Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/October 2013

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC) [1].

---

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Bob Willis

Nominator(s): Lugnuts (talk), Zia Khan 16:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Currently, I've another nomination open at FLC which has three supports, so I think there wouldn't be a problem with this one. This list was created by User:Lugnuts, so gets a co-nomination here (This is his first FLC, if I'm not wrong). I mainly worked on the lead portion of the list. I hereby invite all the reviewers for comments/suggestions. Regards, Zia Khan 16:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, this is my first ever FLC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:42, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me)

Commenting on lede former right-arm fast bowler cricketer "As of" technique needed for 41 bowlers taking 15 fifers Ref missing for the Ian Botham quote Wisden Cricketers' Almanack linked twice in the lead You need not repeat Ashes series against Australia everytime. Wisden Cricketers' Almanack in 2002[10] – Ref. should come after punctuation at the Old Trafford He never took a ten wickets in a match You say "8 wickets for 43 runs", "nine wickets for 92 runs" and "four wickets for 11 runs" "at the same ground" which ground? The last but one sentence of the second para seems too long and getting into too much detail. "Willis has took three of his five-wicket hauls at Headingley" – grammar fail Consider rephrasing the lede image's caption since he has retired. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:16, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Fixed all. Zia Khan 12:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC) Additional comments The caption for the ground's image should name the ground Headingley –> Headingley Stadium in the table as Headingley is the name of a locality Date for 13th entry is 16 Jul 1981 —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC) Done. Thanks for the review. Zia Khan 16:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 06:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Comments There is a inconsistency in the way Headingley Stadium is referred. Lord's ---> Lord's Cricket Ground WACA ---> WACA Ground The section heading for the fifers section should be clearer. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 13:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC) Done all. Zia Khan 14:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support Nice work! ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 06:46, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*Comments from Crisco 1492 a former right-arm fast bowler, represented the England cricket team in 90 Tests between 1971 and 1984. - Do you really need "former" here? I'm assuming that, if Willis were to try and bowl now, he would still use a similar style. That he is not playing anymore is clear from the end of your sentence. Done. Zia Khan 18:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC) as of 2013 - should use an {{as of}} template. Also, why not include the month? These statistics do not change rapidly, so no need to include month. Willis made his Test debut during the 1970–71 Ashes series against Australia at the Sydney Cricket Ground. - above you say his career started 1971. This sentence is ambiguous Corrected. 4th Test of the series was played in January 1971. Zia Khan eight wickets for 43 runs - per WP:NUMERAL avoid mixing and matching different number formats These are not comparative figures since wickets and runs are different things, so I think I'm correct?? Zia Khan 18:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Cats and dogs are different things too, but that's used as an example. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC) I understand your point, but this is not the case here. You are comparing the quantity of cats and dogs there, but in cricket "four wickets for 20 runs" is a totally different from "took 3 wickets and scored 129 runs". Hope you got my point. Zia Khan 23:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Perhaps another individual from a cricket background would care to comment? I'm not having you change "for" to "and". I'm just asking you to ensure that we don't end up with mix-and-match numbers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Look at this one (my comment here) and that one from Harrias. Zia Khan 04:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC) I was thinking maybe ping someone like The Rambling Man to look at this case. In the case you brought up, WP:NUMERAL was not discussed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC) I think these things should be discussed at their corresponding talk pages. Zia Khan 19:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Done, see below. Zia Khan 19:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC) nine wickets for 92 runs - again As above. Zia Khan 18:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC) four wickets for 11 runs - again — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC) As above. Zia Khan 18:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Comment regarding 4 for eleven (&c) I'm reasonably ambivalent to this, but cricket has its own way of doing things, and yes, "4 cats and 3 dogs" vs "4 days and seven hedgehogs" etc. For me, in cricket matches I've watched, been involved in, even scored for, I would always see runs and wickets in numerical format. It may not be the way to interpret WP:MOS but I would always use 4 for 7, 3 for 121, etc (or if you're Australian, 103 for 2, 44 for 3 etc.....) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your reply. Wickets and runs now switched to numerical format. Zia Khan 19:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Solid-looking list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC) [2].

---

Yugoslav order of battle for the invasion of Yugoslavia

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has recently successfully been through the MILHIST A-Class List review process, and I believe it meets the FL criteria. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

• Quick Comment It may seem obvious but I think you should include somewhere in the lead that these actions took place during the second world war. Mattximus (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose the lead is too short, the tables don't meet access requirements, there appears to be an excess of red links (or no links) to most of the items included. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC) With respect, your opposition seems a little hasty. I'll look at the lead and table accessibility issues. I challenge your objection about red links, this area of military history is severely underrepresented on en WP, and all of the redlinks are plausible articles under WP:GNG and supporting MILHIST notability guidelines. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:30, 21 September 2013 (UTC) With respect, this is FLC, not MILHIST. WP:WIAFL criterion 5a requires that "a minimal proportion of items are redlinked." (my emphasis). And accessibility on more technical articles is absolutely key. Combining those with the inadequate lead, you should understand the opposition? An alternative would be to send it to peer review where this issues can (and should) be resolved before nominations are made at FLC. It also seems that the MILHIST A-Class list review is somewhat lacking if these basics are overlooked. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC) I'm clear. This is my first FLC, although I have successfully nominated a few FACs in the past, and have not struck immediate opposition to an article's candidacy there. In general, my experience has been that where an article meets most but not all FA criteria upon nomination, reviewers (including myself) generally make comments and indicate that they would oppose if they were not addressed. I have found this approach tends to encourage rather than discourage editors from nominating appropriate articles, and encourages learning by less experienced editors. Thank you for your comments, I will address them regardless of your opposition and will note here when they have been addressed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:19, 21 September 2013 (UTC) The tables are now per the "good" examples at MOS:DTT. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I'll check it later. I also noticed you use the x for "times" rather than the multiplication symbol. Also there's a considerable amount of unnecessary capitalisation. Anyway, after the lead and links issues are fixed, I'll happily do a more in-depth review. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC) multiplication symbols fixed and lead expanded. I'd appreciate a steer towards where the overcapitalisation is, I just looked through the article and it's not jumping out at me. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Silly little things like "Mobilisation Status" -> "Mobilisation status", it's usually in the table headings I found the issue. However, I'll try to do a full review shortly.... (famous last words) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Opening comments "Serbo-Croat" is linked too many times throughout. It looks like you're using the {{lang-sh}} template, which is cool, but you should use the "links=no" parameter on second and subsequent usages. Thanks, have never had anyone mention that parameter before, it answers a question I've had many times before about overlinking. Fixed. Better expanded intro, but surely you should be talking about the order of battle perhaps by linking it, so non-experts understand what you're talking about? Done, check if you think the link inclusion is ok? " 33 divisions and 10 independent brigades, but due to tentative and incomplete mobilisation, only seven divisions and six smaller" check MOS:NUM for comparable figures within a sentence (i.e. they need to be similarly formatted). This should be applied across the whole article. I think I have addressed this, but it is a little unclear when there are numerals relating to different things in the same sentence. For example, while all the aircraft numbers should be in numerals for consistency, it isn't clear if it should be four or 4 air brigades. Air brigades are not comparable to aircraft, so perhaps not. Thoughts? "the bulk ... the bulk" can read a little bit repetitive. fixed. The flag is, well, interesting, but nothing more than decorative. Is there a more pertinent image you could include? each service has its own "standard", the Army has the national flag, the Air Force has its roundel, and the Navy has its ensign. That was the purpose of including the flag, as it represents the Army. Perhaps a more explicit caption? Why not write "Varazdin" as "Varaždin" as you're using diacritics elsewhere? Done. What does the (-) mean in "1st Cavalry Division (-)"? removed, unnecessary. Caption says "Obsolete Yugoslav FT tank " does this mean it was obsolete at the time? Suggest a more comprehensive caption. Done. What is "vz." in the next caption? Model/Year, but I have anglicised it and added links. Beginning to get a feeling that you could merge a lot of these subsections into larger tables, including the section heading as a row-spanned entry, it would look a lot neater, and any pertinent notes could be included in therein. I don't agree with this point, I have amalgamated a few tables as you suggested, but I believe the tables are now logically divided and topically organised. I especially see this when it comes to the different aircraft type, it would be easy to add the type as a column. Done. When you say an aircraft is obsolete, what does that mean? explanation added. Navy section has a large number of red links within the table (we've already noted this...) Have now reduced the number of redlinks significantly. Thoughts? "Completes" do you mean "Completed"? Yup, fixed. This table could benefit from being sortable. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This looks like a great list to me (and what had to be a difficult topic to assemble, I'm sure). References all look good, images are all suitably licensed, so no issues there, no dablinks, no problems with ELs, etc. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Should be the featured list criteria you're judging it against really. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know. I just mentioned some of the specific things I checked. Parsecboy (talk) 20:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support — I have one question, does the color coding in the various tables require an additional qualifier to help distinguish between mobilized, in part and commenced? MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No, the text "commenced", "in part" and "mobilised" does that. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose sorting not working, check "Royal Yugoslav Navy" table, "Displacement" col for instance. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Displacment sort fixed MisterBee1966 (talk) 08:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Support Comment: Is the submarine "Nebojsca" supposed to be Yugoslav submarine Nebojsa? 23 editor (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• You should probably use authorlinks for the references (i.e. Tomasevich). 23 editor (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Both done, thanks 23! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:15, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC) [3].

