest by population, size etc.?
  • Fixed, now includes "by population", also changed "nations" to "countries". Snowflake91 (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• "Slovenia was eliminated in the group stage of the competition on all three occasions." --> this refers to two seperate competitions, should be "Slovenia was eliminated on all three occasions in the group stage of these competitions."
  • Fixed. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Change "List" section heading to "Players"
  • Done. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
• Add a table caption to the players list. I would suggest something like "Table of Slovenia players, with appearance details and statistics"
  • Done. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Overall, list looks good! Allied45 (talk) 09:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

I am happy to Support Allied45 (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments – "the governing body of football in Slovenia. Slovenia...". Try not to have the country name repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another, as it makes the prose look repetitive. The fourth paragraph is stubby at one sentence. It would look better if it was either merged elsewhere or expanded upon. The Milanic photo caption requires a citation, as the stat of five appearances for Yugoslavia isn't supported anywhere else in the article. There is a note saying he represented Yugoslavia, but it doesn't list how many matches the players in question competed in. The title of ref 3 has all caps that need to be fixed, as well as an apparent typo in "UERO". Ref 7 (SB Nation) is to a blog site which I don't think is a reliable source. Surely there's something stronger than a blog to say Slovenia is one of the smallest World Cup participants. Such statistics were all over the news when Iceland made it last time, so there should be something else available. The publisher of ref 8 should be italicized, since The Irish Times is a print publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC) Done all, however that first sentence may still be weird. Should there be two separate sentences, or is now fine with a comma? Snowflake91 (talk) 17:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support – The sentence from the first comment (the one you were worried about) looks all right to me, and my concerns have all been adequately resolved. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
• Support, nice work. --Tone 15:44, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 10:41:19 11 May 2019 (UTC) [15].

---

Daniil Trifonov discography

Nominator(s): Zingarese talk · contribs 20:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This is the discography of a Grammy Award-winning young classical pianist, Daniil Trifonov. I believe that it meets the featured list criteria and is very thorough and informative. Compared to other FLs of the discographies of other classical artists, including Lang Lang discography, Vladimir Horowitz discography, Oregon Symphony discography, and Kronos Quartet discography, this article has a more engaging lede and is more detailed in terms of the actual lists. This is my second nomination of this list; the first was stalled after an editor expressed concern that #3b of the criteria was violated because the main article was small. It is now more than four times as large as it was when I nominated this list for the first time, with a large bulk of further expansion pending! As such, I hope any concerns of 3b are now alleviated, at the very least... Thank you very much for your consideration in advance, Zingarese talk · contribs 20:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• First off, I don't think using Vladimir Horowitz discography is a good template for this because honestly that list is very out of date in terms of discographies (promoted in 2010). It doesn't even have the discography infobox listing all the albums, nor does this one. You honestly need to have that here in this one.
  • I originally did, but then another editor removed it and rewrote the lede, which I actually like more than having an infobox and the previous lede.
• Most FL discographies start off with something like "So and so has released __ studio albums, __ compilation albums, etc." Why isn't that here as well?
  • See above.
• The tables need scope rows on the albums/singles (you have cols but not rows)
  • Argh, will fix asap.  Fixed
• Don't think Discogs is seen as a reliable source (It isn't (see WP:NOTRSMUSIC)
  • I’ll remove  Removed
• Trifonov Live should be in its own col like the rest
  • Will fix  Fixed
• Why aren't the album titles anywhere in the first paragraph?
  • Will add them  Added
• General question: Why are his albums referred to as 'CDs' when many were released as digital downloads as well? Why not just 'albums'?
  • I’ll look into that I  changed all mentions of "CDs" to albums

All I got so far. Still needs lots of work. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeatlesLedTV: THank you for your comments; please let me know if you catch anything else. Zingarese talk · contribs 21:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

More comments:

