Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/January 2013

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 19:39, 28 January 2013 [1].

---

List of Billboard Social 50 number-one artists

Nominator(s):  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

The Billboard Social 50 is a popularity chart that ranks the most active musical acts on the world's leading social networking services. Its data, published by Billboard magazine and compiled by Next Big Sound, is based collectively on each act's weekly additions of friends, fans and followers, along with artist website views and song plays.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 19:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments an "important response" to "our changing times" - I'd change this to simply an "important response [to] our changing times", looks cleaner in November 2012 was later expanded - the word "later" is redundant here The first act to reach number-one - shouldn't be a hyphen in "number-one" It addition, he also - firstly, spot the typo, and secondly, you don't need to state both "in addition" and "also", as they mean the same thing Think that's it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Done everything, but I'm unsure about the whole hyphen in "number-one" thing. I see it written as both "number one" and "number-one", the former often being used for the title.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC) I'll let people weigh in about how they think it should be, as it effects the whole article, really.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC) "Number one" should take a hyphen when used as an adjective (eg "the number-one song" but not when used as a noun (eg "he reached number one") -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC) OH! Alright, that makes sense! Changed.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 18:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Fresh comment :-) Just noticed another one - you can't start a sentence with "five of which". Either combine it with the previous sentence or change it to "five of these"/"five of these artists" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC) I had five of the acts before (why you didn't notice anything wrong), and Hahc below told me to change it to which. I've corrected it now.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 16:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - all seems good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Hahc21

Resolved comments from — ΛΧΣ21 00:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

*"world's leading social networking services" According to who? According to Billboard.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC) "and song plays" streaming data would sound better for this, based on their own Billboard On-Demand Songs chart: "on-demand play request and plays from unlimited listener-controlled radio channels on leading music subscription services" Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC) " Five of the acts" --> "Five of which" Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Awful picture, but meh. Both Billboard and Nielsel Business media should be wikilinked on their first appearance in the references. Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC) Table is missing row scopes. That's all. — ΛΧΣ21 00:48, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support — ΛΧΣ²¹ 00:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you very much Hahc!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments "posthumously" is a dab link. Ref col doesn't need to be sortable. The "mid-table headings" shouldn't sort. "scope="row"| Selena Gomez" fix that. And "scope="row"| Justin Bieber" "Reached number-one" doesn't sort correctly. Nor does consecutive weeks. (I guess these are both a result of that "mid-table heading" rowspan naughtiness. Do you really need those four see also's since you have a template which links to the appropriate "social" pages? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC) I believe all the issues have been addressed. Except: There's nothing to actually be done about the mid-table headings. I saw in several other featured lists that they also go like that. And as for the template, all of the articles in there were merged to this article, and the template is currently at TfD. It's going to be deleted, so I'll just remove it now.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Well the moving mid-table headings should either stay static or be removed altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC) Alright, I have removed them.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments My main concern with this list is the lack of third-party references – with the exception of the Mashable link, the only source cited is Billboard, the publisher of the chart. Has there been any other commentary from sources unconnected with the Social 50? Google News's archives throw up a few non-Billboard sources – it might be worth having a look through them to see if the lead can be beefed up in any way, as, by my count, it currently comes to about 1580 characters, which would just barely be enough to get it through even DYK. Sorry but I fail to see why the DYK reference here. The lead should meet only the FLC criteria, even if it's barely long enough to be at DYK. This list is of a very specific topic wich has not been widely discussed by the media and has no big impact on the music scene. — ΛΧΣ21 04:33, 19 January 2013 (UTC) The Social 50's official webpage states that it lists "the most active artists on the world's leading social networking sites", rather than "acts". Could the list be renamed to reflect this? Originally, that is what the name of the titles were under before I touched them (I merged 4 articles together to create this one). I noticed that, yes. BUT, an artist generally refers to one person, and bands have also been included in the chart. So I think that using act is a much better choice and more accurate. But if you think that it should remain how Billboard states it, I'll change it.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I've always heard/used the term to refer to either individuals or groups. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Well, that's inaccurate. The dictionary states that an artist is "a person who works in one of the performing arts, as an actor, musician, or singer". You don't say "One Direction is a British artist", or "The Black Eyed Peas are American artists".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Both Billboard and Rolling Stone use "artists". Billboard's top new artist of 2012 was One Direction. The artist of the day on Rolling Stone is Yo La Tengo. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I've changed the article to use "artist" instead of "act".  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I wouldn't necessarily link "Popularity chart" to Record chart, as that particular article doesn't actually discuss popularity charts at all, or even tell the reader what they are. Unlinked.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Might be worth linking "posthumously" to its associated Wiktionary page, i.e. [[wiktionary:posthumously|posthumously]]. Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Bieber, Rivera, Perry, Gomex and Swift need to sort under their surname. Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Similarly, The Black Eyes Peas needs to sort under B. Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Ref -> Ref. Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I believe that, when referring to the highest position on a chart, it's "number one" rather than "number-one". In the lead? Yeah. The header of the second column too. Also might be worth moving the image of Rihanna to underneath the "Number-one artists" header, so that the Edit link isn't displaced. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Done; made the images smaller (also moved down).  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Support (with final comments) This list has improved considerably over the last week, and now meets the criteria by my estimation. Just a few final points:

• Might be worth centring the citations in the Ref. column.
• Make it clear in the image caption that Adele and Lady Gaga have spent 11 weeks at number one each.
• Current Billboard Social 50 chart --> Social 50 at Billboard

Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

• Done. Thank you very much!  — Statυs (talk, contribs)

• As for the references, I understand what you mean, but as you say yourself, there's only a few non-Billboard reports. I think it is best to keep it consistent. And additionally, most chart lists use the same references. And as for the lead, I'd normally agree, but since this is a list of every act that has hit number one, it will be updated weekly, which will cause some things in the lead to change. At the moment, the lead covers the most important things about the chart as of today.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 14:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• You are right that most chart lists just use the same source provider, but the ones that are featured lists are based on charts that have (or should have) coverage in third-party sources. These references shoud be added to this list or the article for Billboard Social 50 (although the two in terms of their leads aren't much different as they stand right now). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me}

• That's not accurate. There is no difference between the non-FL status chart lists and the FL-status chart lists except for the fact that they went through the the FLC process. All the references are the same. I'd like you to show me a featured article that replies fully on third-party sources, please. As for the Billboard Social 50 article, I'm not sure what this has to do with this FLC?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• I mention the Social 50 article because it has no third-party sources which give an indication to this chart's notability much less any significance of being number one on this chart. If the chart itself isn't notable (I'm not saying it isn't, it's just lacking the coverage to say that it is), what makes being number one on this chart notable? According to criteria 3 for featured lists, the list must meet all of the requirements for stand-alone lists including notability requirements. Per WP:NOTESAL, "a list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". What evidence is there that anyone cares who is number one on the Social 50? That's what is keeping this from being a featured list in my eyes. There seemed to be a lot of coverage when the chart was introduced and Rihanna being the first to top it ([2]), so incorporate some of those and you'll have something. Otherwise, the list is very well done and laid out and far superior to what existed before. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• I've added additional sources to the lead of the article.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 00:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I'm satisfied, so I'll leave it to those who know better to give this a final endorsement. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:59, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Starcheer!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 02:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

*Comments from Crisco 1492 Having the list cited to the chart itself is fine, although I'd expect to see third party coverage in the lede at least. Is it fine how it is now? What I mean is, I can't exactly cite the amount of weeks, for example, someone was atop the chart.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Looks okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC) You should have a way of indicating that certain artists topped the chart more than once (i.e. Justin Bieber is on there at least 8 times, but no indication that he is a repeat leader Well, it does state he appeared for 24 straight weeks, and he also had appeared for 53 weeks overall. Do you have a suggestion?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC) I was thinking something like this — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Just as a suggestion, you could include a No. column as in, say, this list. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 00:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Good idea. I'll add that.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Done!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC) Might be worth including an image of Rihanna. There are some pretty good ones Oh, that's right! I was going to add more images, but it split my mind. I'll look for a good one to add and add it to the article.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC) More later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Gave a copyedit, be sure to double check. Prose looks acceptable to me now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

• Looks good now, happy to support this nom on prose and images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Crisco!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 13:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. The list looks good and satisfies my standards. Good job! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 09:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks Tomica!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 13:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support: This is a great list which is of notable relevance in social media. It's well organized, straight forward and easy to read. Well done. Arre 16:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Wow, thanks Arre!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:35, 24 January 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 00:09, 26 January 2013 [3].

---

List of hill forts and ancient settlements in Somerset

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 17:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets the FL criteria. It is a long time since I've nominated anything here so if anything doesn't meet current standards let me know and I will do my best to fix them. Plans and pictures are only available for a few of the sites. There are a small number of redlinks - these are cases where there is enough evidence for them to be in the list but probably not enough material in reliable sources for a decent article. In terms of "comprehensiveness" this is difficult as archaeology experts are still arguing over some of the sites and there is always the chance of further sites before discovered, but I believe it covers all the sites for which strong current evidence exists.— Rod ^talk 17:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments your use of row scopes is interesting. They be formatted !scope=row| Athelney hill fort not |-!scope=row Not sure I see the relevance of the scheduled monuments bit in the lead, maybe I'm missing something? How did Alfred the Great hide a hill fort? Rather big thing to hide! A little clarification might be needed here ref 78 has some coding showing NapHit (talk) 13:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. I have reworded the bit about Alfred the Great hiding and added a bit of explanation in the lead about Scheduled Monuments - almost all the sites in the list have this designation so I think it is important to say why a Scheduling number is important. Ref 78 fixed. . I'm having real problems with your comment about the formatting of scope row. I have looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility but every time I remove the

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments - nice work. Could empty cells in the table e.g. in the scheduling number column, have en-dashes? Not sure why you have the mini-heading, nor why it's not in capitals while the first sentence of the para is? Is there a reason why "Site Name" isn't just "Site name"? Similar comment to "Scheduling Number". Bathampton Camp description is inconsistently centrally aligned. Scheduling number doesn't sort numerically. Is lake village likely to get an article? Site name format is different between first and second table. Please ensure consistent retrieval date formats are used for refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks for spotting these - it is amazing how close you get to an article & can no longer see these sorts of issues. I believe I have addressed your concerns with one exception: Site name format is different between first and second table. I can't see the formatting difference you are referring to.— Rod talk 19:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Ok, on my PC and my Mac, the first table has the site name in unbold, left aligned, the second table has it centrally aligned and bold. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Weird. On my screen (PC) they both look centered & equally bold with the rest of the columns headings. The code for the 1st table says !scope="col" style="width:160px;"|Site name<br />Alternative name(s) and on the second !scope="col" style="width:160px;"|Site name<br />Alternative name(s) which both look the same to me.— Rod talk 20:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Second wikitable class is missing plainrowheaders but it's fascinating that you see them the same on your set up but on my old XP machine and my Mac I see them differently...! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC) I've added plainrowheaders to the 2nd table & they still look the same to me - does it work for you? Also spotted "suspected" was missing from the title of the 2nd table.— Rod talk 20:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC) I switched the order of the code, check my last edit, and now it looks fine for me! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks - looks fine to me to - however I note you changed the title of the 2nd table to lower case presumably I should do this for the 1st table as well for consistency.— Rod talk 21:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah, sorry, missed that before. Stickler for resistance to becoming German Noun Wise. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC) I don't understand Your Last Comment - but I've done it anyway.— Rod talk 21:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC) No Problem, I think we've finished this Debate. I'll let Others check out my Comments, but then I'll Cap them. Good Work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• SuppOrT. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support: No problems found. You have a bunch of redirecting wikilinks, but they all seem intentional. Consider archiving your online sources with webcitation.org or web.archive.org, so that if the sites ever go down or remove the data your referencing, your references don't die with them. --PresN 19:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Epic work. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:15, 22 January 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 00:09, 26 January 2013 [4].

---

Air discography

Nominator(s): Holiday56 (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because having worked on the discography extensively, I believe that it may be ready to be promoted to featured list status. Holiday56 (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments by NapHit (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments looks good! "Moon Safari hit the top ten" hit is not exactly encyclopaedic language, perhaps reached instead? "spawned three singles" spawned is an odd word to use, again not really encyclopaedic would change this "Playground Love", the album's only single, peaked at number 25 in the UK.[1] the band's second studio album" spot the mistake here! NapHit (talk) 05:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC) All done. Holiday56 (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support meets the criteria NapHit (talk) 11:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments "Air performing in Strand, London in 2010" mostly it's referred to as "The Strand" but that's just a street in London, is this an image of Air playing in a high street? Updated caption. Holiday56 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Suitable link in the lead for "certified" would be nice. Done. Holiday56 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC) " "All I Need".[6][2]" prefer refs in numerical order. Done. Holiday56 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Do you really mean to link Le voyage dans la lune in the lead? I guess you mean Le voyage dans la lune (album)? Fixed link. Holiday56 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Don't like a one-entry sub-section 1.1.1 (there's no 1.1.2), would just merge or have it in its own section. Merged. Holiday56 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Could mention IRMA (and expand it) and its certification of Walkie Talkie as Gold? Done. Holiday56 (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Great work, I don't see anything that requires fixing!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Looks all fine to me – I see no major issues stopping this deserving to be promoted to featured status. I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 14:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support per above. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:08, 22 January 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 00:09, 26 January 2013 [5].

---

Theodore Sturgeon Award

Nominator(s): PresN 00:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey all, back again. Switching off from video games back to SF fiction award lists, we have here the Theodore Sturgeon award- given for science fiction short stories published in English anywhere in the world in the prior year. Not as well known, perhaps as the Hugo or Nebula awards, but bears the distinction that unlike those awards, the Sturgeon (and its novel counterpart, the Campbell) is decided not by a vote among fans or American SF authors, but by a small panel of the kind of SF authors who have Wikipedia articles. The format is, of course, pretty much identical to all of the prior dozens of SF lists I've put through here, and hopefully I've remembered to include all of the comments and suggestions made in prior FLCs. Thank you all very much for reviewing! --PresN 00:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments ", one of the leading authors of the Golden Age of Science Fiction from 1939 to 1950." Could do with a reference if its not already by the ref at the end of the para It's in that reference. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC) could link University of Kansas Already linked in the first sentence. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC) so it is! Don't how I missed that! NapHit (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC) "During the 26 nomination years, 154 authors have had works nominated" would change one of the uses of nomination, reads a bit uneasily having them in close succession. Done. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 05:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Replied inline. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Excellent work as always by PresN! NapHit (talk) 13:09, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments from Crisco 1492 "his heirs, including his widow, Jayne Sturgeon, and James Gunn, Director of the Center for the Study of Science Fiction." - The way this is written it sounds like Gunn was his heir. Two strategically placed mdashes or ndashes would help here. Done. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC) In a word, who's Christopher McKitterick? Added- he's the current Director of the center. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC) University of Kansas in Lawrence, Kansas, - Do you need the second Kansas? Seems not. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC) If the list is sortable, shouldn't the author's names all be linked? Sortability has nothing to do with linking all authors- just that every instance of an author that is linked should be, rather than just some nebulous "first" link. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Hadn't realised they don't all have articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Are all the winners notable (i.e. should they be redlinked?). Authors? Yes, I suppose they should be. All winning works/authors linked. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Foundation is a dab link Whoops, fixed. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC) File:Theodore Sturgeon Award permanent trophy.jpg is a 3D non-architectural non-functional work, and thus would not fall under the freedom of panorama exception in the US. I've nominated it for deletion, but a fair-use image would be acceptable. Well, if it gets deleted, I'll move it to en-wiki as fair use. --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC) I've copyedited, be sure to check — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Replied inline, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Missed one. 2008 had two winners? Any back story? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC) None that I've found, they just decided to award a tie that year. --PresN 23:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Image is still up for deletion, but would be valid for FU — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments Per WP:YEAR, not need to repeat the century in a year range if it's the same. Done. --PresN 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Who was/is James Gunn? Without an article it's hard to understand why he would be on the original jury. He's linked in the first paragraph? Where it also mentions that he was the director of the center that gives out the award? He's also an author, editor, and sci-fi historian. --PresN 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC) "are submitted " how? By post? Internet? Any ideas? The sources don't say- but given that on another page on their website they list the names of people who nominated works for the past few years and I recognize every single one of them, I suspect it's "however they want to" as they're all meeting each other at conferences and talking to each other on the phone and over email all the time anyway. The nominations might be "open" to readers, but it seems to me that it's really only open to people who are big names in the field already. --PresN 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Infobox: "The best short science fiction published in English in the prior calendar year" short what? Done. --PresN 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Our own article on Lightspeed Magazine calls it simply Lightspeed... I'll be having a word with the script I wrote to build these tables about that. Done. --PresN 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Otherwise, excellent as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC) One of these days I'll post an FLC and you won't have any problems with it at all! But that day is not today. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:56, 4 January 2013 (UTC) That day is the day I hang up my FLC boots! Your submissions are great, and I just make tinkering suggestions, nothing is ever fundamental. Well done again, and thanks for addressing my concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Good work. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Quick comment – It looks like the image mentioned above has been deleted. This has left a red link to the photo in the infobox; if the image is not brought back under fair use, this link should be taken out. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 22 January 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 00:09, 26 January 2013 [6].