---

List of Indian Premier League captains

Nominator(s): ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments from —Vensatry _{(Ping me)}

• Deccan Chargers linked twice in the lead
• have captained his team in 96 matches –> has captained his team in 96 matches
• Link "Human Kinetics (publisher)" and "International Cricket Council" in refs
  • ICC shouldn't be italicised —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• Link tie
  • [[Result (cricket)#Tie]] would be more appropriate —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
• The fact that result percentage excludes no results should be noted.
• Table is unreferenced
  

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Additional comment

• Alt text must mention the subject name per WP:ALT —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done all ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 14:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 17:37, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• "with a Win-loss percentage of 61.05." "Win-loss" → "win–loss", with the lower-case word and en dash. This applies elsewhere in the lead as well.
• In the key and table headings, shouldn't "Team/s" be presented as "Team(s)" with parentheses, or is this some Indian standard that I am unaware of?
• The second half of the range in reference 3 is missing. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done all ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 10:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments—

• You may change the caption of the image since this information is already there in the lead.
• The best win–loss percentage is of Pune Warriors India' Ross Taylor: 100.00 → Pune Warriors India's
• James Hopes of the Daredevils have captained the mos number of matches → most

Zia Khan 11:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done all ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 13:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support — Good work. Zia Khan 22:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC) [4].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Shivnarine Chanderpaul

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _{(Ping me)}, Harrias ^talk 16:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Another cricket centuries list. This is based on all of those that have gone before, with hopefully a combination of the best of each. The Chanderpaul article is a little on the short side at the moment (just over 2,000 words of prose), but I am in the process of expanding it, so I don't think there should be an issue with this seeming like an unnecessary content fork. I currently have another FLC open, Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2009 Women's Cricket World Cup squads/archive1, but the issues there have been resolved, and it has the support of three users, so I hope the community accepts this nomination. This is a joint nomination, as we both (coincidentally) starting working on this at the same time. Harrias ^talk 16:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment – The publisher of reference 4 (The Independent) should be italicized since it is a print publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments "but he was not required to bat as the West Indies beat India" - this is a little confusing. Please explain that his batting did not came since WI already achieved the target. Tweaked. Harrias talk 07:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Link not out. Done. Harrias talk 07:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "but he proved his critics wrong" - Such things need to be quoted, unless it will be considered as OR. I disagree; it's a factual statement. He was criticised for not converting half-centuries into centuries, and in that series he scored three centuries. Harrias talk 07:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "Despite being well known for his patient batting" is a little violating with NPOV. This seems to be criticizing him for scoring a fast century. Again, I disagree. I guess it might soften it slightly if "despite" was changed to "although", but the words are synonymous. Harrias talk 07:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Link strike-rate. Done. Harrias talk 07:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "has scored more centuries against India than any other team" - how many? Added. Harrias talk 07:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "Chanderpaul has not been selected to play Twenty20 International cricket since 2010" - needs to be sourced. It is, at the end of the sentence, to his profile page at ESPNcricinfo. Harrias talk 07:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "Which innings of the match he scored his century." - "The innings of the match." Tweaked, but not to exactly what you have suggested. Harrias talk 07:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Link North Sound. The page for North Sound is a redirect to Sir Vivian Richards Stadium, so it would be somewhat pointless. Harrias talk 07:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC) "a strike-rate of quicker than a-run-a-ball in ODI cricket" ---> "a strike-rate slower than a-run-a-ball in ODI cricket" Uhmmm, no, because that would be wrong. Harrias talk 07:37, 13 October 2013 (UTC) I can't figure out why it will be wrong. Maybe you should say ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 15:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 15:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Godot13 (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Quick Comments- I know very little about cricket, so if any of my comments are blatantly moronic, please bear with me… H/A/N In the key “opposition’s home” might read better as “opponent’s home,” and is “neutral” a standard term for a third-party host? In Tests, #21,22, and 23, H/A/N is “Drawn.” This seems to be an error. Changed and fixed. Harrias talk 13:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC) There don’t seem to be any ties, is this correct? Yes, ties are very rare in cricket. Harrias talk 13:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Possible terms to link in the lead (first appearance): crease, man of the series. I've linked man of the series, but crease is within a quote, and the MOS suggests not to link terms in quotes. Harrias talk 13:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC) The prose seems straight-forward and easy to read. -Godot13 (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review! Harrias talk 13:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support-Godot13 (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 11:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments— "...but he proved his critics wrong during the 2001–02 series against India when he scored three centuries during the five-match series, earning him the man of the series accolade. During that series,..." Too many "series" in one line. I think "during the five-match series" is redundant. Rephrased —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "...he batted for 1,513 minutes between dismissals,..." → You mean he batted for 1,513 min in an innings? Or in both the innings? Between dismissals cannot happen in a single innings —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC) So, what do you mean by "he batted for 1,513 minutes between dismissals" here? Zia Khan 00:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC) He spent 1,513 mins at the crease between two occasions he got out. —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC) well known → well-known, I guess. I guess you're right —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC) No, the original non-hyphenated version was right. Harrias talk 08:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Harrias, from the online research I've made it appears that compound modifiers should be hyphenated if they come before noun. English isn't my first language, so correct me if am wrong. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC) I stand corrected. Harrias talk 20:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "...more centuries against India, (seven centuries,) than any other team." → Not sure that comma should be inside the brackets? Or at least no need of centuries after seven?? Rephrased —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC) You may replace the first "required" in the first sentence of the second-last para. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC) "century innings" → may be century-innings I think that's not a right idea —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC) In the Key, incomplete sentences shouldn't end in full-stop. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Still not done (Pos. and S/R). Zia Khan Fixed now —Vensatry (Ping me) 12:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Suitable alt text for the ground's image Since this isn't an article about the ground, "Alt text" should name the subject rather than describing its appearance. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC) In the Tests table the centuries for the same scores, earlier he scored should come earlier while sorting in ascendent order (i.e #16 and #5)?? Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Link ESPNcricifo at first usage like BBC Sports and The Observer. Zia Khan 02:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC) Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:09, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support: meets the standards. Zia Khan 11:51, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC) [5].