• Put scope rows on the albums not the years (Lots of discographies don't even have a year col because it already says the year in the details)
  •  Done
• Separate titles on video releases
  •  Done
• Move refs to their own col at the end
  • I'm not sure I understand why that is necessary...most discographies have the refs with the album title
• "The Magics Of Music / The Castelfranco Veneto Recital" – don't need to capitalize 'of'
  •  Fixed
• Why is details in video releases table sortable when every other details section isn't? (hint: unsort it)

   Fixed

• Continuing from last statement, "The Magics Of Music" and "The Castelfranco Veneto Recital" should be italicized (not in quotes) (see MOS:ITALICTITLE)
  •  Fixed
• Gotta keep date formats consistent
  •  Fixed
• Remove the external link to Discogs (as discussed earlier)
  • Why? It's inappropriate to use it as a source for information, but I think it's fair to use it as an external link.

Still has a ways to go. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeatlesLedTV: Thanks again for comments, and please let me know if you catch anything else. Zingarese talk · contribs 22:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@BeatlesLedTV: Wanted to follow up; any further concerns? Zingarese talk · contribs 14:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV do you intend to return to this review? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

• Support – sorry completely forgot about this one. Looks much better now after others' inputs. Happy to support. – BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lirim

;Comments from Lirim.Z The tables are a mess. Sorry about that. Change class="wikitable sortable" border="1" to "class="wikitable plainrowheaders" wikitable sortable" I  changed it to class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" The column Year of release is completely useless  Removed The scope should be album names ! scope="row"| ''Chopin''. It also should be the first column.  Done Released should always be the first in the Album details column  Done The chart positions should be in the main table and not seperated Having them in the main table severely affected readability. Why are the two UK Classical Charts not indicated as different ones? Sorry, where are there two UK charts? You don't need to write Classical fully. Just abbreviate as Cl.  Done Chart positions shouldn't be sortable I just  changed the whole table to unsortable Why does it say GER but the Refs point to to Dutch sources? German classical charts can be found here: [16] Oops  Fixed To be honest, I would correct the table by myself. It would be the fastest and most efficient way. Not a bad article, but the tables are horrible. @Lirim.Z: Thank you very much! Please let me know if I missed anything or if you catch anything else. I'll try the thing with the chart positions later. I think there is a good way to do it.— @Zingarese: Check if you like my version. @Lirim.Z: I actually like it very much, with collapsible musical works! - Thank you! Shall I do the rest? @Zingarese: Sure. @Lirim.Z: Let me know what you think now! The lead needs Template:Infobox artist discography The References for releases should be behind the release date, not behind the title Ref 4, 11, 15, 27, 29: publisher=Deutsche Grammophon, don't use website Ref 5, 34: publisher=Medici Ref 6: Allegro seems to be "The Christopher Nupen Films", this should be the publisher then actually, the company name is Allegro Films Ref 16: The reference doesn't support the given statement Ref 21: The french charts are issued by the Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique Ref 22, 23: publisher Ref 28: publisher=AllMusic Ref 30: Discogs is not a reliable source Ref 31: Remove the author, fix the publisher These should be all (I hope). Dear @Lirim.Z: All should be fixed now (except for the one issue that I commented upon). Let me know if you catch anything else!!