---

List of literary works published in Asia Raja

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it's a solid look at the literary works published in what was, for a time at least, the dominant newspaper in what is now Indonesia. This is a little more in line with my major, but different than my previous nominations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments another nice niche piece, I so much love getting this sort of thing through from time to time! I'm a complete novice in the subject and the context, but is it fair to suggest that " Japanese overlords" is somewhat more evocative than necessary? Happy to be shown wrong here by the way. Kinda stuck on the terminology here. I can't think of another term that evokes "military occupiers of a country or state who do not colonise said country or state; usually use force against the indigenous peoples." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC) "Keimin Bunka Sidosho" I guess you should clarify this is Indonesian? Japanese, actually. Added. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC) "The single most-published writer in Asia Raja was Rosihan Anwar" perhaps note that he was a native? Can't think of a way of doing it gracefully. "a native and recent high school graduate"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC) "the tables are arranged alphabetically by title" add "initially" here. Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC) No need for the Note column to be sortable. Dur, dealt with. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Not one single one of these literary works is notable enough to sustain its own article. Fewer than half of the authors have links or articles. I'm sorry to ask, but is there a justification to collate together a group of non-notable literary works in this way? Close to half, perhaps. Those I've linked are pretty much 100% certain to have enough references available to support an article. As for justification, the list is too long for the parent article to hold it (and thus passes 3b). I don't think we have anything of the exact same scope yet, but there are comparable articles: the songs in List of songs in Guitar Hero II and the like do not derive notability from their inclusion in the game (and outside a certain fan base this kind of cataloguing may be of very little interest); List of Claymore chapters and similar manga lists do not have a single blue-linked entry. Numerous lists have fewer than half blue-linked titles, including such recent promotions as Maya Angelou bibliography. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I would make column widths the same for each column from section to section. Coding is for the same width, don't know why/if it's showing up different sizes for you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments. Glad you like getting a "niche pieces" every once in a while. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - I quite liked this list, and didn't see anything wrong with it. I too like seeing lists that aren't discographies or sports-related pop up. I'd prefer if "Unknown" authors didn't sort under "U", but I couldn't find a good way to do it. Thanks for archiving your online references! --PresN 19:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support! Unknown authors could be supported using {{sort|.|Unknown}}, but then we'd lose the grey background. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The sentence says, " Instead, writers hoping to be published had to focus on positive themes in an effort to instill positive traits in society; by the end of the occupation, this meant a nationalistic struggle.". However, Asia Raja was for Japanese propaganda. So, how can writers be forced to focus on something that by the end of occupation came on to mean nationalistic struggle? May be I am reading it wrongly.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• You're reading it correctly, and it's written correctly. You'd have to read the end of Japanese occupation of Indonesia to get a good understanding of that. By mid-1945 the Japanese leadership recognised that they would not win the war and would be forced to withdraw from Indonesia (among others). Rather than give the archipelago (and its resources) back to the Dutch, they supported Indonesian nationalism. This ensured that the Dutch would either lose their control over the resources there, or waste many resources fighting a war with the Indonesians. As such, Indonesian nationalism was still, at least partially, in the Japanese interest. Check out Proclamation of Indonesian Independence to see the Japanese role in that event; it sure wasn't insignificant. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Aha, now I understand. Thanks for the explanation. I was completely unaware of this. However, I—as an uninitiated reader—did think wrongly. So, don't you think a description (nationalistic struggle against Dutch) or, at least, appropriate wikilink, is needed?--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Added a link, later I'll take a look at the books I have at home for sourcing a footnote — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Added a footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Undstood. I support this list to be a featured one. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support Crisco always makes good lists. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks Hahc! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:00, 22 January 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 00:09, 26 January 2013 [7].

---

List of Prime Ministers of Pakistan

Nominator(s): Zia Khan 12:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I worked on the list for more than 2 months and it also went through a PR. This is my first nomination at this topic, I don't know how it'll do at FLC but I feel that it meets the standards. Comments and suggestions from anyone are appreciated, as always. Thanks, Zia Khan 12:24, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

*Link Pakistan the first time round. Linked. "in country's history " the country's history. Done. Is it " Pakistan Peoples Party" or " Pakistan People's Party"? Changed. "Birth–Death" no need for capital D on Death. Done. What does "portrait" mean when half the images are flags? Flags removed. Why are the flags right-aligned? As above. Check use of en-dash in the full date ranges, e.g. should "7 October 1958–7 December 1971" really be "7 October 1958 – 7 December 1971"? Done. "from 1970 till 1972" "...to 1972". Fixed. "the first woman elected" the "first woman" link here is a little bit WP:EASTEREGG for me. Done. "under the article 58-2b," no need for "the" here. Removed. Don't SHOUT in the refs, e.g. check ref 53. Fixed. New York Times should be The New York Times. Done. Who is the publisher of The Dawn? Done. Zia Khan 04:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Check the timeline meets WP:ACCESS since you're only using colours for certain properties. Still not sure about this one how to deal with this? Colours should not be used alone to convey a property. You need to use symbols in addition. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Done. Zia Khan 22:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC) "during the Operation Fair Play in " -> "during Operation FairPlay"... According to our article at Wikipedia No, don't have "the" here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Removed. Zia Khan 22:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 13:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

*Comments Is it possible to delink "Post Abolished" in the "Timeline" section? Or simply remove "Post Abolish" and just leave a black line (as you have the key describing what it means) Done. Is it possible to cut File:Mujib-Suhra.gif, to avoid the noting who is who? Also that picture could be bigger. Done. You could include the original title of non-English sources. No, I would prefer this one, for consistency. Ref 6, should be "Encyclopaedia Of India Pakistan & Bangladesh" according to Gbooks Done. Ref 7, should be "Pakistan: Zia and After". There may be more such mistakes.--Tomcat (7) 22:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Done and thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 04:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC) I am busy in real life, and after a quick look I still see some minor mistakes or inconsistencies in the references. For example, in reference 59, you wrote "Oct" instead of "October". And Post Abolished should not be in capitals, since both words are not proper nouns. Decapitalize both words and suggest putting them inside brackets. In the tables, "Assassinated" should be "assassinated". Colours should be checked against WP:ACCESS, though it is difficult as you did not use colour codes. The symbols must be also accessible. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 16:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC) Fixed the references, decapitalised the words, the colours I used are actually party colours and the symbols are now accessable. Zia Khan 01:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Personally, I'm not liking the mix of colours and symbols. I find them somewhat overused as a result of the high amount of parties involved. Anyways, per my principle of how lists always need a smile, I won't argue against it. Good job. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you and happy new year. Zia Khan 17:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose – Prose in the lead isn't too bad, but the notes in the table need a lot of work, mainly to reduce overcapitalization. There are also some reference formatting issues that should have been caught earlier. The good news is that the issues shouldn't be hard to fix, for the most part. "Of twenty-two Prime Ministers who have held office since 1947, seventeen have elected by the National Assembly". Needs "been" after "have". This should be "been", not "baen" as the article has now. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Done. Zia Khan 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC) In the photo caption in the lead, is "flag" missing? "Standard of the Prime Minister of Pakistan" doesn't make much sense on its own. Prime Ministers: In the Liaquat Ali Khan entry: "presented" needs capitalization as the first word of its sentence. Period after the last word of that entry shouldn't have a space before it. Muhammad Ali Bogra: Note could use "A" at the start. Also, the "a" later in the first sentence could be removed. These issues both remain. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Done. Zia Khan 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Now "Relatively" needs decapitalization. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry for that, fixed now. Zia Khan 00:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Nurul Amin: First comma should be a semi-colon instead. "leading Pakistan in Indo-Pakistani War of 1971." Needs "the" after "in". Zulfikar Ali Bhutto: Decapitalize "Nuclear". Muhammad Khan Junejo: Replace "also" with "the". Benazir Bhutto: Decapitalize second word of "Muslim World" and add "the" before it. Three other words need decapitalization in the next sentence of this note. Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi: Here, "Caretaker" doesn't need the capitalization. Same for Balakh Sher Mazari, Moeenuddin Ahmad Qureshi, and Malik Meraj Khalid. The capitalization is still there in Khalid's entry, although it's gone from the others. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Fixed. Zia Khan 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC) In Mazari's note, the last word should also be decapitalized. Also, "Government" shouldn't be capitalized in Khalid's note. Nawaz Sharif: "Sharif was re-elected as Prime Minister the exclusive mandate from all over the Pakistan...". Needs a re-write. I'd tell you how, but am not entirely sure what the meaning is. Was it that he had a mandate from Pakistanis? His party won 137 seats out of 207. Zia Khan 00:13, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Drop "the" from "from all over the Pakistan" and it should be workable now. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Removed. Zia Khan 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Also, "Government" again needs de-capitalization in this note. "and the Martial law was imposed in the entire country." First "the" isn't needed and can be removed without affecting meaning or ruining the grammar. I actually think this is grammatically better without the first "the". Shaukat Aziz: "who left seat after completion of parliamentary term." Needs "the" before "seat". Yousaf Raza Gillani: "Gillani was elected after in March 2008 after the elections." There's an excess "after", but I'm curious as to how he could be elected after elections. Wouldn't he have been elected in the elections? In ref 30, instead of having "pp. 1657 onwards", it would be better to just give a page range, even if it's a large one. Also, there is a double period that just having a regular range would fix. The ISBN isn't showing up as a link in ref 40. A page number would be nice for ref 48, in case the book ever gets pulled from Google Books. I know the page numbers that are avaliable for previewing can change over time. Still needs a page number, if possible. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Added. Zia Khan 05:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC) There are also inconsistencies over whether one of the websites is titled History of Pakistan or Story of Pakistan. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Note: User:Ahmed 313-326 destroyed the whole list, I've reverted his edits and will respond to your concerns ASAP. Thanks, Zia Khan 22:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Your concerns have been resolved, thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 00:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 20:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Oppose – on referencing style. I've not gone through the prose. But a look at the references reveal that there are a lot of formatting errors: Refs #4 #8, #13, #45 have no publisher information; check for others too Ref #20 is incomplete, there are a few more Formatting error not showing ISBN in ref #40; publisher=Google Books? Then what should be the publisher here? Zia Khan 06:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Oxford University Press. Also the date is wrong. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Removed, this is alreardy covered with ref at the end. Zia Khan 17:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC) The Dawn -> Dawn (newspaper) Publisher for Dawn should be "Pakistan Herald Publications" Does "insider.pk" qualify as WP:EL? For continuous page nos. i.e., pages=1657 onwards. it should be formatted as pages=1657– You've linked BBC News in refs #1, #9 and #21 but not in others I'm concerned about the reliability of "storyofpakistan.com", a majority of the article depends upon it. —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Note: User:Ahmed 313-326 destroyed the whole list, I've reverted his edits and will respond to your concerns ASAP. Thanks, Zia Khan 22:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Your concerns have been resolved. Of course, storyof pakistan.com is a reliable cite , thanks for the comments. Zia Khan 00:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC) I'm still not convinced. In what do you say it's reliable? is it a govt. published source or a site run by some reputed news agencies. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC) This is a govt cite which publishes the political history of Pakistan. Zia Khan 17:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC) It's definitely not a Govt-owned website. The domain should be ".pk" if it's a site maintained by the Pak Govt. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:00, 9 January 2013 (UTC) This is a govt cite or mainained by the govt, I don't know, I only know that this is reliable one. Look at the lis at ru:Wikipedia and why do you think that this is unreliable? Zia Khan 07:37, 9 January 2013 (UTC) It's not really up to the reviewer to prove a source unreliable, more it's up to you to prove it is reliable. And whatever goes on at Russian Wikipedia is really irrelevant to our own quality standards I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC) How can I prove that it is reliable or not? I can only say that it is Pakistani political website. Zia Khan 12:32, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Take a look at our policy on reliable sources. It gives you some ideas on what constitutes such. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Than its reliability is proved, have a look here and here. Zia Khan 12:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC) The link you provided only shows the list of refs. they have used for content making. WP:RSN might be the best place to ask. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC) The links I provided and this one say exactly what reliable sources (The piece of work itself, the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work.) is! So, I don't think I should ask at WP:RSN. Zia Khan 17:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC) I don't see any reliability of the work itself or the creators. None of them look like professional editors. Looks like a self-publishing source. —Vensatry (Ping me) 16:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC) "The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself , the creator of the work, and the publisher of the work." This is the definition of a source, and what is a self-publishing source? Zia Khan 22:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Hey, I've replaced the "Story of Pakistan" with "Daily Times". I hope this'll be sufficient to convince you! Zia Khan 07:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not going to support or oppose the candidate since I don't have enough time to review the prose and table. As for the references, I'm fully satisfied with the work. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 20:10, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments "as a Prime Minister" "He, during his two terms, remained in the office for the longest period." Think this sentence could be more specific and worded better, would say how long he was in office "Of twenty-two Prime Ministers who have held office since 1947 ," no space between 1947 and comma "on Kashmir conflict" the after on "He made the constitution of Pakistan..." Did he make it himself? I doubt this, needs rewording for accuracy Fixed all! Zia Khan 15:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 13:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

*Source review Ref 7, should be Pakistan: Zia and After Ref 8 does not include the title you noted ("Muhammad Khan Junejo Becomes Prime Minister (1985–88)) Ref 14, title should be " Raja Pervaiz Ashraf Is Pakistan's New Prime Minister " Ref 16, should be Pakistan: The Eye of the Storm Ref 17, should be Pakistan in Crisis, publisher is Psychology Press Ref 18, put the date (20 November 2011) Ref 19, add the date (1 June 2003) Ref 42, title should be Pakistan: The Struggle Within, what you indicated is a chapter (user chapter= and put it there) Ref 46, ditto Ref 58, nowhere do I see the date 21 October 2012, but rather "Last Updated: Friday, July 30, 2004" How reliable is Story of Pakistan?--Tomcat (7) 21:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Fixed all! Replaced the "Story of Pakistan" with "Daily Times". Zia Khan 07:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support--Tomcat (7) 13:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment please consider uploaded new, cropped versions of the photographs so that they can be more visible. Also, that timeline in the end is ghastly and serves absolutely no purpose; it does not aid in visualising the tenures (if that were indeed the purpose). Please remove it.—indopug (talk) 08:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have their free images. You can add if you have, timeline section removed. Thanks, Zia Khan 12:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the removal, but it appears another user has re-added the timeline.
• I didn't mean to add new images; just that take the existing ones, and upload one with a closer crop around the face. This way the prime ministers' faces can be easily visible without clicking on the images. For eg: while working on Minister of Home Affairs (India), I replaced this image of Chidambaram with a cropped version I made.—indopug (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• If other users re-add this than there shouldn't be a problem. Cropped some images, BTW. Zia Khan 21:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support - alright, now that the above concerns have been dealt with, I'm fine in supporting this list. There were some minor issues with dates in a few references which I've taken care of myself. Consider archiving your online sources with web.archive.org or webcitation.org; while optional, it ensures that if the websites ever go down or remove the information you're citing, your references won't die with them. --PresN 20:10, 21 January 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 00:09, 26 January 2013 [8].