---

List of municipalities in Manitoba

Nominator(s): Hwy43 (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Nominating this for featured list because it meets all FL criteria and is structured in a similar manner to other featured lists of municipalities including List of municipalities in Ontario (exceeding in fact by including readily available incorporation dates) and List of municipalities in British Columbia. Hwy43 (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Dudley Miles

*Comment. A good list. Some minor comments: It would be better to give more details about 'Municipal Act' - say Manitoba Municipal Act year. Ditto Local Government Districts Act.  Done Years enacted added to article lead where both are first introduced and three section leads. Hwy43 (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC) The definitions of number of residents and population densities look wrong. An urban municipality is defined as "area with at least 1,000 residents and a population density of at least 400 residents per square kilometre," yet many have far less, e.g. Leaf Rapids 453 and density only 0.4 per sq km! Many rural ones also have less than the minimum population, although the discrepancies are not so great. Comment. Definitions are correct according to current legislation. Incorporation of most if not all that are inconsistent occurred before current legislation was enacted. Previous legislated definitions were likely different. This was brought up at the talk page previously. Hwy43 (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC) I think it would be helpful to explain this in the article to avoid confusion. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2013 (UTC) I'll try to carefully put something together to address this without bordering on unreferenced speculation. Hwy43 (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)  Done Let me know if the explanations now avoid the potential confusion. Hwy43 (talk) 21:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC) In Local Government Districts, giving total and average populations for two districts with populations of 10 and 1444 is not useful. I think it would be better to leave this out.  Done Removed sentence in second paragraph of applicable section lead. Hwy43 (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC) Mystery Lake is shown as having no population in 2006. This looks wrong and conflicts with the figure in the article on Mystery Lake.  Not done Zero is correct per the ref. Population within Mystery Lake article is out of date as Statistics Canada corrected its 2006 population after the 2006 results were released (reduced from 147 to 0). I'll update the Mystery Lake article. Hwy43 (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC)  Done Mystery Lake, Manitoba has been updated to for consistency. Hwy43 (talk) 22:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC) In the references, the dates Acts were passed should be given. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)  Done "(enacted 1996/1987)" added to refs. Hwy43 (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2013 (UTC) This all looks fine now, except that I think you should state in the lead the body which has juriscdiction over the laws on municipalities, presumably the Manitoba Legislative Assembly. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)  Done Thanks for the feedback. Hwy43 (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Sorry if I am being pedantic, but "These legislative documents" could be read as referring just to the additional charters and acts. I think you need to spell out that the law regarding municipalities is determined at the provincial, not the national level (if that is true). Perhaps just change "These legislative" to "All these legislative". Dudley Miles (talk) 20:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)  Done I think these edits should satisfy this comment. Hwy43 (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Support. A good list. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Support Disclaimer: I have contributed to this article in its early form. I have read it and believe it meets FL standards at this point. I have a few comments that do not need to be addressed for my support as they are just suggestions.

• Can the subtotal rows be coloured slightly different? Even a grey similar to what is found in the Ontario page would be great.

 Done Turns out we need to use "!" rather than "|" to change the sortbottom rows to the same darker grey as the top row. Hwy43 (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• "enacted at the provincial level by Queen Elizabeth II on the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba" sounds a little strange. Is the fact that the Queen signed off on it a notable fact? Isn't it just a technicality that doesn't matter terribly much? The way it's written it sounds like it was the Queen's idea.

Mattximus (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done It is based on the wording from the sources, but we know that it is the lieutenant governers who represent the Queen, so I've revised it to reflect that. Hwy43 (talk) 20:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Good and well sourced list. --Carioca (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• Leaf Rapids' change is shown as -16, while other even amounts have a .0 at the end. For consistency, this one should too.

 Done Thanks. Missed this one when I did the others. Hwy43 (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• In the Winnipeg photo's alt text, "Night" shouldn't be capitalized.

 Done Hwy43 (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Note 12: "an -18.1% change from its 2006 population of 570". "an" → "a"? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done Yes to "a". It reads as "a negative eighteen...", whereas it would read as "an eighteen..." if the number were positive. Hwy43 (talk) 07:56, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC) [6].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Nathan Astle

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Astle is one of the greatest one-day players to emerge from New Zealand. As of now, he is the only cricketer from New Zealand in the list of players with 25+ centuries at the international level. Look forward to your comments. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:42, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Oppose: for me, at the moment, this is a clear 3(b) violation. The parent article on Nathan Astle is short, with less than 1,000 words of prose, and actually contains a version of this list (albeit a poor one). This demonstrates to me that at the moment, this list should make up part of that article, and not be a stand-alone list. Harrias ^talk 20:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Reply 27 centuries are good enough to have a stand alone article. The prose (readable) size is over 5000 chars, and not 1000 chars as mentioned by you. When an article like Abdul Qadir (cricketer), which is half the size of Astle's article can have a stand alone sub page, I think this is admissible. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I said 1,000 words, rather than characters, so my statement was correct. And I agree, the Abdul Qadir list should not have been promoted: a merge should probably be carried out to put the list into the parent article. Harrias ^talk 06:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose agree with Harrias, there's no need for a content fork yet. If Astle's article was three times the size, it may be okay, but right now, this could easily fit into the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• I request the FLC directors to give me some time. I'm in the process of expanding the parent article, and once I'm done with that I'll revert back. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