Support—Lirim | Talk 02:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

• Quick question - how do you differentiate between a studio album and a live album? The second "studio" album says it was recorded at "Concert Hall of the Mariinsky Theatre in Saint Petersburg", which clearly isn't a recording studio, and the fact that it was recorded in a concert hall implies that it is in fact a recording of a live concert. Or was it recorded at the concert hall but without an audience and therefore isn't really "live"? Could you clarify.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: More often that not, concertos for piano and orchestra cannot fit in a normal recording studio. Huge solo instrument, conductor’s podium, 90-100 players in the orchestra... Piano concerto studio recordings are thus usually taken in a concert hall. Acoustically it’s still great, maybe even better, and most major concert halls already have a professional microphone system (which they use frequently for radio broadcasts). For albums of classical music, it’s quite the “norm” to label live recordings as “Live Recording” or “Recorded live at...” because of how different they can be (and always are) from studio recordings For instance, his two Rachmaninov concerto albums were also recorded in a concert hall- Verizon Hall in Philly - but watch the trailer, or even see the photo on the back cover of the Variations album - it’s on AllMusic- and you can see that it’s not a live recording. Same case for the Tchaikovsky album. Hope that clears things up! Zingarese talk · contribs 15:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    • That makes perfect sense, thanks. I'll do a full review later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @ChrisTheDude: Wanted to follow up vis-à-vis your full review. Regards, Zingarese talk · contribs 03:34, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
        • @Zingarese: - humblest apologies, I completely forgot. I am about to log off, but I promise (promise!) I will do it in the next 48 hours -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
• Comments
  • "His first album for DG, The Carnegie Recital, was of a live recording from a recital" => "His first album for DG, The Carnegie Recital, was a live recording of a recital"
  • "such as those of Verbier and of Lockenhaus" => "such as those of Verbier and Lockenhaus"
  • "as well as Rachmaniana" => "and Rachmaniana"
  • "The first DVD included a documentary which included" - repetition of "included". If the first DVD only has this documentary, I would suggest changing the first "included" to "contained". If it has other stuff, change the second "included" to "featured"
  • "ranked on Billboard Top Classical Album charts" => "ranked on the Billboard Top Classical Album chart"
• Each album only has a ref against the release date - can you confirm that these refs also support everything else (the recording date and location and the contents)
  • "Format: CD4" - is that a typo? Never heard of a "CD4" before.........
• Think that's it from me........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

  Dear @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your comments; i have made all of the changes that you suggested. I can also confirm that the references support all other details of each album in addition to the release dates. The reason why the references are behind the release date is because it was suggested above (previously, I had put them behind the album titles). Warm regards, Zingarese talk · contribs 05:04, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

  • You still had that "included.....included" thing at the end of the first paragraph, but I have fixed that for you and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment this list, and the associated work on the main Daniil Trifonov article, are excellent. I really appreciate the effort put in to cover the 3b concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was successful by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 07:57:10 6 May 2019 (UTC) [17].

---

Cardinal electors for the August and October 1978 papal conclaves

Nominator(s): — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Something slightly different than my previous two nominations – one list for two conclaves only two months apart (the John Paul conclaves) and the most recent ones before the advent of the information age. The style and referencing is naturally a bit dissimilar to the other lists. Comments welcome. [PS: Due to personal commitments, I probably won't be nominating any more lists after this one for the time being.] — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:05, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z

Comments from Lirim.Z

• Romano Pontifici eligendo Give a translation in () behind the term.
• who took the papal name John Paul II I'm not quite sure how the naming of popes works, but shouldn't it be "who was appointed the name John Paul II"?
• a gigantic part of the article relies on one book by Lentz. It's mentioned 101 times. Are there no other sources usable?

*–'''[[User:Lirim.Z|<span style='color:#000'>Lirim</span>]]''' | '''[[User talk:Lirim.Z|<span style='color:#F08080'>Talk</span>]]''' 13:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

1. Romano Pontifici eligendo is the title (incipit) of a document, not a term. Per convention, these aren't typically translated, except in their corresponding articles.
2. Popes do choose their own papal names, so no.
3. Lentz is generally a reliable secondary source for 20th-century cardinals. While there are certainly other sources out there, I found this one to be accessible and adequate for the purposes of the list. The AAS, a primary source, does provide lists of cardinal electors for each conclave (refs 4 and 7), making Lentz by no means the only (or even the main) source on which the list depends, but these do not pertain to the individual cardinals.