---

John Le Mesurier on stage, radio, screen and record

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC) and Cassianto^Talk 10:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

With appearances in over 100 films, plus an extensive stage and television repertoire, John Le Mesurier was a tireless character actor who appeared in some of the most well-known films of the twentieth century, but is perhaps best known for his portrayal of Arthur Wilson in the BBC television comedy Dad's Army. This record of his professional work has recently been split away from the main "Le Mez" page as it was out of place there and not a full reflection of his work. Aside from that, we are now nominating this for featured list status because we believe that it now satisfies the criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments just a few quick ones, I hate to see nominations without any comments... Check for Peter Sellers copy-and-paste errors....(!) Oops! Now done - SchroCat (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Lead image caption, very rare to see it centrally aligned. (But a perfect photo...) But not disallowed right? Not to sure about FLC, but for FA I have done it with all of my FAC's which have passed without so much as a mention. -- CassiantoTalk 22:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Well no, but try to adopt a common style. The Rambling Man (talk) No worries, done. -- CassiantoTalk 22:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Check WP:YEAR e.g. 1912–1983 should be 1912–83... I have chose to use the full date of birth as it is more precise. -- CassiantoTalk 22:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC) How can that be more precise? He's unlikely to have lived until 2083 is he?! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Precise inasmuch that the full dates are there. It was not an attempt to clarify that he was 71 and not 171 years old, obviously. Aesthetically, it is better IMO and, who knows, it may prevent someone clicking off to the main article to find an *exact* date when they could stay here to find out that information should the wish to know it. Would you prefer the year range version? Well, full dates weren't there, but now they are, leave them as is. Looks better. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC) My thoughts entirely. -- CassiantoTalk 22:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC) "He is best remembered for his role" reference or just your opinion? Ref now added - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Link BBC first time in the lead. Done. -- CassiantoTalk 22:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Palladium Theatre (Edinburgh) isn't even mentioned in our dab page, perhaps that needs updating. Now added onto the list. - SchroCat (talk) 06:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Link "captain" appropriately. Done. -- CassiantoTalk 22:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC) You explain what BAFTA means two paras after using it. Seems arse about face to me. Removed the first reference to it: it was too cumbersome to expain it fully in the opening sentance, so the full info is now the first one. - SchroCat (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC) A lot of blank cells for "Role"... why? Because the sources don't provide details. The main source, plus Le Mez's autobiography plus an extensve media search didn't fill in the blanks at all. - SchroCat (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Would be nice to have tables with same column widths rom section to section where same/similar headings apply. Done where appropriate: there is some difference between the 4 and 5 column tables, but these should now be more uniform - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Not sure you need his own valedictory jammed in the discog section. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC) I did test putting under the lede image but it looked too info boxey and repetitive with the last paragraph. SchroCat is likeminded with its deletion. -- CassiantoTalk 23:07, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Well since you've mentioned it in the text anyway, I'm not sure it's required. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Not at all keen on references being attached to the table captions, but I suppose without introductory paras for each section, you have little choice........ Would small introductions be more preferable? -- CassiantoTalk 22:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC) As a personal preference, yes. But I'm just one reviewer. I think it's always better to introduce sections rather than just have table after table.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC) I agree with this. We will draught some things up. -- CassiantoTalk 23:00, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Would you also be happy if they appeared at the top of the first column title (as we did with Sellers)? - SchroCat (talk) 04:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Don't see a problem with that. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Great: now changed as above. (I don't know why io varied from the Sellers format for that - seems a bit obvious in hindsight!) Cheers RM, and thanks for your always-appreciated thoughts. - SchroCat (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC) I second that. A good thorough review as always. -- CassiantoTalk 18:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC) You're always welcome. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 17:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments Shouldn't the dates be sorted chronologically? You could centre his name in the picture's caption See above for the previous reviewer's comments not to centre it. - SchroCat (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC) There is an odd error next to "Don't Bother to Knock" Done - SchroCat (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC) In the discography section, shouldn't "Warner Bros." link to "Warner Bros. Records"? Done. - SchroCat (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC) "Dr." or "Dr"? Likewise "Mr." und "Mr", or was it made intentionally?--Tomcat (7) 00:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Both Dr & Mr are written correctly in British English in not carrying the full stop. Where the films or the roles are shown in the sources in the American form we have followed them. (Thus the film Mr. Topaze carries the full stop because that's how it was released). - SchroCat (talk) 04:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support--Tomcat (7) 17:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Tomcat - your thoughts and support are much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Yes thanks a lot for the great review. -- Cassianto^Talk 18:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

Comments from Crisco 1492 Image's current FUR is inadequate. This is not "at the top of his/her biographical article". I question the need for an image at all, to be honest, if we don't have a free one (I didn't use one at Chrisye discography or List of songs recorded by Chrisye, for instance) Sadly removed - SchroCat (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC) "light entertainment" - The article light entertainment gives a very different definition. Double check which is correct. It's an awful and uncited article. I'll try and get a good back up for this one, or at least drop a better definition into the other article. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC) See this academic study for a more appropriate definition of LE. (Just by way of background, the definition is vague and originally covered what came under the BBC Light Entertainment department, which seems to have covered most things! It has since broadened into general use). - SchroCat (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC) And sadly I can't view it. It appears common enough in British English, so no problems here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC) "including film, radio and theatre. Le Mesurier's career on stage, radio, film, television and record ..." - Repetition much? Certainly is: I've trimmed accordingly. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC) "The Marvellous History of St Bernard" - Marvelous... but can you tell us anything about the production? Stage drama or TV show? Who's the author? Further details now added. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Citation needed tags. Both now dealt with - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC) "... in over 100 films, all of which were in supporting roles;" - The films were in supporting roles? I've offered an alternative Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC) That's a lot of info about his death when it has very little to do with his career. Perhaps instead of that you could offer us some of his best-received works. Being a supporting player most of the time, he didn't come to the attention of the critics most of the time (not really with anything workable for the lead). I could offer some of their words that appeared in his various obituaries, around his style of acting and place in cinema. Would that suit? - SchroCat (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC) That would be much more appropriate, I think. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Re-worked final para in lead to bring out Le Mez's approach to acting, and how he was viewed by critics on his death, while still covering basic details of death. Please feel free to ce if you think it's too much. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC) References look fine to me (no action required) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Many thanks for your thoughts Crisco - it's much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2012 (UTC) I've trimmed a bit. Wadya think? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Much better!. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support on prose. Looks solid! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Great news to hear of your support. Your review has been much appreciated as always! -- Cassianto^Talk 18:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments Seems to be on a par with the Sellers list, nice work. Just have a few comments: The first sentence of the second paragraph mentions twice that Le Mesurier portrayed Seigneur de Miolans – I'd get rid of the second mention. Quite right: now removed. - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I'd put colons after "saying" and "were", then move the full stops inside the quotation marks. Done on one, the other is an MOS:LQ - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC) An Inspector Calls needs to sort under I, and The Hanging Judge needs to sort under H. Done - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC) "Dad's Army Special," or "Dad's Army, Special"? The former makes more sense to me, personally. I agree - now done. - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC) "Got To Go" -> "Got to Go" Also now done - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Much as I hope I'm wrong, I'm assuming that that's a typo next to "Series 9"? Thanks for the horrible image that is now seared on my mind! ;) Thanksfully six is now in place - SchroCat (talk) 17:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Other than that, it all looks good. Incidentally, I've got my own FLC: HMV's Poll of Polls. If you have the time, I welcome any comments on it. Thanks very much! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 15:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC) A thousand thanks, a thousand doors. I'll pop over to HMV shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC) I have been a bit vacant on this for which I am sorry. Too many tasks, not enough time in the day. Thanks for your review Thousand Doors, your support here is much appreciated. -- CassiantoTalk 18:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC) Might be worth wikilinking "light entertainment". It might also be worth linking "wartime service" to something, although I can't offhand think what an entirely appropriate target would be. Military history of the United Kingdom during World War II, maybe? Done the first - I'll have a hunt to see if there's a better page for the second, but use your suggestion if not. - SchroCat (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC) On second thoughts, ignore my suggestion – I don't think that link would work well at all. Perhaps just linking "wartime" to World War II would be sufficient. No probs - now done. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC) WP:ISBN suggests using the 13-digit ISBNs, which, for A Jobbing Actor, would be 978-0-241-11063-8. Nice spot - now altered - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC) "Fifty Years Of Hancock" -> "Fifty Years of Hancock" Done - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Any particular reason why Quinlan's illustrated directory of film character actors uses sentence case rather than title case? Only my inattention to detail! Now sorted. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC) A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support No other issues that I can see. Obviously some images would be nice, but if there are no suitable free images available then there's not much that you can really do. Nice work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 14:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• That's great: Many thanks indeed! I's also love to see some images there, but the relevant ones aren't free and the free ones aren't relevant, sadly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support I don't like how the paragraphs are organized, but that's me being nitpicky. And by the way, why a picture of John Le Mesurier (Like this one) is not used? it can be of great value to have a picture of him there. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  That picture is being used under fair use and it wouldn't apply to this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

  Okay. Fair enough. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your support. I'd love to have that pic on the page - and a few others dotted throughout, but without supporting text to discuss etc, it doesn't get over the threshold of fair use. Unfortunately Le Mez is in that time period where his works are all still well within copyright, but before people took decent pics on cameras or phones at premieres, or in the street etc. I've left a begging note with Allan warren to see if he has anything, but unless something crops up later it'll be an image-free zone unfortunately. - SchroCat (talk) 20:06, 22 January 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 00:11, 19 January 2013 [9].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Graham Gooch

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

It's been a long time since I "exposed myself" to the FLC community with a list of my own, so I thought it about time that I gave everyone a chance to get their own back on me with the same nit-picky comments I usually trot out in every review...! So, here it is. I remember watching Graham Gooch as a reasonably young person, and his various odd records (like the handling the ball thing, and his cool 333 against India), not to mention his obviously positive input to the current England cricket team made me inspired to get this list up and out there. Unlike Kevin Pietersen and Alastair Cook, Gooch played in a era when there weren't dozens and dozens of Tests every year, so his record is pretty impressive. Anyway, I ramble on. Here it is, for your delight and delectation. I fully expect a rough time from the community! Thanks, as ever, for all of your time and energy. (Incidentally, if anyone can find another nice, free image of Goochie, that would be lovely!!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments "Graham Alan Gooch" shouldn't be bolded since this isn't the parent article; instead link the main article. Fair enough, linked him with his common name unbolded. The Rambling Man (talk) "one of 25 players in history to have scored over 100 first-class centuries" needs a source. Sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC) "making a pair" refers to duck in the cricketing context. Not sure why you want to say "making a pair of ducks" even after linking both. Just so non-cricketing experts don't get the impression he scored a pair of centuries.... subtle but important I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Fine. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC) You've included "No result" in the key, but I could not find that anywhere else in the article. Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Any reason for not linking the cities in the table. Avoiding linking common geographical terms. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC) It's true for places like London, but not sure about Nottingham, Birmingham, Port of Spain, etc., —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Well, it's horses for courses. I know Nottingham and Birmingham well, others may know Chennai and Bridgetown etc. Would you prefer I link everything every time? I'm not getting into a debate about whether London shouldn't be linked but Barbados should, for instance. What, in your mind, are the rules on this kind of linking? For me it's all or nothing. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 3 January 2013 (UTC) His 19th century was made against Australia and the score was 120. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC) The Pos. and Inn. entries for 13th, 14th an 18th are incorrect. I'd suggest you to thoroughly check all the entries once more. Fixed, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC) While sorting the table (ODI) by descending order, 115 (136) should sort before 115 (159). Fixed, mind you that's something I'll need to look at in all these lists.... that strike rate is an invisible secondary sort. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Why "Queen's Park Oval, Port of Spain, Trinidad" and no country names for other entries in both tables. Made consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC) I can still see "Kensington Oval, Bridgetown, Barbados" and "Sabina Park, Kingston, Jamaica". Also "Chepauk" is a locality in Chennai. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Sure, but Kingston is a name for many places, I've taken a stance to link down to the town/city, but not the country. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC) His ODI scores of 117 and 112 were unbeaten. Fixed, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2013 (UTC) —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Many thanks Vesantry for your quick and astute comments. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Meets the standards. Excellent work with the prose in particular. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Goodraise 01:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments Why include his post-nominal letters? Shouldn't it be enough to have them in the linked main article? Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC) The opening paragraph should be rewritten. I'd expect to see both his name and the word centuries in the first sentence, because that's what this article is about. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Avoid the word currently. Just state when he took the position or use an as of (or similar) construct, so the article won't be wrong the day he gets fired or quits. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Row scopes should be unique. Using century number or date would probably make more sense. Well, the item of interest is the century score. I'd like to hear from screen reading users to see if changing the target makes sense. Also, I'm not sure that makes any sense. If a table had a row where every item was duplicated bar one, e.g. the date (say the score was the same, the location was the same etc), why would it make sense to suddenly make the row scope of the entire list dependent on that row? And if then you had another pair of rows where a different item was the same, what would you do then? If there was no "century number" (which sometimes I think is redundant anyway) and two centuries were scored on the same date, what then? If you insist, though, I'll change the scope. This could, however, impact on just about every featured list in Wikipedia, so I guess we should go with caution. I think this suggests that all tables on Wikipedia must have a singular unique visible identifier on every line of every table.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC) It's not my intention to set any kind of precedent. I don't understand the underlying problematic and mechanics well enough to even think about attempting to do so. I'm just trying to anticipate the needs of someone browsing this particular list with a screen reader. The way I understand it, such a user might not be interested in every piece of information in the table and request a particular column to be read. To put things in context, that user might have the rowscope cells read alongside. Assuming a user wants to know where the centuries happened, he or she might, in line twelve, hear "116 Old Trafford Cricket Ground, Manchester". To the question "which century is this talking about?", "116" would be an ambiguous answer. Giving the date instead would be an unambiguous answer, at least until the table is changed to include duplicate dates. Using a unique identifier for row scopes, even if it's just something as arbitrary as a "century number", would—provided I'm understanding this right—allow the user to stop output once a particular century piques his or her interest, navigate to it (using the unique identifier), and have it read completely. In any case, don't just make changes because I "insist". If you find my line of reasoning unconvincing, we should maybe bring in someone with more expertise. Goodraise 01:20, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Goodraise 18:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC) I'm just not sure that we now need to introduce an arbitrary column of data (okay, so it exists in this case, but in others it may well not) which is exclusively to provide a unique entry in every row for the row scope. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks, as ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Can't say I'm happy about the delinking of CricketArchive. Why not give our readers that little bit of help in determining the reliability of the source? (Personally, I'd like the references in general to be a little bit more inclusive, but I suppose that's just me.) Well, the reason it was delinked because it was the only one linked and someone didn't like that either. Would you prefer every publisher/work to be linked? Otherwise it's a "can't please all the people all the time" situation I think... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC) I still think the opening paragraph reads too much like that of a person's main article. Suggestion: "During his international cricket career spanning nearly two decades, Graham Gooch, who captained Essex and England, scored 28 centuries, 20 in Test and 8 in One Day International (ODI) matches." Well I think I'll agree to disagree. I think lists like this are improved in value if they provide a context to the subject matter and don't simply launch into discussing a some chap who scored things called centuries. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC) The rest of the prose could also use a few more tweaks. A few examples: "He was one of the most successful ... of his generation" – Do things like that ever change? Not unless you want to imply that he's dead. Okay, fixed. "he is the full-time batting coach" – Awkward construct. It's supposed to mean that he serves as batting coach on a full-time basis, right? Yep, in BritEng/AusEng/IndEng we say just that, as per the BBC, Cricinfo, Wisden, The Daily Telegraph, Sydney Morning Herald, Reuters etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC) "Gooch made his Test debut in July 1975, making a pair of ducks against Australia at Edgbaston. His first Test century came five years later, when he scored 123 against the West Indies at Lord's in June 1980." – Dreadfully unengaging. How about: "Five years after his Test debut, making a pair of ducks against Australia at Edgbaston in July 1975, he scored his first Test century with 123 runs against the West Indies at Lord's in June 1980." Funny, once again it's horses for courses. I had complaints of sentences that were too long and now they're too short! I've tried reorganising it along the lines you've suggested... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC) I suppose I'm partial to longer sentences with less simple structure, but I find they make all those statistics easier to swallow. Three paragraphs of tiny sentences following, with only minor variations, the pattern of "Gooch did this. Gooch did that. Gooch did this. etc." make me want to fall asleep in front of my keyboard. Otherwise the list looks fine, and since none of these concerns are strictly actionable I'll go with weak support for now. Good work! Goodraise 04:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, there's a lot of things I would have done differently, but that's not what FLC is about. The list technically meets the criteria. I'm therefore in weak support. Goodraise 01:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Very kind, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

No kindness intended. I prefer to oppose nominations, here I just can't find anything over which I could reasonably do it. You should take that a compliment. The weak part of my position statement is essentially a result of my disagreement with my fellow reviewers and the current state of relevant guidelines, not that of a lack of willingness or ability to adjust the list to my liking on your part. And you did say you expected a rough time, didn't you? :) Goodraise 18:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I thrive on the rough times....! Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: Row scopes can often be difficult to decide upon, and there's sometimes no best answer. We have to remember that the only reason we include them is to make it easier for many screen readers to operate in what JAWS calls "table mode" where the reader can navigate in any direction through the table and hear the row and column headers before each item of data in a given cell. Goodraise is quite right in his understanding that when navigating down a column (for example), you might hear something like: "116", "Venue", "Old Trafford Cricket Ground, Manchester"; then moving down one cell, "117", "Venue", "Adelaide Oval, Adelaide". So the question here is "Is that the best we can do to identify which century we are discussing?" It is quite possible that the score is the key identifier, although personally I'd prefer the date. How would "9 August 1990", "Venue", "Old Trafford Cricket Ground, Manchester"; then moving down one cell, "25 January 1991", "Venue", "Adelaide Oval, Adelaide" sound to you? This is one of those cases where there probably isn't a right answer, but I can help a bit with the problem of duplicate dates. You could use || 26 July 1990 (1) || and || 26 July 1990 (2) || if you wanted to distinguish them - that would also have the advantage of properly sorting in both directions - see User:RexxS/Test cricket centuries for how that would look and function. I'm afraid that I don't think there's a definitive answer that can be universally applied; each case needs to be examined and a judgement made on what would sound best in a screen reader for that particular table. Hope that helps, --RexxS (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, as always RexxS. Your sandbox example makes it clear how the (1) and (2) dates work, but your scope is still the score, not the date. Ideally, would you place the scope in the date column instead? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for your input, RexxS. I didn't notice there were already duplicate dates in the table. Anyway, I suppose I can live with any of these three columns being used for row scopes. Goodraise 18:47, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay Goodraise, well it's my intention to keep the scopes as they are, if you don't object too strongly. Let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to address in the list. Thanks again for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, if I were going to use the dates as row headers, I'd move them to the first column of the table, because there are still old versions of screen readers that ignore "scope" and simply use the first column as a row header without any regard to the markup! Sad, but true :( Anyway, the idea is that we try hard to make life easier for disadvantaged readers - but at some point we get diminishing returns. We don't want to expend massive effort seeking an elusive perfection for a single article when so many articles can be improved dramatically by the techniques that we adopt as a matter of course now. Keep up the good work! --RexxS (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 16:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments Test should be linked at 1st instant in the lede Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC) (100 or more in a single innings) → (100 or more runs in a single innings) Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC) I think "run scorer" should be "run-scorer" Quite possibly. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC) In the ODI list 115 doesn't sort correctly Forced sorting. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC) I think "not out" in the lede would be batter than *. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC) ...not out at the end of the England innings with a score of 154*.[11] → no need of * here, link runs at 1st use. Zia Khan 12:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Okeydokey, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC) In the References you have linked CricketArchive but not ESPNcricinfo and BBC Sport. Made consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC) I've responded at my talk page about Cook's list, Regards, Zia Khan 00:31, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Support – Meets the standards. Great job! Zia Khan 16:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Comments think there should be a comma after captained Essex and England in first sentence "Gooch is one of a fewer than" one too many words here I would split the refs into columns, but that is just a personal preference and not a necessity NapHit (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Done 'em all, thanks NapHit. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• First paragraph has some very long lines. Can they be broken down a bit ?
• The link from No.20 leads to a 1993 match
• He was not the captain when he scored the No.20. Tintin 17:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tintin, many thanks for your eagle-eyed comments, I hope I've fixed them to your satisfaction! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments: really good and interesting list. "He was one of the most successful international batsmen of his generation..." – I'd say this needs a source. I'd say that was sourced by the fact he scored the most runs in first-class cricket ever. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC) "Gooch's highest Test score is 333 which he made in the first innings against India in 1990." – nonrestrictive, so needs a comma before "which". If you like. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC) "also went on to score" → "scored" Just removed "also" as I prefer the prose this way. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC) "also" isn't a necessary word and in the three instances used in this article, removing them would do no harm and the removal would result in better prose. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Not sure I agree, in some instances that would just turn the prose into a handful of factoids with little flow. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Support – I'm happy with the list and the changes made to it. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 11:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Harrias