• The prose size now stands at close to 12k chars with 2000+ words. I feel this should be enough for a player who has played 81 Tests and 223 ODIs. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
• @The Rambling Man: Would you reassess your vote now that the main article has been expanded? Thanks. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:29, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Later the year". "the" → "that".
• "In the course of innings". Does this need "the" before "innings"?
• Also, the innings link could be moved to its first usage in the lead. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed all and thanks for the comments —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:56, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 09:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments Please mention the list about which you are talking about in note a. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Link West Indies tour. No article exists for the tour. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC) There's nothing wrong with redlinks. Harrias talk 10:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC) "Astle scored a century for the second time in World Cup, this time against Zimbabwe in the eighth edition of the tournament. His highest ODI total of 145 not out was achieved against the United States during the 2004 Champions Trophy. In ODIs he was most successful against India making five centuries" - all this needs to be referenced. Leaving the first one, I don't think sources are needed for the rest since they are cited in the table. Anyways, I've added the sources. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC) There should be row scope in the key table. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 05:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC) Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:45, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support Great work. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 09:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 11:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments— You may change the caption since this is already explained in the lead? I've changed the image to a more appropriate one. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC) "...in Test cricket and One Day Internationals (ODI) on 11 and 16 occasions respectively." → ... in Test and One Day International (ODI) cricket on 11 and 16 occasions respectively. I find nothing wrong with the present structure. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC) "[an] attacking opener in one-day cricket". I've no idea why is "an" in square brackets? Fixed —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC) You've "the" before Vidharba Cricket Association Ground, but not before any other ground?! Vidharba is a proper noun and more importantly it has the words "Cricket" & "Ground", so the is a must. However, this isn't the case with "Eden Park" and "Trust Bank Park", where usage of the is optional. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Centuries # 2 and 7 do not sort correctly in the ODI list. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Include Sachin's stats and unlink the "ended up in the nineties" since this is linked in the lead. I don't think it's mandate to include Sachin's stats since we are concerned only about Astle. As for linking "ended up in the nineties", there is nothing wrong as it doesn't seem to be overlinking. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Date for ref # 2, also check others. Zia Khan 04:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC) Done. Thanks for the comments —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:57, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support– meets the standards! Zia Khan 11:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments Check the use of hyphen vs en-dash in "Chappell–Hadlee Trophy". " run-getter " hate getter. Scorer perhaps, or "has scored the second-highest number of runs..." Second para: "His... he.. He... His... " needs re-wording. "ended up in the nineties" is nice for us readers who like it, but not accessible to non-experts. " which includes two " -> "including two..." "Astle made his Test debut against Zimbabwe at Trust Bank Park, Hamilton, a year after he..." name the year. "fastest double-century " in terms of minutes or balls? Shouldn't "second highest" be hyphenated? 83.6 -> 83.60. Check refs for en-dashes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC) Fixed all except the fourth comment. I've provided a wl for "ended up in the nineties" which provides sufficient explanation. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC) [7].

---

Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Drama Series Directing Team

Nominator(s):  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the every single criteria. Also, I believe it to be well sourced and clear. After much tweaking and further adjustments I feel that it is worthy of being a Featured List. I believe this list is worthy, considering I worked on it with the Featured lists, Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Younger Actress in a Drama Series, Outstanding Younger Actor in a Drama Series, Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series, Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series, Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series, Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series, Outstanding Drama Series in mind. If you oppose, please address your issues here so they can be resolved.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• The 1974–1978 portion of the table is sorting by first name, not last name. The sort templates that you used to fix a list you asked me for a review on in the past would be helpful here too.

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 22:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Since these people are nominees for a major award, are they notable enough to have articles? If so, red links would be in order.

• These people are nominees for a minor award, they are not notable enough to have articles. The reason why is that it was a sturggle to find reliable sources and I was lucky enough to do so. This is not a popular awards so there is not reason why they should be red links would be in order.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 22:52, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Giants2008 (Talk) 21:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments – I am curious just why is there a description regarding the Emmy Award itself at the beginning. In your other articles, there is no mention of it in your other lists. Other than that it looks good.

---Birdienest81 (talk) 17:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

The reason that there is no mention of it in my other lists is that I found the description regarding the Emmy Award like two weeks ago and those lists were already promoted so I did not see the need to add it.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 18:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Support: Although, I really think that it belongs more appropriately in the article Daytime Emmy Award.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:25, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support Don't see any big issues, and meets the criteria. Although in the first sentence of the second paragraph, should the 'on' become an 'of'?Caringtype1 (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support, quite complete, and most meticulously referenced, throughout. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments

• "Since then, the award honored..." -> "Since then, the award has honored"

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest you suitably link "image orthicon camera tube".

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• "The Emmy statuette is fifteen inches tall from base to tip. The statuette weighs 5 pounds..." -> "The Emmy statuette is fifteen inches tall from base to tip, weighs five pounds and.."

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Not the right Norman Hall.

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Why the odd headings used between tables?

• Just to let the reader know why there is two different tables, since some readers don't read the lead.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• No, I meant why not use normal headings? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 20:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Directors should be Director(s) as most often there's only one.

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• 1976 wasn't awarded to a single director, this should be noted.

• I am not sure about that since the references says that that year it was awarded to a single director however it did not add their names. What should I do?  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Add a footnote? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Sure, okay. However, would you please tell me exactly what the footnote should say?  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 20:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Well, it should say that for that particular year, the award wasn't given to a single director.... The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• You do not understand. do you? I meant that I am not sure that the award wasn't given to a single director, the sources says it was given to a single director but did not add the name of that director. You suggest to write a footnote, after what I just explain what do you think it should say?  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 18:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• "You do not understand. do you?" maybe I don't then. I'll leave this review, and doubt I'll go anywhere near your nominations in future. Good luck. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: Did I say something wrong? I was just asking if you did not understand, then I explain to cleared out the confusion. I was just asking if you understood because you replied with a message I did not understand so I figure you did not understand mine. I apologize if I sounded rude, mean or disrespectful. Again, sorry. :(  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 18:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Total awards won" 42 in total. 40 award ceremonies with 1 tie, 41 wins. Why the discrepancy?

• I do not understand. What does discrepancy mean? I am not sure what I am suppose to correct.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 19:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know. Add up the total awards in that table and you get 42. There have been 40 ceremonies with one tie, so there should be 41. You need to find the mistake.The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

•  Done.  — SoapFan12 (talk, contribs) 20:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC) [8].