@Lirim.Z: See my replies above. Thanks for your comments. — <span style="font-family: 'Trajan Pro','Perpetua Titling MT',Perpetua,serif">'''[[User:Ravenpuff|<span style="color: #22254a">RAVEN</span><span style="color: #996e00">PVFF</span>]]'''</span> <b>·</b> ''[[User talk:Ravenpuff|talk]]'' <b>·</b> 16:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

1. You don't need to mention that Puerto Rico is a Insular area. Just say Puerto Rico or US.
2. West Germany should just be Germany. Officialy it was and still is Germany.
3. Maurice Michael Otunga article says he was born 31 January. Is this wrong? These sources claim the same: [18] [19] [20]. This needs to be checked.
4. align="left" is old syntax, it should be style="text-align:left"
5. All tables should have scopes.
6. I don't see a reason for the * in the legend. The coloured background is enough
7. Cardinal electors by continent table: The percentages do not add up to 100 %. Both are 99,1 %.

:: —'''[[User:Lirim.Z|<span style='color:#000'>Lirim</span>]]''' | '''[[User talk:Lirim.Z|<span style='color:#F08080'>Talk</span>]]''' 14:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

1. I think it's still useful to point out that Puerto Rico is part of the US, while denoting that it's not a core part of the country. Simply indicating Puerto Rico would not fit the column header of "Country".
2. In 1978, there were indeed two Germanys, which are referred to on Wikipedia as West Germany and East Germany (see also List of sovereign states in 1978); this list follows that convention, regardless of the fact that West Germany was the predecessor to the present-day Germany.
3. Lentz simply states "January 1923" for when Otunga was born, which is confirmed by the Vatican's biography. This may have been converted to 31 January by mistake (perhaps by following the table here). In any case, his actual birth date is probably unknown.
4. Syntax fixed.
5. Scopes added (seem to have only been missing from the continent total rows).
6. See MOS:COLOUR. This is essential for blind or colour-blind users, who have to rely on text-based means to make use of information otherwise conveyed only by colour.
7. Fixed.

@Lirim.Z: — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:20, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• This is not a discussion about the political situation of Germany in the Cold War, even though it should be discussed since the West/East is formally wrong, but different topic.....

Support—I don't see any other issues.—Lirim | Talk 16:33, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• As I have commented previously, I think you should say that the election is by secret ballot. This is far more important than some of the details you do include, such as precedence.
• Having a separate section for sources is standard Wikipedia practice. In my view it is better than putting them at the top of the references section as you have done.
• Support. Neither of these criticisms are deal breakers. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: Thanks for the support. Regarding your comments, after some thought, I've added a brief note about the election process into the lead. The sources have also been moved into a separate sub-section underneath the main references, per MOS:NOTES. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:23, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I got nothing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 21:04:16 5 May 2019 (UTC) [21].

---

List of torpedo cruisers of Italy

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This list covers the torpedo cruisers built for the Italian Royal Navy in the 1870s-1890s - the ships had relatively uneventful careers (largely a result of the fact that they were built during a relatively peaceful period, and they were no longer front-line ships by the time Italy fought in the Italo-Turkish War and the First World War in the 1910s). I wrote the list last year and it passed a MILHIST A-class review in July (link here if you're interested). Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z

• All pictures need a year in the text
  • I've added years where they're generally known, but all but one are approximations and the rest aren't known.
• The lead needs references
  • No it doesn't, it's all repeated in the body, where the material is cited.
• Other than that I don't see any problems. I don't know much about torpedo cruisers, but I think this article is written great and understable for people who don't know much.--Lirim | Talk 02:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reviewing the list. Parsecboy (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• "laid down in 1875, and was one of the first torpedo cruisers built by any navy" - source for that (it isn't mentioned anywhere in the body)...?
  • Good catch, added a line on her being one of the first torpedo cruisers to the body
• In the Pietro Micca section, do the two refs right at the end support everything from "By the 1870s" onwards?
  • Yes
• In the Tripoli section, do the two refs at the end of the first paragraph support everything in the entire paragraph?
  • Yes
• In the Goito section, does the one ref at the end of the first paragraph support everything in the entire paragraph?
  • Yes
• Did the Folgore class actually have no armour, or is the info simply not known?
  • Yes, no armor
• In the Partenope section, does the one ref at the end of the first paragraph support everything in the entire paragraph?
  • Yes
• In the Argodat section, my maths teachers always told me that a 0 should always be placed before the decimal point for a number below 1, so ".8" should be "0.8"
  • This may be a UK/US thing

Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Chris. Parsecboy (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• The decimal point with no 0 still looks inherently wrong to me, but if it's simply another thing that's down to the ocean between us then so be it ;-) Support this nomination -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • As it turns out, this came up in another review, and per WP:DECIMAL, the leading zero is necessary. Parsecboy (talk) 12:07, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

• Consider linking displacement, laid down and commissioned in the first header.
  • In the table? I think the MoS discourages linking bold text - but I've added a link to keel laying in the lead (and the other two are linked in the table key
    • Huh, I've been using links in the ship tables in class articles for a couple of years now and nobody's complained, although I don't know how recently I sent one of them to FAC. Good enough for me though.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Link knot on first use, register, gunfire support
  • Is there a link for register? We have the Naval Vessel Register, but that's a USN thing, and I'm not seeing a general article in Category:Ship registration. Other two done.
    • Navy List is equivalent, I think.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Linked (and added to that category, too). Parsecboy (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• By analogy to the Queen song, shouldn't it be "flat-bottomed hull"?
  • Good point
• Partenope class spent much of its career BritEng?
  • No, that's AmEng - it'd be BritEng to say the "class spent much of their careers"
    • I think you've got that backwards 'cause I wanna say "their" and "its" reads very strangely to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Agordat became a gunboat without any guns?
  • They had guns, just not the 4.7-inch guns of the earlier classes - I kept the light guns out of the tables to keep things from getting too cluttered.
    • Fair enough.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Fix the missing ampersands in the bibliography--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PM

This list seems comprehensive and is in great shape. I have a few comments:

• towards the end of the lead, could you add something about what type of ship replaced the torpedo cruisers in Italian service?
  • Good idea
• is it worth listing the 4.7 in gun on Tripoli given it is mentioned on Confienza and the Partenopes?
  • Yes indeed
• the service dates for Montebello don't match her article
  • Wonder what I was looking at
• same for Monzambano, I think they might have been swapped somehow?
  • Must have been
• the sources all appear reliable and of high quality and what you would expect to see for ships of this vintage, the formatting is up-to-scratch. No spotchecks done, as the nominator has a long history at FLC.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: - have I addressed your comments satisfactorily? Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt, Nate. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5

• Is it me or are there a lot of imperial/US units who are primary units in the article? Oughtn't metric units be the primary?
  • I don't see why - was Italy on the metric system at the time? That the armor thicknesses are measured in obviously imperial units and not metric (for at least the first several designs - which is to say, a half-inch or three-quarter inch thickness is more obvious than 13 or 19mm, which seem rather arbitrary), which suggests the ships were designed with imperial units. Of course, it could be a rounding issue in the source, but then I don't know that I want to reverse convert from the rounded number without knowing what the actual figures are.

• @Parsecboy: This book [22] claims (p. 8) it was and started in 1861 probably due the establishment of Italy. The City of Milan even used metric as early as 1803 probably by Napoleon. So I guess yes it was. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

• I see - but that still leaves the question of accuracy and rounding to be addressed. I would hazard a guess that the decks weren't exactly half an inch (i.e., 12.7mm), and that Gardiner simply rounded the figures, but that raises the question of how much and in what direction did he do the rounding? Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Parsecboy: Doesn't the sources say that about the accuracies of the ships? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• No, and the problem is, whatever sources the author used for the ships presumably were in metric, so they'd have had to have converted them to imperial. If we then convert back to metric from the rounded conversions, we'll likely end up playing the telephone game. Parsecboy (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

• This is indeed a problem. But I think it's not bad to convert the units to metric. Yes I know this can be described as the telephone game but that doesn't mean we should let them like they are in imperial units. I think we can convert the units and add a note which stated that the real numbers are probably unkown and are probably rounded. That's, I think the best solution I came up right now. Of course this is just an opinion of mine. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the ISBNs have hyphens?
  • You can do it either way, but whatever way you choose should be standardized.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

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