* "He is also one of only seven cricketers in Test history, and the only centurion, to have been dismissed by handling the ball, when he flicked the ball away from the stumps against Australia in 1993." – I'm not really keen on the ambiguity of this statement. I know that you mean he is the only player to have been dismissed by handling the ball having already scored a century in that innings, but "a centurion" could also refer to anyone who has ever scored a century in Test cricket, which many of the other players to have been dismissed handled ball have been. That aside, the list looks top-notch, as we would expect from you! Harrias talk 17:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC) I gone and done a rephrase. See how you find it, I agree the original wording was borderline ambiguous, hopefully the current is not so much. Let me know what you reckon. (Cheers for the review btw). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC) The ambiguity is better, but the sentence reads a little weirdly now. How about: "He is also one of only seven cricketers in Test history to have been dismissed by handling the ball, and the only player to have been dismissed through this method on a score of 100 or greater,[12] when he flicked the ball away from the stumps against Australia in 1993.[13]" Actually, that might be even worse. I don't know! Harrias talk 21:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry, I'm going stick to my guns here. I think "through this method" is one of the most awkward constructs I've ever read, and I think my compromise is slightly less bad than that!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC) As I said, it didn't work, but I'm still not convinced about what is there; how about the more minor tweak: "He is also one of only seven cricketers in Test history, and the only player on a score of 100 or greater, to have been dismissed by handling the ball, ..." Harrias talk 21:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC) "and the only player to have been dismissed by handling the ball while on a score of 100 or greater"? The Rambling Man (talk) It still isn't reading right for me, but I can't really explain why. I would suggest either disregarding what I'm saying, or talking to someone who is better than me with prose like User:Sarastro1 about that specific sentence. I'm certainly not going to oppose promotion on the basis of it though. Harrias talk 22:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC) "and the only player to have been dismissed by handling the ball during a century innings"? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC) It's the construct of the sentence rather than the specific wording; the comma causes that first bit "He is also one of only seven cricketers in Test history" to appear like an independent, rather than dependent clause (see complex sentence). Hence the suggestion of "He is also one of only seven cricketers in Test history, and the only player on a score of 100 or greater, to have been dismissed by handling the ball, ..." which makes it clearer that the meaning isn't that he was one of only seven people to play Test cricket. Harrias talk 21:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC) So, if removed the comma....??! Okay, try it now.... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support! Harrias ^talk 21:45, 15 January 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 00:11, 19 January 2013 [10].

---

List of international cricket centuries by Kevin Pietersen

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Branching out into cricket for a change. Firstly, I would like to thank AssociateAffiliate for the excellent work he did initially creating the list. I have merely polished his work and believe that it now meets the criteria. I will try and address all comments expediently. Cheers NapHit (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 06:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments He has scored centuries (100 or more runs in a single innings) in Test cricket, and One Day International (ODI)..... → No need of comma after Test cricket removed NapHit (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC) named a Wisden Cricketer of the Year → named as one the Wisden Cricketers of the Year? adding the would make the sentence grammatically incorrect NapHit (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC) I mean "named as one of Wisden Cricketers of the Year" Zia Khan 05:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC) changed it slightly, reads better than before anyway. NapHit (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC) ...also came against Australia in the second... → came against the same team in the second I prefer using Australia, doesn't seem right using same team NapHit (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC) all Test cricket playing nations, with the exception of Bangladesh. → all Test cricket playing nations except Bangladesh.? I think the way it is worded now is fine, reads better to me NapHit (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC) He is joint twenty-first among all-time Test century makers,[11] and joint second in the equivalent list for England.[12] → You may mention with whom he share the records, by adding notes or something. Good idea I will add the notes in due course NapHit (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC) at Goodyear Park, Bloemfontein in February 2005. → "the" before Goodyear Park, for consistency, as you did with other grounds adding would make the sentence grammatically incorrect. It's one of the nuances of the English language that the is not needed here but is for the other stadiums. NapHit (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC) In the Test table, when sorting by ascending order 149 should come after 151, there may be others fixed this NapHit (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC) In the ODI table, 111* against India should come first when sorting by descending order not sure I see the issue here it looks fine to me NapHit (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC) His strike rate is less againt India than against Pakistan that's why I'm asking this! Zia Khan 05:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Gotcha! Should be fixed now. NapHit (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Glad to see you nominating a cricket list, I also did a little bit to the list last month. Zia Khan 05:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments Zia, much appreciated. I will get round to reviewing your Prime mi sisters list as well in the next few days. NapHit (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support – Meets the standards. Zia Khan 06:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments "in Test cricket and..." not sure you need "cricket" here. I think, since he's still playing, you could use an "as of" date in the lead. "score of 227, also came" don't think that comma is needed, or add another comma before "of"... "whom he has scored six centuries against" -> "against whom he has scored..." As a min, link T20I, I would expand it entirely if it were me. "Pietersen batting against Sri Lanka at Lord's in 2011." no full stop required. Tied explanation in the key needs a full stop for consistency. Our article on "Mohammed Azharuddin" has his first name Mohammad. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the comments TRM, I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments Is he the youngest batsmen to score 5,000 or more runs in Tests? Tendulkar reached the milestone when he was 26, whereas Pietersen did it at 30. corrected, heis the fastest not the youngest. NapHit (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Not sure what ref #6 conveys. That he was awarded an MBE NapHit (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Since he has retired from T20Is tense should be corrected. done NapHit (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Scores for 9th and 12th centuries are incorrect. fixed NapHit (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC) The dates for his 18th, 20th and 21st tons are wrong. Check all the entries. fixed and checked the rest NapHit (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC) Unlink "London". its a sortable table all the entries in each cell should be linked. NapHit (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC) You have two scores of 111* in the ODI table. They should sort according to their S/R. Are you referring to when you sort the score column, that the one with the highest strike rate should be first? As far as I'm aware that is secondary sorting and not a requirement. Also none of the other cricket lists implement this, leading me to question whether it can be done. Actually I might have fixed this, not sure though. NapHit (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC) List of international cricket centuries by Mohammad Yousuf seem to have implemented this. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Not necessarily, when sorting the ODI table, the three 100 scores sort with 89 in between 147 and 90, which is obviously not correct. I'm sure it can be done, I just need to know which they should sort. So should the highest or lowest strike rate by at the top? Ok I've looked at how TRM did it in the Gooch and I've followed that principle should be right now. NapHit (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC) His 111* against Pakistan came while chasing. you're going to have to be more clear by what you mean. I'm not familiar with some cricket jargon. NapHit (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC) His 111* against Pakistan (in ODIs) came in the second innings. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC) —Vensatry (Ping me) 19:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Okie dokie, done NapHit (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC) Thanks for your comments I've addressed them all. NapHit (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Good work with the list. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 11:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• Test century 21 lists the result as Draw, which goes against the Drawn that is used elsewhere.
• All of the links in note B are repeats from note A. I doubt that any of them are necessary.
• If possible, reference 5 could use a page number for the relevant content. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

done the first two. Regarding the book, I don't have a copy, google books has no preview and the user that added the info is now retired. I'm busy today, but once I've got some free time, I'll look for an alternative source. NapHit (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok I've added a ref from ESPNcricinfo. NapHit (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you would prefer the paper source, the pages are 69–71. Harrias ^talk 21:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias ^talk

• "Pietersen has scored centuries against all Test cricket playing nations, with the exception of Bangladesh." – He also hasn't scored a century against Zimbabwe, who although boycotted by England, are once again a Test playing nation.
• "and is the first batsman to score 5,000 or more runs in Test cricket in under five years." Just to clarify, the references state that he was the first to score his first 5,000 runs. As far as I can tell, someone may have scored 5,000 runs in under five years before, just not their first 5,000; as such, I think the language needs tightening to reflect this. (Unless I've misread the sources.)

Other than those nitpicks, it looks pretty good to me. Harrias ^talk 16:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments Harrias, addressed them both. NapHit (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support looks good to me! Harrias ^talk 21:30, 15 January 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 00:11, 19 January 2013 [11].

---

Latin Grammy Award for Best Long Form Music Video

Nominator(s): ΛΧΣ²¹ and  — Statυs (talk, contribs), 04:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The Latin Grammy Award for Best Long Form Music Video is an honor presented annually at the Latin Grammy Awards, a ceremony that recognizes excellence and creates a wider awareness of cultural diversity and contributions of Latin recording artists in the United States and internationally. According to the category description guide for the 13th Latin Grammy Awards, the award is reserved for video albums consisting of more than one song or track and is awarded to artists and/or video directors or producers of at least 51% of the total playing time. ΛΧΣ²¹ and Statυs (talk), 04:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments "the award would only be given" -> "the award is presented only to the ..." "is the only country holding more than one award" -> "is the only country with more than one award" Strange indentation of nominees in the 2006 row. "Simone - Ao Vivo" I believe that should be an en-dash. Any reason why Shakira isn't linked? Or Enrique Bunbury? Or any of the nominated works for 2012? Cigala is Spanish but Bebo appears to be Cuban. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Fixed all but one. I don't see any strange indentation. Are you using Chrome? — ΛΧΣ21 22:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC) No Safari, it looks like the first set of bullet points are one "tab" to the left.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Weird. It doesn't show on Firefox. Let me check the code again... — ΛΧΣ21 22:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Okay. I think I got it. Chek please :) — ΛΧΣ21 22:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Bingo! Happy Xmas! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Yay! Happy Xmas for you too :) — ΛΧΣ21 23:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I went through the list 2 times and I couldn't find any additional issues that should be addressed. Good job guys! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments – great list, a few comments... Diction: I think "promotes" would be a better choice here than "creates": "... a ceremony that recognizes excellence and creates a wider awareness of cultural diversity and contributions of Latin recording artists in the United States and internationally." Redundancy: "...the award is reserved for video albums consisting of more than one song or track..." Conjunctions: "...artists and/or video directors or producers..." → "...artists, video directors and/or producers..."? Italicization: MTV Unplugged should be in italics. Typo: "...and Venezuela is the only is the only country with more than one award winner..." That's really all. But if possible, a more diverse selection of sources would have been nice. But either way, it's fine since this is how all Grammy FLs are sourced. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Done. Thanks for your comments!  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC) No worries. Aren't notes 1 and 2 a bit obvious? Do we need them? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC) They are standard in this type of articles, I guess. — ΛΧΣ21 00:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC) One more thing: "Showing only the nationality(ies) of the performing artist(s)," shouldn't have a period. It's not a sentence. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC) Done. — ΛΧΣ21 01:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support – a bit on the short side, but a solid job. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – ref 5 needs to include the parameter |format=PDF NapHit (talk) 10:38, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment With only 7 entries, I am not sure how it meets criterion 3, as it can be easily merged into an article discussing the short and long form music videos. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:59, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
  • "criterion 3" GA? Assuming you were talking about the comprehensiveness criteria, of course it meets such. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
    • First of all, why are you linking to GA criteria on a FLC? Additionally, those are two different given awards, so no, they will not, and can not be merged.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 21:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Jaespinoza (talk) 01:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

*A quick comment, at the 2006 LGA's a tie was declared and the award was shared by Cafe Tacvba and Bebo & Cigala, even your references for that year show that joint win, you should reword the lead and adjust the table. Otherwise, a good job. Jaespinoza (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC) OMG How the hell I missed that? I will fix today. — ΛΧΣ21 21:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Fixed. — ΛΧΣ21 00:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC) I still think that the lead should be updated (about the tie), and you should link the Veloso, Gil and Sangalo articles in the 2012 nominees section. Jaespinoza (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC) I have adjusted the lead (It wasn't easy).  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC) I think the lead should be adjusted in the part where you mention that Venezuela is the only country with two winners, now that the table shows Cafe Tacuba and Venegas from Mexico as winners, that country also has two winners. The table should link Caetano Veloso, Gilberto Gil & Ivete Sangalo articles, as well as Mil y Un Historias en Vivo by Franco De Vita. Jaespinoza (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Further comments: You also should link the following articles: Simone Bittencourt de Oliveira (Simone), Multishow ao Vivo: Ivete no Maracanã, Canciones Para Un Paraíso En Vivo, and Teatro (Draco Rosa album), and remove the link to Blue Cha Cha by Manuel Galban, because that article is for a movie, not the album. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Done.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Jaespinoza (talk) 01:48, 9 January 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 00:11, 19 January 2013 [12].

---

National Film Award for Best Actress

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I've been working on this list for quite a long period of time. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 18:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Quick oppose - needs copyediting. Not sure about the very short single-para lead, per WP:LEAD. Merged the succeeding section with the lead. Will copy-edit soon. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC) "Last Awarded" in the infobox is usually used just for defunct awards. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC) The infobox needs to be adjusted so it doesn't have so much overcapitalisation, e.g. First Awarded -> First awarded, Cash Award -> Cash award.... etc etc. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC) En-dash required in infobox year range. Check article and references (e.g. ref 37) as well. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Infobox says 48 awards, prose says 46. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC) "Raat Aur Din[6] The actresses" missing full stop. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC) "Sharada [12]" remove spaces between text, punctuation etc and references. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC) No need to bold the year (and no need to refer me to other lists which may also incorrectly do this). Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Why isn't 1971 or 1976 linked? Red links are permitted. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC) Sortable table so link everything that's linked in every instance. Done —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC) I've removed those statements regarding the history of National Film Awards and merged the rest with the lead with a small c/e. Thanks for your comments. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Zia Khan 00:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

;Comments Image for the lede? There is an infobox, besides there are many images in the table. Whose image should I include in the lead? —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC) An image of the award or the current holder's (Vidya Balan) image. Zia Khan 13:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC) "Until 1974, winners of this National Film Award of Merit ..." → "Until 1974, winners of the National Film Award of Merit ..." and I don't know why have you added "Merit" here? Removed. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC) "...the actressses whose performances..." → actresses Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC) In the lede you have "15th National Film Award (1968)" while in the table it is linked as "1967 (15th)", could you fix this? The year in the lead and infobox indicate the year in which the ceremony took place, while in the table it refers to the year in which the film was censored. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC) You have used "As of 2012, " in the 2nd para twice, would prefer them to place in the Notes. They shouldn't be included under FNs per WP:DATED. I've made a slight modification to the text. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC) "As of 2012, four actresses..............English film Mitr, My Friend." Perhaps, a ref needed here. This is a reflection of the table, where the fact is sourced. Lead is just a summarisation of the article. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC) In the table, you've linked all the languages at every occurrence except English. This should be consistent, I guess. Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Notes → References, References → Bibliography? The book which I've used is a reference which in turn is linked to the citations. There shouldn't be any problem I guess. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Don't know why is the table extremely wide? Looking odd! It's good to have tables of this sort. Similar FLs follow this format. —Vensatry (Ping me) 11:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC) Zia Khan 00:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support— Nice changes since my last review. Zia Khan 00:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose without citations. Vivvt was trying to figure it out with Directorate of Film Festivals on the copyrights issue. Moonriddengirl was somewhat involved in it. There was no conclusion of removal of citations. In worst case, citations could be cut short. But without citations this article is incomplete. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, in this case, we are copying citations from various catalogues and not just one. That much would be covered in fair-use. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a requirement to add those citations just because other articles have that? I'm personally against adding those citations since the article wouldn't be benefited much from adding them. Also this being an encyclopedia, giving more weight age for them seems totally meaningless. I'd wait for others' opinion in this case. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 06:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The citation states why the jury considered this performance notable enough to be awarded. How is that meaningless? Meaningless would be that Role(s) column. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I do agree that Role(s) are not significant unless it is notable. I've added that since other award pages (Oscars) have them. But adding citations to an encyclopedia sounds like promotional stuff. Also the citations are not available for all the years, and it would look like dominating the whole table. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 07:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I am not objecting that column of role(s). What i meant was that this column is more meaningless than those citations in comparison. And how is it promotional? If someone jumps in a fire and saves 3 kids and wins National Bravery Award will stating the reason for conferring the award be promotional? What is being promoted here? In such case, stating that someone won such and such award is itself promotional. All award articles are promotional then. And we cant help if citations were never given previously by DFF. And whats wrong with it dominating the list? Currently the beautiful faces are dominating the list. Better the award list is dominated by what they did than how they generally look. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