---

Pakistan national cricket team record by opponent

Nominator(s): Zia Khan 11:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

After a black day for Pakistan cricket, now they have 105 lost to their name in Test cricket. But no worries, they have defeated others 116 times in the same format. In ODIs Pakistan have a reasonable result in term of winning percentage. Pakistan have won more matches than any other team. This list comprise Pakistan's record against the other teams in the three formats.The list is ready to go for a FL status becuse, in my opinion, meets the standards. Comments/suggestions appreciated, as always! Zia Khan 11:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Quick comment

• Lead is of just three lines, fails WP:LEAD. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Have a look now! Zia Khan 17:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Additional comments

• In the same series, Pakistan recorded their first Test win against the same team. same team redundant
• Link England, Australia, New Zealand in the lead
• As of technique should be used to quote stats in the lead instead on FN.
  

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Zia Khan 16:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support – I've made some copy-edits. Be sure to check —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! Zia Khan 23:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*Comments from Crisco inning - Everyone tells me the singular of innings in cricket is innings. You're right. Zia Khan 01:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC) They have played 71 T20I matches and won 44 of them; 25 were lost and two being tied. - Why the switch from the active to passive voice? Chek this now. Zia Khan 01:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Second sentence is still passive. Should be active. Couldn't find out. Which sentence do you mean? Zia Khan 23:20, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Was thinking something like this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Aah! I was looking for the second sentence of the both paragraphs. That's fine! Zia Khan 23:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC) Perhaps make it clear that the records are records at the end Added a note. Zia Khan Check my copyedit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the comments! Zia Khan 01:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Looks solid. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks a million! Zia Khan 16:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – "Innings" shouldn't be capitalized in the second sentence. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Decapitalized. Zia Khan 01:32, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support I cannot find any problem in this one. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 16:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks a lot! Zia Khan 16:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC) [9].

---

List of National Natural Landmarks in Alaska

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This list follows the format of my previous NNL nomination (the Michigan list last year). I believe it is close to featured status, and look forward to comments regarding any issues. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Dudley Miles

;Comments: "16 of the almost 600 United States National Natural Landmarks" sounds clumsy to me. I would prefer something like "16 National Landmarks out of a total of almost 600 in the United States". Reworked this a bit. Better? I do not understand "unorganized boroughs". Tweaked grammar slightly and linked to Unorganized Borough, Alaska. "makes nomination recommendations after an owner notification process" also sounds to me clumsy. Perhaps re-word. Attempted reword. Better? I would prefer "integrity of the sites" to "of the properties". Except that throughout the rest of the lead they are referred to as properties... Under Malaspina, what is an ice-cap region? Linked to polar ice cap. Under McNeil, what is nears fishing? LOL, I looked at this and went "huh?". Then realized it was a typo. Supposed to be "bears fishing" :) Unga. "The remnants give environmental and climactic evidence of pre-human contact Alaska." This took me two or three readings to understand. How about something like: The forest provides evidence of the environment and climate of Alaska before humans reached the area. OK, replaced. Walrus. What is a bull-walrus haul out? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Linked to Hauling-out. Replies above. Thanks for the comments! Dana boomer (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Support. A good list well presented. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from RadioKAOS: Right off the bat, the biggest issue I see: since these designations were made decades ago, how much of this information is presently outdated?

• I had previously pipe-linked "Clarence Rhode National Wildlife Refuge" to Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, but that doesn't quite tell the whole story. From Who's Who in Alaskan Politics:

  RHODE, Clarence J.<...>reg. dir., U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Juneau, 1948–58; killed in plane crash, Brooks Range, Aug. 21, 1958, accompanied by s. Jack and another passenger.<...>Kuskokwim Nat. Wildlife Refuge near Bethel renamed in his honor, 1960.

  While that explains that, it isn't explained that the name "Clarence Rhode National Wildlife Refuge" and accompanying land designation were both deprecated by the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980.

• Except that the "Clarence Rhode National Wildlife Refuge" was and still is designated as a National Natural Landmark, and is considered as such by the federal government. The name of the area before its designation doesn't matter. Dana boomer (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• Similiarly, the statement about which landmarks are in or not in organized boroughs is false. The boundaries of Alaska's earliest borough's weren't finalized until the mid 1970s, so once again, you may be simply parroting information which is decades out of date. Lake George is within the corporate limits of the Municipality of Anchorage, an organized borough, although it's certainly a world away from Anchorage proper. Malaspina Glacier is within the City and Borough of Yakutat, also an organized borough. The thing is so freaking huge, though, that it quite possibly spills over into the Unorganized Borough (specifically, the Valdez–Cordova Census Area). Whenever I've looked up a feature on GNIS, it tells me which borough or census area the feature is located in. Little or none of this has been incorporated into the list.

• I've added borough information where boroughs have been created since the landmarks were designated. Where landmarks are located in wholly or partially in the Unorganized Borough (which is true for six of them), I've left the table alone. Dana boomer (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• On a related note, that table header is entitled "County", which needs to be changed. Alaska does not have counties and has never had counties. Perhaps "Borough or census area"? RadioKAOS  – Talk to me, Billy 19:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• I've changed this to "borough". Dana boomer (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Godot13

;Comments: Comments from Godot13 For consistency I would probably get rid of the "November" in the date column. Done. In the Borough column, again for consistency, I would not use "Alaska" in place of the Unorganized Borough. Done. "Alaska" is still in the last row. What I was suggesting, however, is that you put the Unorganized Borough in the column in place of Alaska. The dash could work, but you do actually have the info to fill in the cell.-Godot13 (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Fair enough. Done. Dana boomer (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2013 (UTC) See if you can find some representative images for the missing ones, the blank space is unfortunate. These are not great examples, but they're better than white space: [Unga Islands] and [Walker Lake]. Also, this list was translated on the [German Wikipedia] a few months after it was started on English Wikipedia, perhaps there are some images that can be used. Found images for all but one, so quite a bit of white space is gone. I thought I had looked for images for these previously, but my search skills had obviously deserted me that day. There are good search days and bad search days... ;-) -Godot13 (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2013 (UTC) References - Each description probably could take one or more, but should have at least one. All of the descriptions are sourced to the general reference. I've now added an in-line ref in the header to make this more clear. Maybe add this as an [external link]. Done. Nice work, very easily readable lead.-Godot13 (talk) 03:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the review! Replies above. Dana boomer (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support-Godot13 (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support– You may add alt text to the images, otherwise all look fine! Zia Khan 21:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! I've now added alt text. Dana boomer (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC) [10].

---

Mikhail Youzhny career statistics

Nominator(s): --TIAYN (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Whats the point of nominating a list if no one reviews it??? Please review it the second time around. --TIAYN (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments - Done The opening of "This is a list of" is of a boring style that has been discouraged for some time now at FLC. You wouldn't start a regular article with "This is an article about", and lists deserve the same respect. This could start by saying who Youzhny is and then going into his stats, like the second sentence does. Done Bold links like the one in the opening are discouraged by the Manual of Style. DoneIn the first sentence, the comma after "player" should be removed. Maybe if these issues weren't at the start, more people would have reviewed this the first time. Done "He is one of the few active players on the ATP tour who has reached the reached the quarterfinals of all Grand Slams." First, there's a double "reached the" that needs fixing. Second, it would be nice to clarify that there are four Grand Slams. Done I see "US Open" and "U.S. Open" in the lead. Which is it? 'Done "Currently, Youzhny has won 424 matches". This is going to become outdated quickly, which is why we normally use "As of (date)" for statements like this. Rewrote it (isn't it normal to always state these facts?) Second word of "trailing behind" isn't needed. And what is the point of including this? If he has the third-most wins among Russians, that sounds notable enough to be worth a mention. Done (but whats the point, I'm never able to read Alt texts...) The lead image needs alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC) I'm on this. :) --TIAYN (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments from Harrias talk Firstly, I would suggest that as you don't appear to have reviewed anyone else's nominations in the last six months, a less aggressive attitude would be in order. No-one here is getting paid to do these reviews, it is all voluntary, so it might be worth being nice to those you want to do something for you. Done "The career statistics of Russian professional tennis player Mikhail Youzhny features, to date, nine ATP singles titles, and nine ATP doubles titles." As an introduction this sounds a little bit too much like "This is a list of..." I would suggest rewriting it to something like: "Mikhail Youzhny is a Russian professional tennis player who has won nine ATP singles titles, and nine ATP doubles titles in his career to date." Done "Youzhny had a fairly successful junior career, reaching a career high junior ranking of world no. 20 in early 2000." Fairly successful according to who? The reference is merely a statistic page, which implies the article is providing editorial comment. For one thing, what one person considers fairly successful, another might consider unsuccessful. I would suggest sticking to the facts, unless there is an article which comments on his junior career. Done Four sentences in the second paragraph state "in 1999"; I would suggest trying to merge these, and vary the prose by using phrases such as "in the same year". done "and would go on to win" can be simply written as "and he won". Similarly later, "Youzhny would go on to win his first" should be "Youzhny won his first" done "He is one of the few active players..." While the source does state that he has reached the QF of all the grand slams, I can't see where it mentions that it has been achieved by very few active players? I might be missing it though? done "While chiefly a single player, .." I'm not an expert on tennis, but should this be "singles player" rather than "single player"? done "Currently, Youzhny has won over 400 matches, trailing Russian players Nikolay Davydenko and Yevgeny Kafelnikov in match wins." While I'm pretty sure that I know you mean he has the third most wins of a Russian player, behind those two, this could be read as meaning he has the third most wins of any player, behind those two Russians, so it would be worth tightening the language to make the meaning clear. done Why is there a full-stop after all the numbers in the "No." and "Rank" column: this seems unnecessary to me, as none of the other columns have full-stops. The partner and opponent columns should sort by the players surname, not by the flag and then the first name. Also, MOS:FLAG suggests that "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." In this case, I don't think the nationality of the player is at all relevant to the overall list. Similarly, is a flag does have to be used, the section on "Accompany flags with country names" is relevant, and should be adhered to. Its organized, and the name order is the exact same one found at the ATP.. When It comes to the removal of flags, I think this should be discussed at the Tennis WikiProject, this career statistics list controversial enough already... --TIAYN (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC) Simply put, those columns must be sortable by the player's surname. How that is achieved, I don't mind. As to the flags, I know Wikipedia seems to be obsessed with them, and most moves to adhere to the MOS are fought against, but at the end of the day, this is a review to achieve featured status, and so the article has to adhere to the MOS. Harrias talk 12:53, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Done Good point. --TIAYN (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC) (removed sortability) In the "Top 10 wins" the use of merged rows for the years breaks the sortability. Harrias talk 10:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC) He is not responding. --TIAYN (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC) He has a wife who is 38 weeks pregnant, a job interview next week and a sprained ankle. He will get back to this when he can. Harrias talk 12:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC) I think you may have misunderstood me, I've responded at you're talk page. --TIAYN (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks, no offence taken really, I'm quite tired at the moment, and snapped a little. I'll try and have a good look at this tomorrow morning. Feel free to keep nudging me about it if I don't! Take care, Harrias talk 15:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support Harrias ^talk 09:13, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. --TIAYN (talk) 07:57, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Godot13

Comments from Godot13 A few observations just looking at the sorting features of the various lists: ITF Junior Circuit-Singles: 2 (1 title, 1 runner-up) Done Not sure if you need a sortable table for only two entries. Done I don’t do sports lists, but how is sorting score by the first digit of the first set useful? (I won’t repeat this, but it goes for each sortable list). Not done. ITF Men's Circuit-Singles: 4 (4 titles) (Done: added to the abbreviation table) The 4 Oct 1999 match (vs. Tom Spinks), does “Hard(i)” stand for indoors? Done You may not need to sort columns like outcome or category where there is only one option. (Applies to a few tables, won’t repeat). ITF Men's Circuit-Doubles 1 (1 title) Done Probably doesn’t need to be sortable. Top 10 wins Done Only two rows, probably doesn’t need to be sortable. Singles Done Sorting problems – any sort brings all the year headers to the top, so the resulting sort contains no anchor for the year. Probably year needs to go on the left hand side and span the entries which it encompasses. Also, the round column correctly orders 1R, 2R, 3R, 4R, but then goes alphabetically (F, QF, SF) when it should be sorted QF, SF, F. Doubles Done Same as above. Also, Rank is sorting by the first digit of the first listed player instead of the whole number (e.g., 11 and 15 are ranked higher than 4).-Godot13 (talk) 03:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC) Sort by rank not done.-Godot13 (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC) The new sorting/table style for the doubles matches is actually somewhat confusing.-Godot13 (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC) Let me clarify - the prior version (with both members of the doubles team in a single box) is more visually appealing and organized. The problem with the list in the earlier format was the sort feature by team rank wasn't sorting properly. It would be preferable to keep the first version, but fix the rank sorting (or, since it is a team, simply do away with the sort feature for that one column).-Godot13 (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Between the resolved comments above and on my [talk page] - Support.(forgot to sign-Godot13 (talk) 12:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC))
  • • Thanks. --TIAYN (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support – on prose. Zia Khan 21:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 10:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC) [11].

---

List of nature reserves in Barnet

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it was a failed FLC and I think have now covered the objections raised. I have also put it through peer review. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Support: This is a well-prepared list, neatly presented with pleasing illustrations. I was somewhat surprised to find that there are over 60 nature reserves in an area so close to London. I looked at the list during its peer review stage and could find little wrong with it then. I note also that a lot of work has been done since the last foray into FLC. I only have a handful of further observations:

London is well provided with green areas, and it is surprising how far the boroughs extend into the countryside. The list could easily be extended.

• Did the railways really "arrive in Barnet" only in the early 20th century? Pretty well all of the country was covered well before then

I was not thinking when I cited this. I assume the author was referring to the development of the Northern Line, but I have deleted it.

• 39% seems a rather low "positive conservation management" figure. It appears to indicate that over 60% of the sites were not being managed "positively" – whatever that means in practice. Is this a point of concern, and if so should the concern be indicated?