We are not presenting a book on Indian cinema to praise the acting performances of our actors. Inclusion of images are a part of the FLC criterion. We have a separate project for those who are keen on quotes. Besides, overusage of quotations, which you're suggesting is not advisable too. As I said earlier, I'd wait for others to comment on this issue. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 12:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Do as you wish! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Including citations are not a part of FLC criterion. If you have any constructive comments other than that, do post it. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 16:26, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking??? Its Obvious!!! The FLC writers wont have a divination that someone is gonna raise a FLC for a award given in India whose jury will state reasons of granting awards. Why will they ever write whether citations is needed or not?!?!?! Criterion like these will never be speaking about everything. How will they ever possibly do that?? Thats why they say that comprehensiveness is needed in the article. When you are excluding the reason for grating the award, the article is not comprehensive; its incomplete, especially when such citation is present. Filmfare's jury doesn't speak about it and hence no citation is needed there. But it is needed here as the information is available.
And i don't understand why is it so difficult for you to get the grip of what exactly is educational and what is not. It does not matter what the character's name was. It does not matter what language the film was in. But it matters what exactly appealed to that jury that they thought of worth complimenting with this award. In the notes column of Bharat Ratna for Lata Mangeshkar, we do not write that she is a Hindu or has long hair or has composed under name Anandghan. We write "Playback singer". Because that's why she has been conferred by that award; not for all the other things that she is.
And i have already said that you may do whatever you wish to do. My oppose doesn't stop any of the FL directors from putting a star on this page. They will do what they wish to do.
And if you want "your-definition" constructive comments, i have those too. Change the colour scheme of the list back to yellow shades. It matches with all the 130 articles and 17 templates of NFA. Of course, i understand that you must have changed it to blue as it wasn't mentioned in FLC. Also it does not matter in which year the award ceremony took place. The awards are given for films certified in that calendar year. Both 16th National Film Awards and 17th National Film Awards were presented in 1970 but they weren't for one and the same year. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 20:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

There are many things to be included other than these floral compliments. We have other things like jury, presenter, etc., We cannot go ahead and add all those which other people might think are essential. I've included the "roles" column since similar FLs follow that pattern. As I said earlier, this is not "wikiquote" to include chunks of quotations. I'm not going to set a new precedent to new FLs by including these citations. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 05:08, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Again! They are not floral comments. They are comments by much esteemed jury members, definitely better qualified than you. When students of cinema will be studying these awards, they would want to know WHY the award was presented. FLs and FAs on WP should not be made just because they look good. They should be complete with relevant encyclopaedic information.
Frankly speaking i dont think you understand what educational information is and what a filler trivial is. It seems you only want FLs to your credit and nothing else. That's the reason you also seem to be worried about all the work required to write citations. Well then there is a good line for you; "Wikipedia is not compulsory". And i am no longer replying to your nonsensical replies. My oppose stands as it is. FL directors can decide whatever they want. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

A single question which you never bothered to answer. In what way are these citations encyclopedic? We include them just to add some essence to the article. Including them just because one person likes it doesn't seem sensible at least to me. I'm not begging for your support, so let's stop here as I don't have time to respond for such frivolous questions. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

"It seems you only want FLs to your credit and nothing else". Making these kind of statements are totally irrelevant to this discussion. If getting FLs is my only goal, I have tons of lists to look into. It is evident that you along with one more editor take it as a personal vengeance for the failure of the 59th NFA FLC and are planning to spoil this process. If that's your wish, good try! I don't have to listen to such bad-faith people and nothing stops me. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we have any existing FL where these type of citations (comments from Jury why this candidate was selected as the best) are used? Otherwise, it does not seem to be a good precedence to create. For Best Films of the year or Best Direction of the year, these can still make some sense, but for Best Actor or Best Actress it always boils down to something like this: "he/she was able to bring about a wide range of emotions" or "he/she portrayed the character (after specifying few specifics about the character) very nicely". So, how can they add any value to an encyclopedic article? --GDibyendu (talk) 14:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No, we have no FLs that I'm aware of that contain massive copyright violations, nor repeat verbatim these hagiographical citations which are in no real way encyclopedic. By all means link out to reliable sources that publish this kind of rubbish, but we don't want it polluting an encyclopedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GDibyendu (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

;Comments: Compared with the article Tony Award for Best Featured Actress in a Play. This one has got FL status in 2012. The following differences in presentation should be removed: It won't be possible to get suitable images for all the actresses. So, please move the images outside the table. Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Please make the column lengths of various columns to an appropriate size, rather than depending on the default. Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Citations for certain rows, not standing as proof for all the info in the row. For example, 2003 (Meera Jasmine) ref does not tell the name of the role. You can use additional refs from IMDB for these role names. Done. IMDb is not considered a RS, so added sources from NFA and other third-party refs. —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Keys section should be moved to 'Notes'. Done. I'm not going to move {{dagger}} out of the key for obvious reasons. —Vensatry (Ping me) 09:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC) Otherwise, it looks good.--GDibyendu (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Great improvement with new references from IFFI.--GDibyendu (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 00:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments – Let me start off by saying that I don't think we want text copied from a website inserted wholesale into an FL candidate. I don't mind seeing a quote or two to liven up the writing, but almost 50 of them is borderline copyvio. "as" should be removed from "The awards were called as 'State Awards for Film' when established in 1954." "are the only three actresses to be granted with the award..." shouldn't have "with" in it. The sentence after this is entirely overlong; I would go with separate sentences for Archana and Shobana's awards. This is done, but I now see "and was awarded and her second for for the second time". Everything between "awarded" and the second "for" is destroying the prose quality here. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Done. My bad! didn't really notice that. —Vensatry (Ping me) 10:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC) "Shobana received her first award for the Malayalam film Manichitrathazhu and for the second time in the English film Mitr, My Friend." Grammar appears off here. Maybe replacing "and for the second time in" with "and her second for" would be enough to fix it? Also, English language doesn't need two links in the lead. The last paragraph is stubby at one sentence. Can it be added to the previous paragraph? List of recipients header could be shortened to just Recipients, as it's fairly obvious that this is a list from its formatting. Nargis Dutt caption: "Nargis Dutt was the first recipient of the award who was honoured at the 15th National Film Awards." For the sake of prose quality, I'd drop everything after "award". The writing goes downhill from there. Tabu caption: Replace "among the" with "of". Could spell out CBFC in ref 1, as it is going to be unclear to non-Indian film buffs who that group is. Ref 27 has a pp. for a single-page citation, which should instead be p. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC) Fixed all. —Vensatry (Ping me) 06:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Great improvement meets the criteria Greatuser _(t@lk)^{My edits} 14:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Dwaipayanc

Comment So, there was no best female actor award by the Indian government from 1954 to 1968?--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC) There was no such award for individual performers before 1968. It's very well explained in the first para. —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC) If I remember correctly, there was an award given to Best performers at the state level; Sivaji Ganesan and Savitri both have won that numerous times. But that's totally different and has got nothing to do with this award. —Vensatry (Ping me) 18:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC) State (province) level awards are irrelevant. Also, that cash prize part. It should say "that amounted to 50k in 2012", or removed (unless it's always been 50k). Did some edits, please have a look.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2013 (UTC) I've added the age for the youngest actress. Other edits are fine. —Vensatry (Ping me) 05:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC) "The State Awards instituted the individual award in 1968 as the "Urvashi Award for the Best Actress"" What does "individual award" mean here? This particular award? Or, in general, awards for individuals (such as actors or actresses)?--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Changed it to "Best Actress" award. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Comment reference 1, Times of India directory and year book. That's a book, right? S, it needs a page number. Replaced with another source. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Ref 17, Illustrated weekly of India. That's a periodical. So, either publication date, or volume and issue number is need. Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Ref 24. Asian Women. Way is that? Book or periodical. If book, an identifier (if available ) , such as isbn is needed. This particular reference looks somewhat incomplete. Removed the source as it's only an additional ref. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Ref 25 has publication location (Madras) within parenthesis. No other references have publication location. For consistency, you should either name publication location in all, or none, Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Ref 37 has Bowker as author and publisher. It's unlikely. Can you please check. You can check in amazon. Amazon yields this result. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Ref 62 has rediff.com wiki linked, although rediff.com has appeared in the reference section before this.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC) Done. —Vensatry (Ping me) 13:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC) All the above comments were appropriately addressed. --Dwaipayan (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Comment I think alt captions for images need improvement. Please see WP:ALT and the examples there.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Corrected myself.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I'm afraid, alt and caption shouldn't be having the same details. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Please read WP:ALT. I am quoting—"Alternative text is text associated with an image that serves the same purpose and conveys the same essential information as the image. In situations where the image is not available to the reader (perhaps because they have turned off images in their web browser, or are using a screen reader due to a visual impairment) the alternative text ensures no information or functionality is lost." Alt text, of course, should go by the context. So, please read Wikipedia:Alt#Importance_of_context. Such alt captions as "woman wearing black saree" are useless. So, please change the alt caps (not necessarily to the alt captions that I did, but something meaningful for the context).--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:21, 10 January 2013 (UTC) You're right. This being a list which is not particular to just one actress, subject name should be included. But it also says that "The alt text is read out by screen readers just before the caption, so try to avoid having the same details in both", so mentioning what which was said earlier in the caption seems meaningless. I've made a few changes slightly. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I also was not much aware of the alt caption rules. I read it recently. Indeed there is an option "alt=refer to caption" which may be suitable in many cases (in general, not specific to this article). Anyway, IMO the alt texts read ok now.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Also, I am not sure if the Nargis image is acceptable in US public domain. I do not have much knowledge about image copyrights. Not sure who would be the best person to consult. May be Rambling Man would know who to refer to.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I'm a long way from an expert. So look forward for someone with more expertise to comment. —Vensatry (Ping me) 08:02, 10 January 2013 (UTC) There a few regulars in FAC that are image copyrigth experts. I can not remember of teh top of my head. You can skim through a few FACs, if needed. If they are requested, they might do an image review here. You can actually ask The Rambling Man if he/anyone else he knows can do an image review. The other images are all ok.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC) I've reviewed it and nominated it for deletion, it's not PD in the US. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC) The years of receiving the award for Sharda, Archana and Monisha Unni are not matching bwteen the lead and the list. You have to stick to either the award-ceremony year, or specify on each occasion that the year mentioned are year of release, or provide the year within parenthesis following the film name (which indicates release years). However, since this article is about the awards, I think it will be ok to mention the years of the awards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC) They need not match as the table indicates the year in which the film was censored. I've provided a FN there for clarification. As for the lead, the years should be the one in which the award ceremony took place to avoid confusion. —Vensatry (Ping me) 07:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Ok. The leads now mention the years in which the ceremonies were held, right?--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Yeah! —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC) More comments. Some award winners in the list have two references as evidence. Why do we need two references for something non-controversial? One good reliable source will suffice as evidence, unless something extra-ordinary or controversial happened. I suggest removal so all those extra references. That would get the article rid of unnecessary size. Also, the current revenue 79 (Deccan Chronicle) is a dead link.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC) FN [II] is my answer for the question. —Vensatry (Ping me) 14:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Support Now that all my concerns (discussed above) have been addressed satisfactorily, I feel this list meets featured list criteria. Nice job!--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:34, 16 January 2013 [13].

---

List of U.S. National Forests

Nominator(s): Fredlyfish4 (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is fully illustrated with many details. I have worked on it extensively, and the National Forests cover a huge portion of the United States. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Hahc21

*Comments Note A has no reference. Does it needs it, or this is covered by references 1, 4 and 5? Yes, covered by references 1,4, and 5, but I added them to the note anyway. The lead seems fine, although the image appears to be a little too big, at leats on my screen. I shrunk it from 500px to 450px, but 400px seems to small to me. References #11, #30 is missing the accessdate. Added. " Forests with citations to references,[8][11] or [30]" Looks odd. I recommend to move the refs to the end of the note. Done.Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC) That's all for now. Impressive work. — ΛΧΣ21 04:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Good work. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:26, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support...pretty familiar with a couple dozen of these forests. I'm not seeing any issues that jump out in any way. Covers all the forests, has references for each, plus images. Nice job.....MONGO 06:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments really quick ones, will need to revisit this mammoth list...! "761,998.53" silly precise. It's not that precise when there are 247.1 acre per km2 and the source is accurate to 1 acre, but to the average person it does seem too precise. I cut off the decimals in the first paragraph, but left the details in the third paragraph. You know what I mean! When you're in the millions of square km, you don't need 2 d.p. of accuracy...! Merge first two paras. Done. " If looking at national forests on a map, in general those west of the Great Plains show the true extent of their area,..." a bit journalistic, rather than encyclopedic. I rephrased it, but if it still sounds awkward it can be removed because I don't think it is essential. Tuskegee's photo is predominantly a bicycle, not of the national forest. It is literally the only suitably licensed photo I could find from my searches on the Commons, Flickr, Panoramio, and the Forest Service website of Tuskegee. I contacted the Forest Service about getting a better photo, but I never received a reply. At least you can see some of a trail and the trees in the photo, and there isn't much else to this, the smallest National Forest. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 23:32, 22 December 2012 (UTC) Fair enough. It would be nicer to have something less bicycle, more forest, but I can understand your challenge!! The Rambling Man (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Support' – you're not going to like me for suggesting this, but the images in the tables could do with having alt text. NapHit (talk) 10:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I actually meant to add this but forgot about it. I'll do it soon. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 12:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Support - nice job on this! Two comments: 1) In the last sentence of note C, shouldn't there be an "or" before the last of the three options for the date meaning? 2) Consider archiving your citations- it's optional, and a pain with that many, but it ensures that the reference will not be lost if websites go down or change. --PresN 00:30, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Fantastic work on this! It looks like you modeled this on my National Parks list, and you've done a terrific job. I liked File:USA National Forest Lands.svg, which used to be in the article. I think it could be worthwhile to mention the top states with the most area/greatest percentage of area that are national forests. Also, you mentioned six of the national monuments that are part of NFs, but Admiralty Island and Misty Fjords could be added to Tongass. Reywas92^Talk 21:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I borrowed your list format, and I may use it for other similar lists. So thanks a lot for it! I liked that image as well, but didn't think more than one map worked well in the article. I do plan on revising the article United States National Forest, and I will definitely include the map there. I'll add some mention of the states with most/greatest percentage of NF lands as well as the monuments here. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 19:59, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – All of the book references (I counted three) need page numbers to assist in helping readers verify the content. I don't believe that just providing a link is enough if the reader has to go through a large number of pages, with no idea where the information can be found. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll add page numbers, but it is actually quite easy to find the information in the books because they have a short section on each forest, as in an encyclopedia. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• One small question. Why is "U.S." being used as an adjective in the title? Shouldn't the adjective be "National Forests", e.g. List of National Forests in the United States? Or is "U.S. National Forest" the formal designation of these forests like "U.S. Navy"? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why the title is like this, and it was like this long before I did any work on the article. I don't think "U.S. National Forest" is a formal designation, so "National Forests" should be the adjective. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    • OK, I only wondered about the formal designation because obviously a list about admirals in the US Navy, for example, would almost certainly have to be titled "List of U.S. Navy admirals", which kind of tortures "U.S. Navy" (a proper noun) into an adjective. Since "U.S. National Forest" isn't a title, perhaps the article would be better titled "List of National Forests in the United States" or "List of national forests in the United States" (since I'm not sure "national forest" can be considered a proper noun). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm also not sure "national forest" can be considered a proper noun. I'm leaning towards no, but there's really no comparable protected area designation similar to it in other countries. If the title is changed, the two other NF related lists should be changed as well. I'm hoping someone else can provide some input into this. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Its been a long time (years) and I cannot find it but lists of this type went through some sort of naming discussions at some point and this naming style was at that time deemed the best way to solve the problems. It should be noted however that List of national parks of the United States, is a featured list and has a naming convention similar to what HJMitchell suggests. We also have List of National Wildlife Refuges of the United States which isn't an FL. I think the discussion about naming styles also led to such lists as List of U.S. Wilderness Areas, List of U.S. state fossils...etc. So this may all be a matter of personal preference rather than any current or even recent discussion regarding standardizing the naming comventions of such lists.--MONGO 01:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Also...the article List of national parks of the United States was moved to that name in 2012 here though it passed FLC as List of National Parks of the United States in 2010.--MONGO 01:44, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
          • To complicate things, "List of National Monuments of the United States," a featured list, was moved from "List of national monuments of the United States" in 2009. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 02:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
            • "of the United States" seems a strange way to title these articles to me (perhaps it's because I'm a Brit). I think it's fairly uncontroversial to say that "U.S." is not an adjective and "national forest" (or "National Forest") should be the adjective in the title. Since "national forest" isn't really a proper noun, my preference is for the latter of the titles I suggested above. I think we would all think "List of France National Forests", "List of Australia National Forests", or "List of Canada National Forests" were rather strange titles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
              • I agree. I checked a couple books and other references, and in them national forest is not a proper noun. The U.S. Forest Service website and some of their publications agree with this (at least for the most part). Fredlyfish4 (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
                • Suggest page is moved to List of national forests of the United States and then promotion follows. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
                  • While I'm not beholden to the precise naming of the article, there is an interesting discussion at the FLC for List of national parks of the United States which at the time of the FLC in May 2010 was List of National Parks of the United States and was moved in 2012 to its current title. Under the comments section, a similar discussion ensued...here...and noting there that they mentioned another FL titled List of National Parks of Canada. I'm leaning towards keeping National Forests in caps since this is a formal designation of the areas in this list. But I'm not going to argue about what title is best suited here, only pointing out that there seems to be much disagreement as to how to best name these types of lists and what is a proper noun and what isn't (especially when we're discussing formally designated areas)...thats all.--MONGO 23:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 17:34, 16 January 2013 [14].