I do not have anything I can cite on this. My impression is that pretty well all the conservation work in Barnet was done in the 1990s, and since then the borough has lost interest, but Wikipedia is not the place for my impressions!

• Ref 9 seems formatted differently from the other Hewlett citations

I am not sure of the best way to cite the whole work as opposed to specific pages. Perhaps I should give the full details of the book?

Otherwise, the list seems to be well worthy of featured status. Brianboulton (talk) 08:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your support. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I need to withdraw this nomination. My most important source, Greenspace Information for London, has refurbished its site barely a year after it went live and many of my references are now dead links. I have emailed them about this and I was told that the lack of redirects to the new pages was an oversight which they are rectifying, so I may be able to re-nominate in the future.Dudley Miles (talk) 09:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

GiGL has pointed out a - fairly - easy way to update links, which I have now done. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Quick comments Don't start with "This is a list..." Done. No need to link common geographical terms (like London). Done. Do all our readers know what "green space" means? I don't think this is a problem and would prefer to keep it, but I can change it to open space if required. You use "Green Belt" and "green belt" interchangeably, I'd opt for a consistent format. Done. If the LEU are worth listening to, why don't they have an article? i.e. why aren't they notable? I have moved the note explaining the LEU to make it clearer. I assume that the LEU has no article because it was absorbed into the Greater London Authority in 2000 and information is not easily available. Update: I have now created an article on the London Ecology Unit. " Its objects include" I don't understand "its objects". Clarified and moved to note. Given the last sentence of the lead, is this list "as of 2011"? The list in the 1997 Nature Conservation in Barnet is still current. I have added a sentence to note C clarifying this. Not your problem I suppose but the LNR link leads an uncapitalised version of the name, i.e. "local nature reserve", while you capitalise it here. I have been meaning to deal with this for ages. I have now requested deletion of the redirect page Local Nature Reserve so that the article can be moved. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your help. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:45, 15 September 2013 (UTC) Area column doesn't sort correctly. This is because another editor suggested adding conversion to acres. Would it be best to revert to a heading of hectares and just a figure without conversion? It would be best to get it to sort correctly! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Can you be consistent with decimal places please? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2013 (UTC) I would prefer not to. I have followed the source which is not consistent and generally shows larger areas (and a few small ones) as a whole number. If I show figures to one decimal place, then 11 in the source becomes 11.0 in the article, which would be misleading, but if I round to the nearest whole number then I would have to round 0.6 up to 1, which significantly exaggerates its size, and 1.5 in the source as 1 or 2, guessing which is more accurate. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Support. A couple of very minor tweaks made, but this is certainly of featured standard. - SchroCat (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Keep up the great work! Zia Khan 20:53, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:08, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [12].

---

2009 Women's Cricket World Cup squads

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 15:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

A list based upon the featured list 2013 Women's Cricket World Cup squads. As always, all thoughts, comments and criticisms are welcome! Harrias ^talk 15:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment – my only concern is those redlinks, especially in the last two tables. Zia Khan 14:05, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*Comments from Crisco Not sure if File:Holly Colvin 2.jpg is properly free or not. Web resolution, from a user with very few uploads, rings alarm bells for me. File:Haidee Tiffen.jpg seems to have something funky going on too. I have removed the Holly Colvin image, but left the Haidee Tiffin one; the latter was uploaded by a user who uploaded many pictures from the 2009 World Cup, and all are on flickr with the appropriate license as fair as I can tell: if you could expand on your concerns, I might be better able to judge the image myself? Harrias talk 07:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I'm curious about why it can be of so high resolution but such a low file size. It looks like it was digitally blown up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC) That is slightly odd: the rest of the photos taken from that flickr set are similar though: File:Jess Cameron.jpg and File:Charlotte Edwards.jpg for example. Maybe just the way that particularly camera compresses the images, or set to low quality on the camera at the time maybe? The EXIF data all seems to make sense. It isn't a great image, so I can take it out if you are that concerned? Harrias talk 10:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC) If it's standard across the set and the user has no previous indication of flickrwashing, no problem. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:24, 11 September 2013 (UTC) No concerns over redlinks, as they are not part of the criteria. See my copyedit New Zealand is not sorting by name properly What's with 07, 02, etc. in the birth dates? Nothing particularly intentional, just because it is within coding, I automatically did it that way; should be fixed now. Harrias talk 07:45, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Check sorting. I'm seeing a lot more mistakes (birth dates in Sri Lanka, bowl in South Africa, etc.) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC) I haven't looked properly at the New Zealand list, but I think it revolves around Aimee Mason getting married to a Mr Watkins, and whether "Mc" should sort as "Mc" or "Mac", something I need to check. For the Sri Lankan and South African lists, I can't see any problem; the withdrawn player is set not to sort, so I guess it might be that which is making it appear odd? Harrias talk 07:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC) New Zealand list should now sort appropriately by name. South Africa, Sri Lanka and the West Indies all had a withdrawn player, which does not sort with the rest of the players, is this what is causing the apparent error? I have added a note in the key that the withdrawn players do not sort. Harrias talk 07:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC) That's possible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Good job! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support Zia Khan 17:14, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments from —Vensatry _{(Ping me)}

• Bowling styles could be linked to Types of bowlers in cricket
  • Done. Harrias ^talk 15:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
• Any reasons for not including Inns. and Bowl avg. in the table?
  

—Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 08:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Essentially just to stop the table from becoming too unwieldy, it is designed to be a bit of a quick reference, rather than an in-depth analysis. Harrias ^talk 15:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Leave Inns, but bowl avg. is definitely a significant parameter in these lists. The "stumpings" column hasn't got any significance here as it remains a null for most of the teams except Aus, Ind and Eng. You could merge both catches and stumpings in a single column and rename it accordingly and add a note. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• Simply put, I disagree. Merging catches and stumpings would mean the table wouldn't be sortable on stumpings, and while it may be a relatively minor statistic it is a very relevant one for wicket-keepers, and if the statistic is in the table, it should be sortable by. Bowling average in one-day cricket is actually, in my opinion, an unimportant statistic, economy and wickets taken give a much better summary of a bowler's performance. Harrias ^talk 16:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

• I never thought that way! you're right merging them would be a bad idea. List looks very fine.