---

Justin Timberlake videography

Nominator(s): — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I think it meets the feature list criteria. I have worked on it for certain period of time. Justin Timberlake is well known singer and actor who deserves his own videography page as he has enough of music videos and films. I think that the lead covers the most important content from the table, which is sortable and people can see who is the director and from which album the video/song comes as well as how much the film budget was and its theater gross. For all the users who oppose I would like to post their comments so I can improve the article. Thank You. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:01, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support I have read and have no comments by now. Good candidate. I may leave some nit-picky comments later, but I'm ready to support. Good work. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose some opening thoughts: The hashlink to the "1970s_revival,_The_New_Mickey_Mouse_Club" section of the linked article doesn't work at all. I imagine it should be linking to the "1989–95 revival (MMC)" section if anything. Fixed. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Was his fame related to the fact his was "youngest member " of N'Sync? Removed. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) "music video for the song was directed by Bucky Chrome and contained several dance sequences" who is Chrome (he's not even redlinked, is he significant?) and what is so significant about a music video containing "several dance sequences"? Most do. "Like I Love You" was his first solo music video, so I found crucial to mention the director. I removed contained several dance sequences though. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) "who allegedly portrays his former girlfriend Spears" first name your source, e.g. "who, according to ..., portrays..." and second, the source doesn't actually say the video does what you say it does at all. Done and sourced. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) "He portrayed Frankie " -> "He then portrayed..." C/e it. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Where are you getting your "moderate box office success" from? Is 15.1m "moderate"? Who says it is? Now is more neutral. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) "four music videos for singles of the album were shot" ->"... from the album". C/e it. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Last two paras of lead are unreferenced. Referenced them. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Where there are no other performers, why not just say "None" rather than "N/A"? Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Lawrence caption, where are both awards referenced? Now they are. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) N/A shouldn't sort by "n" because it gets in the way of the normal sorting. I would need help here, can you do help me please? "Akiva Schaffer, member of the Lonely Island, " cite please. Rmv it. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Ref should be Refs for multiple refs. Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) "Season 6-7" endash please. Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) One table has a caption, the others don't. Now it's consistent. Check ref titles for compliance with WP:DASH. Fixed. — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC) {{Cite video}} is up for deletion, be aware if it's not adequately replaced or redirected, this list will need more work. The tl is up for renaming actually. So, it wouldn't make much changes tbh. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) "Box Office Mojo. Flixster." which is the work and which is the publisher? Both can't be the publisher, normally works are shown in italics. Because Box Office Mojo is not officially italicized title on Wiki, If I use work I should add work=[title] to it. It's same actually, Box Office Mojo is work and Flixster is the publisher, I just explained why I added them in publisher. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Unknown in the budget/box office should sort as zero. I would need help here too. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) You need to use the {{sort}} template. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Is that USD adjusted or is it per the year of the release? I am not sure, how should I know that, it's not in the sources. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Well you need to find out or make a statement. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC) There is nothing in the sourced to say if it is adjusted or not. I don't know how the note should be written tbh. — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC) Ok, not point in making something up. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Why does "No Rules" have no link? Because it does not have a wiki article. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:33, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Red links are allowed. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 12:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

A few comments from Status: "None"? Well I used the {{n/a}}, but according to The Rambling Man it was better to you just "None", don't know why tbh. — Tomíca(T2ME) 07:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC) "Video" is not needed in "US Video". You don't say "US Album" or "US Single" do you? Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 07:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Television programms --> Television programs (don't even need the word program) Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 07:53, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Statυs (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment

• You have forgotten the two daggers in the Films section. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Done.— Tomíca^(T2ME) 07:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support I see nothing wrong here, so I am confident supporting this FLC. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 11:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments – you're really good with videog/filmog/discogs now, Tomica. I have a few suggestions that perhaps you should consider: Organization: not sure if mixing the film works and music video projects in the lead is nice. Why not dedicate one paragraph to music videos and another to film? That way, you follow the lists. Thanks for your proposal, but I personally think that there is nothing wrong as it is right now. I find it a bit odd having it split and I think chronologically is better. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC) That's OK. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Cohesion: "In 2002, Timberlake launched his solo career and released his solo debut single..." – Replace "Timberlake" with "he", to avoid unpleseant repetition. Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Unnecessary detail: "taken from his first studio album Justified" – It's irrelevant; just remove and say "... solo debut single 'Like I Love You', the music video for which was directed by Bucky Chrome." Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Repetition: "Francis Lawrence directed the music video for 'Cry Me a River'" – Perhaps simply "video" is better. Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Redundancy: there's a lot of fluff here – "the music video for the song won the accolades for Best Male Video and Best Pop Video." Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Grammar: "it received mixed response" – this reads a bit awkward. Perhaps "it received mixed responses" or "mixed reviews". Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Manual of style: "Timberlake released his second studio album FutureSex/LoveSounds— four music videos for singles from the album were shot." – no space after em dashes. Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Formality: "movie critics" should be "film critics". Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Speaking of formality, "girlfriend" is too colloquial. Use "lover" or "romantic interest". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Repetition: speaking of which, you only need to say "film critics" once. Then, refer to them as simply "critics". Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC) "Timberlake starred in the drama The Social Network (2010), where he portrayed Sean Parker, the first president of Facebook." – The Social Network is not a place, so use "in which" instead. Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Redundancy: "both of the films were commercial success." Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Sorting: titles beginning with "A" or "The" should be sorted by the word following the "a" or "the". For example, The Love Guru should be sorted as Love Guru, The, using {{sort}}. Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Not in the Television section. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Done now. — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Consistency: be consistent on whether you use {{Unknown}} or just "Unknown" in plain text. Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC) This is slightly ridiculous, but how do we know the name of the directors/producers isn't "Unknown"? Your best bet would be to use a dash and then at the bottom of the table say "—" denotes an unknown director (or producer or whatever)," or use {{Unknown}} for all of them. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC) I'll get back to this one later. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Sourcing: For what is the VEVO/YouTube link cited? To support the sentence for "Cry Me a River" video synopsis. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC) I'm a bit worried with this one. Not only does the CBS source not support the Spears accusation, but we need a better source for the synopsis summary. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Done now. — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Sourcing: what makes Adland a high quality reliable source? Replaced it. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Citations: Geffen is linked twice. Unlinked. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Citations: Avoid double periods (eg. "Warner Bros.."). — WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC) Removed. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Support – I've looked it over, and I'm happy to support. Well done. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 14:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Looks good, nice work Tom. – Et3rnal 18:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 21:47, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments – In the "From 2007 to 2009" sentence, I don't think the comma should be there after "including". Minor, but should be taken out before promotion. Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC) You got rid of the one before the "including", not after. You should probably move the comma that's left. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC) I think is good now, is it? — Tomíca(T2ME) 09:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC) In the Francis Lawrence caption, "Timberlakes's" should be "Timberlake's", without the second s. Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Films: The Role column should be made sortable by last name, in the cases where last names are avaliable (obviously this doesn't apply for the roles with first name only). Done. — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC) What makes Cinema Blend (ref 80) a reliable source? Changed it. — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 18:29, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

SupportThis list meets the FL criteria and is well-written. Good work Tom. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 18:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

• Why have you not included the 'N Sync videos? I fail to see why these are not a part of his videography just because four other guys were in the group too. He was in those videos, so to exclude them makes the list incomplete.

• They shouldn't be here, because this videography is for work for which he got credit solely as Justin Timberlake, not an NSYNC boy or whatever. Their respective videos could be find in their respective discography. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This is related to one of the points made below by me: how are his performances with Madonna any more relevant than those for 'N Sync? At least a small section with his activity back then should be included here. Nergaal (talk) 09:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay guys, do you rеаlize what I am talking about here? This isn't about if its notable or not, but if it did happen or not. In the music videos of 'Nsync he was not credited as Justin Timberlake, which is different for ex. "4 Minutes" (a song by Madonna which features vocals by Justin Timberlake). This list is about music videos and films he did on his own, not as part of some group or whatever. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

• Technically, music videos don't belong to an album. They're promos for the single, so perhaps it's not necessary to include the album column.

• Of course that the column is for the song, I don't see reason for removing it. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Unreleased material cannot be part of the videography, especially Runner, Runner, where there's not even information on the character he plays. By the time those two movies are released his scenes could have been cut.

• What? So what if the material is not released yet, it doesn't mean it wouldn't be released? If something changes I will change it here too. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Having "unknown" for the role and episode of Touched by an Angel in unacceptable.

• How come? I searched the whole web and couldn't find another information for it. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Chuck Lorre is the creator of SNL, but perhaps that column could be expanded to include writers and directors, so you could list the writers and directors of the Touched by an Angel episode and SNL shows or sketches.

• I found who is the director for every episode of SNL (altough I can't for Touched by an Angel, as I said above), but I am not sure how the column should be now named, because we have creator, producer and director. If you could give a proposal it will be fine. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 06:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support: I've read this, it is very organized and clear. It works well having everything in one article :) Glad to support. Arre 18:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comments I think the music videos section requires an extra column saying who is the main artist of the album; none should probably use some sort of gray background; I would also strongly suggest to have column for awards that he won for the video performances (similar to how album lists have certifications). Nergaal (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

• Tbh, I found that columns completely unnecessary. First, if people want to know who is the main artist of the album they will go to its wiki page. And about the awards column, this is Justin Timberlake videography, not List of awards and nominations received by Justin Timberlake. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 15:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

  You do realize that there's no room for that, right? Box office gross and its budget is fine enough for film information, that is often not even included in filmography tables. And as Tomica said, there's an article for that.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 20:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comment from Aaron
Resolved comments by Aaron Comments - Perhaps make the Role/Director columns etc for the various tables the same width? Same for Title on Music videos table and Guest appearances table AARON• TALK 18:15, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support AARON• ^TALK 18:26, 6 January 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 21:04, 11 January 2013 [15].

---

Scheduled Ancient Monuments in Coventry

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

This follows the success of Grade I listed buildings in Coventry. Some things are a little different—for example, the images are down the side rather than in the table because there are fewer of them and ancient monuments are less photogenic (several are now just patches of grass), but the two lists are very similar. Also, note the lack of "list of", as "schedule" and "list" in this context are synonymous, so the prefix would be redundant in my opinion. As always, comments and suggestions are welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments Picky, and probably personal, but I'd prefer "There are ten..." rather than "There are 10..." Agree, done. Is there not an image for each monument we could use in the table? No. Only of the ones that already have images down the right-hand side. Many of the rest are difficult or not worth photographing—for example Allesley castle is a mound of earth and the two moated sites aren't much more than patches of grass (one with concrete over it). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC) What's the default sorting order for this table? Erm, good question, I'm not entirely sure. Changed to alphabetical. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC) I would link crenellated (only because I had to look it up!)... Linked Also could link "Grade 1 listed" to Grade 1 listed#England and Wales? Linked Could you put "Thomas Broke" into context? As far as I can work out, he doesn't have any notable connection with the site or the area, he was just a wealthy gentleman who purchased the site. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC) "The "Vignoles Bridge" is a" don't think you need to repeat the name here, maybe just "A cast-iron footbridge...." Done "is now occupied by a school, and is now" no need to repeat "now". Done The Rambling Man (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Done a few things as the nominator is busy. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 15:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks as always, TRM, for your comments; and thanks, Tom, for dealing with some of them in my absence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support a nice list which meets my understanding of the criteria, and, as always, comments dealt with in good faith. Great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support superb list, meets the criteria. NapHit (talk) 05:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support no concerns here. Consider archiving your references with archive.org or webcitation.org so that changes in websites don't mess up your sourcing, but that's optional. --PresN 19:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Like several of the other monuments in the city, the Coventry's city walls...". Don't think Conventry should have the 's in front of it here.
  • Fixed
• Images could use alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I could have sworn I'd done it earlier, but added now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 8 January 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 NapHit 02:06, 8 January 2013 [16].

---

List of Crystal Dynamics video games

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Crystal Dynamics was best known for developing the Legacy of Kain and Gex series, but in 2003 the studio became known for the development of the best-selling Tomb Raider franchise after its original developer, Core Design, failed to gain critical or commercial success with their later Tomb Raider games. In 2006, Tomb Raider: Legend was released; it became the fastest selling game in the series and eventually sold 4.5 million units worldwide. Crystal Dynamics then co-developed Tomb Raider: Anniversary, a remake of the first Tomb Raider game, with developer Buzz Monkey Software, and released it in June 2007. The next installment, Tomb Raider Underworld, was released on November 2008 on next-generation consoles. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from --Tomcat (7) 18:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

*Oppose because you hardly used other sites except Allgame, which is not very reliable especially regarding dates. You did not wrote the full dates, you avoided listing all platform dates and the table is odd. For example, this site state November 16, 2004, (it is Crash 'n Burn by the way) but you just inserted the year. Suggest you use the format in List of Looking Glass Studios video games, which is far more attractive, comprehensive and neat. But I oppose largely because it appears that you have not researched very well. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC) No, actually you should use the format in List of Square video games for consistency. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 17:11, 9 December 2012 (UTC) IGN is not reliable for release dates. I wrote all platform dates on videogames with different dates for different platforms. I don't know what you mean with "consistency"; List of The Simpsons video games, which is a featured list, uses this format, so I see no reason to change it. Oh and by the way, Crash N' Burn was released in 1993, not November 16, 2004. The version showcased in that article is not developed by Crystal Dynamics, so it has no place on this list. — ΛΧΣ21 17:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC) "because you hardly used other sites except Allgame"?, List of Square video games, which you mentioned above, hardly used other sites except GameSpot. Are you really aware of how this lists are made? — ΛΧΣ21 17:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

*Comment: The histmerge template makes me concerned about stability. Until that's taken care of, I can't really offer any other comments. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC) The hist merge template is because I made a mistake. No one else has edited the list (I created it actually), so it's not of concern. — ΛΧΣ21 21:27, 9 December 2012 (UTC) Okay, then. I few more comments. Why isn't Tomb Raider (2013 video game) on this list? I was hesitant to include it since it's still on development . Should I include it? Yes, definitely. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Done. I don't think the abbreviation of Crystal Dynamics to "Crystal" is necessary or encyclopedic. Where is it? o.0 Fixed. Is there a source for the claim that Crystal Dynamics was the first licensed developer for the 3DO? Added. Is there a source for the Christmas 1993 launch of the 3DO, or for its commercial failure? Added. I think the "new 32-bit, 3D-capable" part is a bit extraneous for a quick summary like this. Changed to "became a publisher for two new gaming consoles". The first sentence of the second paragraph is unclear. Is 2003 when Crystal Dynamics took over the series, or is it when they became known for Tomb Raider? In either case, I think the sentence is too long and convoluted—try chopping it up into two or three smaller ones. I chopped it. Is there a source for the claim that the company was best known for Gex and Legacy of Kain? Added. You mention that Tomb Raider: Legend was "released", but you don't specify that Crystal Dynamics developed it, which makes it a bit vague given the context. I rewrote the rest of the paragraph. Take a look. The last two sentences seem to lose the summary focus of the lead, getting bogged down in details. Maybe summarize that the company continued to work on the Tomb Raider series, mentioning names and dates in a concise manner. Above. That's it for now. I'll be back with more comments soon. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC) I have fixed all. If you have more concerns, I'd be glad to solve them. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 00:46, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Added one more note above. Still have a few more things to add. Is this template compatible with screen readers? I'm not terribly well-versed in all of this myself, but it's an important issue. Yes, it is. I think it might be best to move the discussion of Crystal Dynamics' business history to later on in the lead. All of that stuff about the company being acquired bogs down the pacing of the intro. Maybe change the second sentence to: "Based in the San Francisco Bay Area, Crystal Dynamics was the first licensed...". Shove the other material to the end of the first paragraph, maybe. Done. Moved the acquisition history to the end of the first paragraph. The image's rationale says it's non-free, but, legally, I don't think that's the case. I recommend getting some advice from the copyright experts before taking action, but stuff like File:Square Enix logo.svg and File:Square logo.png is free. I don't exactly know how to do in this case; let me document myself. — ΛΧΣ21 20:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Okay. I have uploaded the image to commons with the correspondend license and requested deletion of the local copy. — ΛΧΣ21 20:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC) After these are taken care of, I'll support. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support: Looks solid. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Statυs (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Status: San Francisco Bay Area → of? launch time → launch game 994 → 1994 Unsure why the logo is in a thumbnail? How about adding a bit of an overview/summary write-up, like in List of The Simpsons video games? Publisher(s) → Publisher, when there's only one, and Publishers when there are more than one. Statυs (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Fixed all but the later, which is virtually impossible to solve. Thanks for your comments :) — ΛΧΣ21 22:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC) I'll allow it. Statυs (talk) 22:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Good work! Statυs (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support. The list looks good, and according to my point I can't find any particular issues in it. Good job! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Please re-read my comments above, and then ask yourself what you forgot to change. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  From what I read, nothing. If you are talking about the table, it will stay as it is :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  No, not the table. There is another thing that was not changed.--Tomcat (7) 19:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  Excuse me; I'm blind and couldn't see it yet. Your comments were (and my responses):

  • "Didn't write all dates": They are not available. usually, games released before 1996/97 are difficult to track their specific release date.
  • "You avoided listing all platform dates": this is only needed when platform dates vary.
  • "For example, this site state November 16, 2004, (it is Crash 'n Burn by the way) but you just inserted the year": That game wasn't developed by Crystal Dynamics. It is a remake by other studio that was released 11 years after the original and thus doesn't belong to this list.

  I see no other comments. If I missed something, please let me know. I'm blind sometimes, and I apologize for that. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  Crash n' Burn should be Crash 'n Burn :). Regards.--Tomcat (7) 20:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  OH. That is. Yep, I'm blind sometimes. I'll fix it now. Thanks Tomcat. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Don't like the floating image in the lead, please add an informative caption to it. Done. Link to Crash 'n Burn (video game) is a dab link. It wasn't two days ago. I fixed it. "first licensed developer for 3DO" followed by "Panasonic's original 3DO console" surely you should introduce the 3DO as Panasonic's console first time round....? Done. " the PlayStation and" is that the Playstation console or the generic Playstation brand you seem to be linking? The console. Fixed the link. "best known..." and "became known for..." all a little wishy-washy, let's be factual. Don't know who wrote that. I changed it back to what I wrote. Should Tomb Raider be italicised or not? Yes. Don't know who wrote the unitalicized occurrence. " of secondary studios" I don't know what a "secondary studio" is. Changed. " it has developed" reiterate Crystal here instead of just "it" Done. Suitably link "reboot" in this context. Done. Lead spends most of its time discussing the history of the company, not the video games, of which this is supposed to be a list. Would suggest reworking it to highlight the notable games rather than dwell on the history of the company which is better served in the main article about the company. The history of the company is key to understand the continuity of the games the studio developed. I can expand a bit on the second paragraph about notable games, but the story needs to be there. At least one ref calls the game "Crash N Burn", not "Crash n' Burn"... Changed to 'Crash N Burn. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC) I guess I have adressed all but the lead. I will expand the second paragraph with more relevant information about the games. — ΛΧΣ21 22:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC) I have expanded the lead with pertinent information about their games. — ΛΧΣ21 23:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments –

• "Crystal Dynamics gained the rights of the fanchise in 1998...". "fanchise" → "franchise". Also, I'm thinking that "of" should be "to" for the sake of the sentence as a whole.
• In the photo caption, the comma should be removed.
• Note 14: "windows" needs capitalization.
• In ref 2, the pp. should instead be p., as this is a single-page cite. If you're using the citation templates, changing the pages= parameter to page= will fix this. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  Fixed all. Thanks Giants. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Support

• Makes me sad that you just use a bare wikitable instead of the other VG game list templates. This way focuses most of the attention on the platforms, while still jamming together multiple platforms by the same company, losing region-specificity, and yet not gaining sorting functionality. Oh well.

  I don't use a bare wikitable... I use {{ListEntry/VG}}... :)

• "showcases the correspondent title"? Did you mean "corresponding"?

  Done.

• You link the first 3 genres, but not "shooter". Or "action", or "adventure".

  Done.

• And you link Sega Saturn the fourth time you use it in the table.

  Done.

• You should link Feral Interactive and Square Enix in the table (each only used once).

  Done.

• Are all these release dates for the NA region? Or just the first place the game was released (likely the same thing)?

  First region it was released for each platform.

• Were none of them released in other regions if this is just NA?

  Indeed, but I specified only the first date, regardless of the region.

• Can you really not find more specific released dates for any of the '90s games? (or the 2006 mobile Pandemonium release)? 'Cause a quick peek at Gamespot is giving me full year-month-day for all the Gex games, at least- the 90s weren't that long ago. I know you like Allgame, but... that lack of specificity is exactly why I don't use it in my lists. (well, that and it's biased away from Japanese games and my lists are heavy on those.)

  I was recommended not to use GameSpot as a source for dates while on my Sinistar: Unleashed FAC. So, what should I do? Can I use IGN? I don't know if GameInformer holds a pre-2000 game database. I will check again.

• Remove the (s) from "Publisher(s)" for rows that have only one publisher, and make it "Publishers" if there's multiple. They're not column headers like "Platform(s)", there's no need to be generic.

  Fixed the code of {{ListEntry/VG}}.

• Find a way to make Game Boy Color fit on one line (GBC?) or find a way to denote when there's two platforms in a box besides the line break- right now it looks like some games were released for the "Game Boy" as well as the "Color" (or alternately, that some were released for the "Windows Xbox 360").

  I made each console to fit a single line. I guess this fixes the issue.

• Did I mention that I really don't like this table format? Though I do like the regimented release details style, you're dropping details and squashing others.
• You have "Crash N Burn" in the table and "Crash 'n Burn" in the lead (as a redirect, as well.) "Tomb Raider" in the lead is also a redirect, as is California.

  Done

• Other redirects that don't look intentional- Mac OS X, Sega Dreamcast, GameCube, Whiplash, Microsoft Corporation, Crash N Burn in the table.

  Done.

• I wish the "notes" were integrated into the table, but that's more of a personal preference thing, I think.

  I don't find a way to make them look good inside the table...

• Consider archiving your refs- video game sites can be ephemeral, and all the data your citing here is more than usual subject to change without notice. --PresN 05:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

  Ugh painful process that is. I will do it slowly, first on the non-Allgame refs, then the rest.

• --PresN 05:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Okay. I think I have adressed all. Sorry for the late response, I was handling the issues of my FAC :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 20:22, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
    • No worries, that was quite quick, and overnight for me. I didn't realize that you had made your own template- guess we're up to 3 different VG template styles in addition to a few variants on straight wikitables used in FLs/FLCs. Oh well, every company is different-it's not a format I'll likely use, but I'm not going to oppose over different aesthetics if it gets the job done. I'm going to let it go about the different regions- if you don't feel it's as important for Crystal Dynamics (as an American company) as it is for Square Enix (as a Japanese company) to list out the different releases for each region, that's your call. Changed to Support, good job. --PresN 22:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, As an american company, I considered that adding all the regions isn't important. Thank you for your comments PresN :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Can somebody explain me what is the advantage of bunching the release data into one cell instead of having three columns which are sortable? Nergaal (talk) 09:15, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Why do we need to give so much space and highlight to release dates? The games are already ordered by release date from earliest to latest, and release dates of each game are ordered per alphabetical console names. I don't find it useful to make a column for each release date per region. It is not attractive and looks indiscriminate. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
    • However, you find it attractive or indiscriminate, but the readers will be happy to find the information they are searching for. Your Template:ListEntry/VG, created by you without discussion, has numerous missing information that are necessary.--Tomcat (7) 18:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
      • I guess that after receiving the approval of PresN, nothing else needs to be discussed about how the template is designed. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:18, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
        • You would be better served discussing the merits of each template at the relevant wiki project than here, this is not the place to discuss it. NapHit (talk) 14:26, 2 January 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 NapHit 02:06, 8 January 2013 [17].

---

List of Looking Glass Studios video games

Nominator(s): JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Looking Glass Studios was a strange company, and this list reflects it. Their first game, Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss, is still legendary for its innovations; their second, John Madden Football '93, is hardly distinguishable from any other early Madden title. Famous games like Thief: The Dark Project and System Shock 2 rub shoulders with an obscure golf title and a cancelled kayaking game for the Nintendo 64. Big commercial successes like Flight Unlimited are followed by massive commercial failures like Terra Nova: Strike Force Centauri. The company cannot be summarized easily, but, with any luck, this list comes close to pulling it off. All credit goes to User:PresN for the list's layout and lead: I'm a newbie at this stuff, so I was mainly in charge of the grunt work. If he wants to place himself as a co-nominator, he's welcome to do so. In any case, I will work quickly to address any concerns that may arise. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments by Hahc21

Quick comments On reference #9, "read.me; Looking Glass Shuts Down" is the title? It's weird. I agree that it's weird, but Computer Gaming World's news section was indeed called "read.me" (all lower case). Following newspaper archiving services like Lexis Nexis, I put the title of the section before the article title, with a semicolon separating them. I actually don't know if this is Wikipedia protocol, but I was doing it on FACs as recently as last year without anyone pointing it out. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC) There is no issue with it. I just wanted to see if it wasn't a typo. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Why some entries say "Windows 95" and others only "Windows"? At some point, the company transitioned out of Windows 95 to later versions of Windows. This change wasn't as notable as the one from DOS to 95, though, so sources don't bother to mention it. Do you think I should standardize it all to just plain "Windows"? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Well, I guess that it's better if you standarize them all. Then, you avoid confusion. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC) Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Okay. I have checked the list and I have no issues with it. Good work. — ΛΧΣ21™ 00:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments Any images? None that I know of. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Unlink "1990" per WP:OVERLINK Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC) "nearly 500,000 units" depends on your point of view, see WP:NPOV. Would change to something like "it has sold over ... units" instead That would be original research. The source reads: "Ultima Underworld went on to sell nearly half a million copies". There is no other way of phrasing that information without including an arbitrary, OR statistic. Further, I have used the "nearly" language in FACs as recent as September of last year without complaint. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC) "The company's first game was Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss in 1992" would change to "The company's first game was Ultima Underworld: The Stygian Abyss in 1992, which was released in 1992" for a more engaging, understanding, prose The game began development in 1990, and it didn't have the Ultima license when it started—so, to follow the sources, this rephrase would read, "The company's first game was Underworld (later Ultima Underworld) in 1990, which was released in 1992." I personally find that confusing, and I think that it adds too much irrelevant detail for a brief summary like this one. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC) "to close on May 24, 2000 and to cancel" remove that last "to" there I'm fairly certain that the second "to" is grammatically correct in this sentence, if a bit formal. That's a hunch picked up from reading, though, and not from technical knowledge of grammar. Do you have a style guide that supports your version? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Tables don't meet WP:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does I'm not familiar with table captions—list newbie, as I said. PresN told me to inform you that the "Games" heading is the caption, and that the template in this article is incapable of having a regular caption as yet. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Please don't use italics in reference titles Every FA I've ever worked on, from 2006 to 2011, uses italicized titles in references. Even the very recent FA System Shock 2 (with which I was uninvolved) uses them. If this is in the MoS, it must be a new addition. Do you have a link to this guideline? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Some references are missing accessdates Just to clarify: Offline sources don't need accessdates. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC) In my experience, archived links don't need accessdates, either. I found two non-archived links without accessdates, and I added them in those cases. As for the archived links, PresN appears to have added quite a few accessdates right before the nomination went up, although he missed a few. Before I add them in those cases, I'd like to confirm that they are indeed necessary. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC) "Looking Glass Studios official website" not needed, just state "Official website" Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC) TBrandley 02:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC) Further comments "by Paul Neurath in Salem, New Hampshire." please state the country, which in this case is, United States Changed the first sentence to "was an American video game developer" to clarify the country. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC) "to close on May 24, 2000 and to cancel" too many uses of "to", remove the last one as it is very unneeded Done. I still think you're wrong, but it isn't worth fighting over. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC) TBrandley 06:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Great work, looks like a solid list. TBrandley 18:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 16:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments – In terms of wanting to review this, you had me at Madden... Jane's Attack Squadron: "and" is needed before "released". It was completed by Mad Doc in 2002 as well, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC) I played with the wording, revert if I've messed it up. --PresN 22:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Oh, sorry—I didn't realize that we were talking about the version of that sentence on the list itself. Got confused for a second, there. Thanks for catching that typo. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC) All caps in ref 5 need removal. Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Ref 10 needs a publisher. It has one, but there was an error in the template formatting that caused it not to show up. Fixed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC) What makes The Adrenaline Vault (ref 36) a reliable source? Never thought I'd have to defend Adrenaline Vault. It was kind of a famous game site in the '90s. The site was mentioned in Computerworld as a "top 10 site" on AltaVista in 1999. Google Scholar brings up quite a few uses of it as a source. If you need more than that, it wouldn't be hard for me to dig it up. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Ref 43 also needs a publisher (GameSpot). Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Ref 55 needs an access date. Done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC) Giants2008 (Talk) 18:17, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments What makes ref 1 a reliable source? And it's self-promoting so should we really be relying on it? It is not self-promotion. It's a post-mortem on the game Ultima Underworld written by that game's creator and published on the fansite Through the Looking Glass. It was given the okay by source-checking expert User:Ealdgyth back in 2009 (during UU's FAC), and it has been used as a source by the book Swords & Circuitry: A Designer's Guide to Computer Role-Playing Games. And, in any case, the sales information is backed up by ref 2. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Ref 2 doesn't work for me. Internet Archive has been going crazy lately. Replaced it with a Bibalex mirror. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Ref 7 requires a subscription to cite what you're saying it cites. The link honestly should not even be there, since Highbeam is an archive and not the newspaper source being cited. Removed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC) What does "(FM Towns version)" mean in at the bottom of the first cell? The FM Towns was a Japanese computer. The final release date is for the FM Towns version. PresN is that one who put that there, though, so I can't give more of an explanation than that. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC) UU was released for DOS, and ported to other systems. It was released in the US and Europe in 1992, but the first release in Japan (in 1993) was not the original DOS version, but the FM Towns port. FM Towns is a different type of computer- while most of the world had standardized by the 90s so that any program could run on any computer (if you had the right operating system as well), Japan had not- a DOS program would not physically run on an FM Towns computer, as DOS itself could not run on it. Marking the first release version is something that I've done in a few other FLs, though if you hate it I can chop it here, especially as it's just the one (and UU2, which I just noticed.) --PresN 22:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC) The table isn't sortable, so not sure why you need to relink consoles etc each time? I have no idea how any of that stuff works. As I said, PresN is the one who dealt with the layout. Could you explain what exactly I should change? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2012 (UTC) I got it. For non-sortable tables, just like prose, you only link the first instance. For sortable tables, what is "first" depends on how it's sorted, so you link it every time. I thought it was just personal preference in tables like this, but I guess not. --PresN 22:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC) Ah, thanks. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose in the current format. I really don't like the two-column format. I would prefer breaking the top of the second column into columns like: DOS release date, Windows release date, Other release dates, Cancellation date. Nergaal (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you clarify which criteria this candidate fails, or is it just your personal taste that causes you to oppose? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as someone involved in making this list, I would very much oppose Nergaal's proposed setup- having multiple entire columns that are only used by a few of the rows in a table is a waste of space. This template format is used in several other FLs, and I don't see the rationale behind opposing over it. --PresN 22:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Although I personally dislike the table, I agree with PresN. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Can you guys explain what is the point of having tables if all the information is hidden in the tables in a way in which is really not easy to glance at? Why not just trasform the entries into paragraphs then? Nergaal (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't find the information hidden within the table. I find it well-structured (in some sort). — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

;Comments from Crisco 1492 "with three titles published by Looking Glass Studios themselves." - Perhaps "with three titles independently published by Looking Glass Studios."? innovations in technology - Game technology, or technology in general? their second two - that suggests that there was a first two Nothing much from me (and no image to check). Pretty solid — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the review. Took a stab at fixing these issues. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:47, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support on prose. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:47, 27 December 2012 (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 NapHit 02:06, 8 January 2013 [18].