• Support —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 04:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments Make accessdates all the same format. Maybe I'm being blind, but they all look the same format to me? Harrias talk 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Add a nice image for each nation if possible... I need to find a suitable one for England, but other than that, I think we are lacking appropriate images unfortunately. Harrias talk 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC) I've added an image for England, and one for South Africa too. There are none of Sri Lankan or West Indian players. Harrias talk 09:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC) 119 players from 8... I think it's fair to make that 119 from eight, because the items aren't comparable. Done. Harrias talk 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC) You link "Australia" to the country but "England" to the national cricket team. This is confusing and inconsistent. Maybe, but the tournament was held in the country of Australia, and the tournament was won by the cricket team England. I suppose I could just delink Australia as overlinking though? Harrias talk 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC) I've delinked Australia. Harrias talk 09:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Lead doesn't need four short paras. Merged to three paragraphs. Harrias talk 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Ref 4 isn't working for me but does it say that Oz "were commonly ranked " as favourites? Do you mean "bookies favourites" when you say "commonly ranked"? Unclear... It says "Australia, who have won five of the eight previous tournaments, start the favourites.." I suppose to support the "commonly" part, I should offer another source as well? Harrias talk 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC) I've reworded this slightly, and added another reference. Harrias talk 09:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC) Could re-work the lead so you introduce the teams, talk about their various members, then describe the results and the resulting commentary. Possibly, though I'm concerned that in doing so, I might go beyond the scope of this list, and struggle to keep things concise. Harrias talk 09:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC) "Finalists New Zealand had two representatives..." + "New Zealand's Sophie Devine was selected..." repetitive. Removed repitition. Harrias talk 06:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC) Some columns sort the en-dash as "less than zero", others don't. Be consistent. They should all sort the en-dash as "worst", so generally that is less than zero, but for economy (which is better the lower it is) it should sort high. Harrias talk 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia seems to refer to Chamani Seneviratna as Chamani Seneviratne. It does, but I thought it best to reflect the source. And to be honest, with Sri Lankan names, I think they just pick a different spelling every time. I don't mind changing it, but without doing a little research, I don't know which is more commonly used. Harrias talk 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC) You may fall foul of some pointy editors claiming that you've used a single source to reference most all of this list. If at all possible, go out and find some BBC or Daily Telegraph references just to mix it up a little. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I can probably throw a few CricketArchive sources for stats I suppose... Harrias talk 21:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC) I've beefed up the referencing slightly. Harrias talk 09:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I'd like to see some more of those redlinks turn blue hopefully someday soon. Otherwise, quite well organized and sourced. — Cirt (talk) 00:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hahc21 10:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC) [13].

---

List of songs recorded by Ashley Tisdale

Nominator(s): Decodet (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because after some hard work - and based on another list of songs that have been nominated to Featured list status - I feel this article now meets tne desired criteria and therefore should be promoted to Featured list. Decodet (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Underneath-it-All

* Add Time Inc. as the publisher in ref 1  Done. Decodet (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Ref 4: Billboard → [[Billboard (magazine)|''Billboard'']] → add Prometheus Global Media as the publisher  Done. Decodet (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Don't over wikilink items. Ex: Walt Disney Records  Done. Decodet (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Ref 13: iTunes Store (US). Apple → [[iTunes Store]] (US). [[Apple Inc.|Apple]]  Done. Decodet (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) I would change the table "Album" header to "Releases"  Done. Decodet (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) "Last Christmas" would be placed there instead of N/A (see List of songs recorded by Scissor Sisters) Promotional release → Degree  Done. Decodet (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Degree → [[Rexona|Degree]]  Done. Decodet (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) The lead needs a copy-edit. Many sentences sound awkward. A complete list of songs by the American actress, singer and songwriter Ashley Tisdale. She has recorded material for two studio albums, six soundtrack albums and promotional campaigns. → American actress, singer and songwriter Ashley Tisdale has recorded material for two studio albums, six soundtracks and promotional campaigns.  Done. Decodet (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) signed her for a recording contract in July 2006 and she started working on her debut album. Following that, Tisdale released her debut album, Headstrong in February, 2007. → signed her for a recording contract in July 2006. Tisdale then began to work on her debut studio album Headstrong, which was released in February 2007.  Done. Decodet (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Tisdale teamed with Degree in 2008 and to promote a deorodant, she recorded and released four covers of '80s hits and one from 1990 → In 2008, Tisdale recorded covers of popular songs from the 1980s and 90s to promote a deodorant produced by Degree.  Done. Decodet (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) The following year, Tisdale released her second studio album Guilty Pleasure, which had the tracks "It's Alright, It's OK" and "Crank It Up" released as singles. → The following year, Tisdale released her second studio album Guilty Pleasure. The tracks "It's Alright, It's OK" and "Crank It Up" were released as singles. She also worked as a co-writer on the album, contributing to the promotional...  Done. Decodet (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) – Underneath-it-All (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC) I have fixed everything! Thanks for your review. Decodet (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Dates should be consistent in the refs section. April 16, 2009 or 2009-04-16.  Done. Decodet (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC) The dates in ref. 2 still need to be fixed – Underneath-it-All (talk) 22:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC) Oh I missed that one, thanks.  Done Decodet (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Lightlowemon

Just out of curiosity this list would only include songs released on records/sound tracks right? It just seems odd since there are a fair few Phineas and Ferb songs missing from the list sung by Tisdale which would have had to obviously been recorded to be put into the episode. Just seems like something that stuck out to me. Since this is an unusual circumstance I'm not sure if there is any standard and I couldn't see any question of it on the talk page or not. --Lightlowemon (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Indeed she recorded a lot more songs for Phineas and Ferb but shouldn't a list of songs include only released material? Those tracks listed from P&B are the only ones that had any kind of official release if I'm not mistaken. Decodet (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Not necessarily, I've frequently seen lists like this (albeit I'm not sure they were featured) contain unreleased material, whether they be officially unreleased or just not on an album. Coming to mind includes List of songs recorded by Beyoncé Knowles and List of songs recorded by Westlife. Like I said, this is an unusual circumstance and I think warrants more input. I would personally like to see them included. I think there are 8 Phineas and Ferb CD's released + 1 karaoke CD (so anything wouldn't count). Might be worth double checking. I swear Candace Party was on one of them. I also noticed that A Dream Is a Wish Your Heart Makes is missing when Ashley Tisdale was a part of the Disney Channel Circle of Stars, this should definitely be included. --Lightlowemon (talk) 00:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Wow, I can't believe I missed "A dream", thanks for letting me know. I've searched Walmart and I found two more Phineas soundtrack albums: The Movie and the Holiday Especial so I've added Tisdale's songs off these albums. Later tonight I'm going to search on iTunes and see if there is any digital-only release that may have a Candance song included. If there is, I'm adding it as well. Decodet (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)  Done Added a couple more songs from the other soundtracks released on iTunes. Thanks for your comment! Decodet (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC) I've left a comment on the articles talk page, I still think the non soundtrack songs should be included, but if no one else things otherwise, don't feel obliged to, the list I put on the talk page can be used should they be released in the future. --Lightlowemon (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I'm content that this article is satisfactory for a FL, I did leave comments on the articles talk page that were addressed by the nominator. --Lightlowemon (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The various types of single releases are unsourced. Adabow (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done. They are sourced now. I didn't do it before because I've read some other featured list of songs like Katy Perry, Adele and Rihanna and any of them had the singles releases sourced and I was like "Well, maybe we don't need it because discographies don't source the singles either", that's why. But it's OK, it's done now. Decodet (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support, nice use of color, referencing, and free-use images, throughout. — Cirt (talk) 03:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

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