---

List of awards and nominations received by The Vampire Diaries

Nominator(s): — Bill william compton^Talk 21:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe this article meets all the criteria. I've worked extensively on this. I will endeavour to answer any queries, concerns and comments. Thank you for your attention to this nomination. — Bill william compton^Talk 21:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments "The series ... " repeated consecutive sentences. Done "a variety of different awards" don't think you need both "variety" and "different" here. Done "three Saturn Awards" reads a little odd as these were simply nominations. Done USEng article so stick with "honors". Done Don't repeat first names of actors you've already fully named. Done "To date..." Try "As of November 2012" Done Infobox -> Awards & Nominations -> Awards & nominations. Done Caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop. Done "American Latino Media Arts Award, commonly known as the ALMA Award,..." sentence should start with a "The..." Done USEng, "recognising" should take a z. Done "of Mexican descent" I would have commas before and after this clause. Done Don't think you need wikilinks in the table captions. Done Ref -> Ref(s). Done Would prefer to see ref col centred. Done Don't like blank cells when the item nominated is The Vampire Diaries. Done What is the logic behind the order of these nominations? Should be alphabetical or notability or something, looks random right now. Done "that honours the year's biggest achievements in music, films, sports, television, fashion, and more" reads like a quote, if it is a quote then put it in "quotes", if not, reword it so it doesn't read like a piece of an advert. Done "The Vampire Diaries has received total twenty-nine nominations." grammar fail. Done Refs should be in numerical order. Done "recognises " top young artists", " remove space before "top" and again, check USEng is used throughout. Done Avoid SHOUTING in the reference titles. Done The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your comments. — Bill william comptonTalk 13:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments Link supernatural drama per WP:UNDERLINK Done "The series ... " repeated consecutive sentence openers. Done Link Virgina per WP:MOS Done "awards including" missing comma after awards Done "has been nominated for 58 awards and has won 22" to "has been nominated for 58 awards, having won 22" Done The second row/column thing in the first "Alma Awards" is missing ! scope="row", see WP:ACCESS You took care of this, I guess. Not keen over the whitespace in "Youth Rock Awards", can the image be shortened or something Done See also links not needed. If they were, remember the TV show should be in italics Done Don't use {{cite web}} for external links Done TBrandley 15:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks Tate. — Bill william comptonTalk 04:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support on all criteria. TBrandley ^{(what's up)} 18:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support, good referencing, just a caveat that hopefully the nominator and/or other interested users will update the "pending" entries over time. :) — Cirt (talk) 06:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 (talk)

;Comments from Crisco 1492 "It is adapted from L. J. Smith's novel series of the same name by Kevin Williamson and Julie Plec." - Perhaps go active with this sentence, to avoid unnecessary ambiguity (i.e. "Screenwriters Kevin Williamson and Julie Plec adapted the show from L. J. Smith's novel series of the same name") Done Katherine Pierce - Played by? Done The cast of the show has received most honors, with three lead protagonists—Dobrev, Wesley and Salvatore—receiving the most nominations. - This whole sentence feels awkward. Perhaps just "The three lead protagonists—Dobrev, Wesley and Salvatore—have received the most nominations" Done for her role as Elena Gilbert - Feels redundant (you say who she played above) Done four Teen Choice Awards for TV Breakout Star (Female) (in 2010) and TV Actress (Fantasy/Sci-Fi) (in 2010, 2011 and 2012), People's Choice Award for Favourite TV Drama Actress and the Young Hollywood Award (Making Their Mark). - I'd go with simply "four Teen Choice Awards, a People's Choice Award, and the Young Hollywood Award" and leave the specifics for the table. I'm reading the first bit as "four Teen Choice Awards for TV Breakout Star (Female)" and not "four Teen Choice Awards, for TV Breakout Star (Female) ...". Done receiving twelve nominations - I see a joint nomination too. That would be thirteen Done All images look okay (no action required) What's with repetitively linking cast in different tables, but linking them only once in single tables? For navigational purpose and this format is used by other featured lists in a same category. Moreover, linking each entry in a same table would be WP:OVERLINKING. I've copyedited, be sure to double check. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2012 (UTC) Thanks Crisco, you're always a real help. — Bill william comptonTalk 06:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Support on prose and images. Solid list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 23:33, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Source comments – What makes Groucho Reviews (ref 2) a reliable source? Replaced with more reliable sources. What makes Wet Paint Entertainment (refs 3, 10, and 29) reliable? No reason to doubt. Wetpaint is a notable and reliable source. I looked at our article on the subject and it appears that Wetpaint accepts user-submitted content. This makes me very uncertain that it is a reliable source, as we usually don't consider user-submitted content like wikis to be reliable enough. Surely the Teen Choice Awards and Do Something Awards have more reliable alternative sources avaliable? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Indeed, and done. — Bill william comptonTalk 06:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC) What makes Collider (refs 20–24) reliable? Replaced with the Saturn Award's sources. Same for tvfanatic.com (ref 26). Replaced with a more reliable source. The Wet Paint and All Voices refs have the publishers formatted inconsistently, which should be corrected. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC) Done – formatted all sources in a consistent manner. — Bill william comptonTalk 11:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Ref 20 has a Saturn Awards in the publisher, while the other four refs from that site don't. That's a new inconsistency that should be addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Done. — Bill william comptonTalk 06:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose? to be honest, it is not very clear to me that this list deserves to be a stand-alone one. Essentially asides from PCA, TCA and Saturn, all the other awards are minor at best. And of these 3 only the Saturn one is actually prestigious. Even then, if only the 3 are kept, this list can easily be incorporated into the main series article, at least for the time being. Nergaal (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know there was any criterion for "prestigiousness". This is very subjective. I consider every notable (large media coverage and being covered by multiple reliable primary and secondary sources) award prestigious, for you only Saturn Award crosses this threshold and perhaps for someone only EGOT are prestigious. List (including accompanying prose) is big enough to be accommodated in the main article. — Bill william compton^Talk 14:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

There isn't a criterion for prestigiousness. It's simply Nergaal's opinion that some awards are more important than others unless referenced. I see no issue with this, all lists of this type include nominations from every award the film/tv show was nominated for. We don't exclude based on some sense of one being more important than the other. Therefore, as I am concerned, the list should not be merged into the parent article as Nergaal states. NapHit (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Nergaal's"personal preference" is really not of any note with regard to the notability of awards. Why on earth he would suggest deleting a massive number of awards and then merging back into the main article is entirely beyond me. This will be a call for Giants2008 unless the nomination drags on a bit, but I will disregard the above "personal" oppose. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2012 (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 22:10, 4 January 2013 [19].

---

The Veronicas discography

Nominator(s): Till 10:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on it all day, fixed the lead, charts, sections, tables and references, and think it meets the WP:FLC. Till 10:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Statυs (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Status: Press releases, from record labels, are not reliable sources for sales. Labels often inflate them. Which one is the press release? Till 22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC) The one from Business Wire. Statυs (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Removed. Till 00:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC) The Veronicas: Mtv.com Live EP is missing. Added. Till 00:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Charts should match up in the albums and singles sections. I'm not sure what you mean here, sorry. Till 22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC) For album positions, you have: AUS, BEL FL, FRA, IRE, MEX, NLD, NZ, SWI, UK and US. For singles, you have: AUS, AUT, CAN, GER, IRE, NLD, NZ, SWI, UK, US. The same countries should be used throughout the article. Statυs (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Removed Belgium, France and Mexico. Till 23:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Missing sources for "Other appearances" and "Songwriting credits" section. They are also not present in the infobox. Also, I'm unsure on what songwriting credits have to do with their discography - a discography being an artist's releases. Removed and added to infobox. Till 22:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC) Everything's sourced now. Till 00:05, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Statυs (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments "The Veronicas, 2009" change comma to "in" perhaps Done. Till 02:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC) "The Secret Life of... was" add a comma just before "was" Done. Till 02:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC) "including "Everything I'm Not" and "When It All Falls Apart"; both reached" check your grammar at the end, would suggest adding a "they" just after the semi-colon Fixed. Till 02:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC) The table in the other appearances section does not meet WP:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does I don't know what that is, sorry. Till 02:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC) The table in the other appearances section does not meet WP:ACCESS, add scope cols and rows to ensure it does I don't think I know how to do that. Till 02:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Any external links, with WP:ELNO in mind? Added Allmusic to the "General" references. Till 04:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Otherwise seems very good. TBrandley 01:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Thanks! Till 02:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Support Good work. TBrandley 18:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Till 02:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments My perennial question, where are release dates for albums and associated release territories referenced? This needs to be addressed, as it is now standard practice for these to be referenced. I wouldn't feel comfortable promoting this list with this unaddressed.NapHit (talk) 05:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Added sources. Till 08:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC) You also need to add the region the release date is referring to. For instance it appears the fist release date is when it was released in Australia, as the website is Australian. One of the EPs is not referenced and the other appearances table needs the song and year column swapping and needs row scopes adding. NapHit (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC) All the release dates are for Australia, they are an Australian duo. I don't see why adding the region is necessary in this context. I already attempted to find a source for the unreferenced EP but I couldn't find one. I checked Allmusic, JB Hi-Fi, iTunes, Amazon, and others but none of them have it. Till 14:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC) They may be an Australian duo, but the reader shouldn't have to assume the release dates are referring to Australia it should be explicit. The region is needed as the releases vary in those regions, so its necessary to know which region the date is referring to. Also if you can't find a source for the unreferenced EP how do you know it was released on 1 August 2006? NapHit (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC) I don't, that's just what the Wikipedia article said. Till 03:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC) as wiki is not a reliable source you'll have to remove it until you come across a reliable source that gives the release date. NapHit (talk) 04:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Remove the release date, or remove the entire EP? Till 05:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC) the release date, just put the year.NapHit (talk) 06:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC) Removed. Till 07:11, 28 December 2012 (UTC) What does "2ca" mean in the infobox? No idea. It was there before I began editing the article. I've corrected it. Till 01:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC) "the album experienced success in Australia," why not "the album was successful in..."? Changed. Till 00:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC) "certified quadriple Platinum" I guess you mean quadruple, and I suggest you link "certified" appropriately. Linked and corrected spelling. Till 00:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC) "a top twenty hit in " I imagine some hyphens missing here, e.g. "top-twenty" A reviewer from FAC told me that hyphens are invasive and should not be used. Till 00:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Well that individual was incorrect. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Added hyphens. Till 13:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC) "was released two years following the release of The Secret Life of...." why not just say what year it was released? Corrected. Till 00:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC) The intro stops coverage of the band's discog in 2007, what happened next? Added release of "Lolita". Till 00:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Our article has a capital O in The Secret Life Of..., why not here? MOS:CT clearly states that the first and last words in a title are always capitalized. Yep... so why does that not apply here.....?! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Sorry lol </3 Fixed it. Till 13:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Where is "The Veronicas: Mtv.com Live EP" referenced? It isn't, cause I can't find a source :( Till 13:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Where is non-charting "Popular" referenced? Added a source. Till 00:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Avoid double full stops in refs e.g. refs 20, 21 etc... Fixed. Till 00:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC) The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 04:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Comments – didn't find much to comment on, so well done. Infobox: The EPs link does not work. Furthermore, the number of EPs is supposed to be 4, not 3. Fixed both. Till 03:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Infobox: Also, the infobox says that she released 2 video albums, yet where are they in the list? Well, the video albums are kind of part of the live albums. There is a CD and DVD. Till 03:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC) The infobox already includes live albums, so the video albums number is redundant and can cause confusion. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 04:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Okay, I guess you want me to remove it. Which I've done now. Till 04:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Infobox: 12 music videos, not 11. They have appeared in 12 music videos. I've corrected it in the lead. Till 03:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Grammar: "...which reached the top-ten in Australia and earned Gold certification." – no need for the hyphen there. "Top ten" isn't an adjective. Removed. Till 03:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Grammar: "Musically, Hook Me Up differed from its predecessor..." – when describing work, use simple present. Done. Till 03:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Grammar: "...which charted in the top-forty of the Australian Singles Chart and was certified Gold." – again, no hyphen. Removed. Till 03:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Tables: In the live albums table, why not just leave the cell blank if there was no certification? That's what's done down in the Singles table. Fixed. Till 03:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Sourcing: What makes Undercover a reliable source? From their 'About Us' page: "With a long established credibility within the music industry, UNDERCOVER works directly with all major and independent record labels and promoters in Australia as well as labels, publicists and promoters in the USA and UK." Seems reliable to me. Till 03:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Citation: In ref 22, why is "Yahoo! News" italicized if it is a web source? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:51, 24 December 2012 (UTC) Unitalicized. Till 03:45, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Support – I feel this list satisfies the FL criteria. Great work. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 04:52, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Till 04:55, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Support I took time to go through this article and honestly, there is nothing to comment on here. So confidently, I vote for this list to be promoted as a featured one. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:26, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Till 10:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Amazing job. Well done. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 06:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Till 10:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Looks very good to me. Well done! I Am Rufus • Conversation is a beautiful thing. 11:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Till 04:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Support Well-written, reliably sourced and overall solid. Good work. —PKS:1142 · ^(TALK) 18:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Till 02:31, 28 December 2012 (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 22:10, 4 January 2013 [20].

---

List of Canada's Wonderland attractions

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FLC criteria.--Dom497 (talk) 23:10, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from TBrandley (talk) 03:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose My main concern is the lede, they should be expanded, and should be more than just some one-line paragraphs, the first and three seem fine, but the second needs to be expanded upon, see WP:LEDE Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC) I also think the prose of the article needs a copy-edit As you have expanded the prose, and fixed it up. I don't think one is needed, now, but if you'd like, go ahead, seems fine though. TBrandley 03:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC) Any lede image? Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Link Canada's Wonderland per WP:UNDERLINK, there must be an article on it, rather than just this list Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Unlink Canada per WP:OVERLINK Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC) "26 ride" check your grammar Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC) "rides including" missing comma between Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Don't use words like "newest" per WP:RELTIME Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC) ", etc" shouldn't be used, spelled out fully at the very least Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Add alt text to the images per MOS:IMAGES Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Tables don't meet WP:ACCESS, add scope cols and rows to ensure it does Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Tables don't meet WP:DTT, add table captions to ensure it does Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC) The last column of tables don't even have a header. Add one please, like "Ref." Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Just a suggestion, but you could align references in the table to the center Any external links? Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Any further categories? Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 02:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 180 pounds, use 180 pounds, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 180 pounds. Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:42, 3 November 2012 (UTC) TBrandley 18:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments, A few minor issues: Support

• "When the park first opened in 1981, there were 26 rides, today there are a total of over 65 rides": Run-on sentence. Two independent clauses, needs a conjunction before "today" or a semicolon. It can also be conveyed as two separate sentences.

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Canada's Wonderland most recent built attractions": Wonderland is missing a possessive apostrophe.

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Exact reasons why this section was never built have never been given.": Needs a citation.

I have removed this statement and replaced it with another.--Dom497 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• "inside of Splash Works though the ratings": There needs to be a comma before the subordinating conjunction "though".

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

--xanchester (t) 19:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• "Sledgehammer, the only of its kind in the world." Needs a citation. Not mentioned elsewhere in the article.--xanchester (t) 20:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comments a few nitpicks Support
  • "When the park first opened in 1981, there were 26 rides." - I would write something like "Initially the park had 26 rides when it first opened in 1981

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• • " dinosaur themed" - should there be a hyphen in between?

Why? I personally think not.--Dom497 (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it looks like a compound modifier, but I will leave it to someone who has a better understanding in English grammar. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

• • "Original plans and park maps when the park was being built showed that the area that is now Splash Works and White Water " - I think this phrase is a bit odd (particularly when you suddenly write "when"). It could be reworded--Tomcat (7) 18:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments "Today, there are a total of over 65 rides" this sentence makes no sense, does it have 65 rides or not? If so just write Today, there are 65 rides Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC) "Leviathan, a 306-foot (93 m) Bolliger & Mabillard roller coaster, along with Dinosaurs Alive! which is an interactive animatronic dinosaur themed area/walkway designed for children which were both added for the 2012 season." -> Leviathan, a 306-foot (93 m) Bolliger & Mabillard roller coaster and Dinosaurs Alive, which is an animatronic dinosaur themed area/walkway. Both were added for the 2012 season. Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC) References column should not be sortable, you can also shorten it to Ref(s). Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC) In the height requirements column, are the measurements in inches? If so I would make it explicit by adding a note Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC) ref 3, needs an author adding and Toronto Sun should be in italics as its a printed publication Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC) ref 7, you need to add the parameter |format=PDF and the publisher Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC) ref 40 no need to SHOUT, just write it out normally Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC) NapHit (talk) 14:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC) A-Mazing Adventure should be first in the table, as when you click the sort button it moves to the top. Alternatively you could force it to sort in relation to its current position in the table Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Just noticed that you have a number of rides that start with "The..." that are sorting as T instead of sorting by their position in the table. You'll need to use the {{sort}} template to force them to sort by their current position. NapHit (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Done.--Dom497 (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

• ref 4, the hyphen should be an en dash. Also what makes that source reliable? Looks like a blog to me

I have fixed the hyphen. Regarding the reliability, though it may be hard to believe, the source is actually pretty reliable. If it makes a difference, there is a book published in 1981 that talks about Frontier Canada but I have no idea what page(s) the info is on.--Dom497 (talk) 20:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm still not overly convinced by the site. I'll leave this comment up so others can comment on it. NapHit (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• This is a sentence fragment: "Both added for the 2012 season."

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ride names beginning with "A" or "The" should be sorted based on the next word in the name. For example, in place of "The Bat" in the table, enter {{sort|Bat, The|The Bat}}.

Another user fixed this.--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• I agree that the Blogspot site looks a bit shaky. Using the 1981 book instead would be much better, if you could get a hand on the page number.

I will tell you right now that I would not be able to get a page number...is just adding the book in general good enough?--Dom497 (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Dom, would you be able to make a trip to the Toronto Public Library? They have a reference copy. Themeparkgc  Talk  01:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

A book reference without the page numbers still seems better than referencing the blog site, but Themeparkgc has an interesting point. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 10:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Without going into too much detail, I can't. I got school, I tried getting a digital copy (can't because it breaks copyright) and I called the library (boy, they were lots of help...not). I really don't think 2 or 3 pages really make a difference any ways.--Dom497 (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't find the ISBN of the book. Is that necessary?--Dom497 (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It is encouraged, but at the least: title, year and author. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:10, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The publication, unfortunately, was ghostwritten. Is it just the Wilderness Canada section you need the page numbers for? I have the first and second season editions of the book in my personal CW collection. -- Zanimum (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Too bad that it was ghostwritten. I believe that's what we're looking for (Wilderness). —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 20:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll edit tomorrow; I do have the editor and assistant editor names, and based on the consistent voice of the book (and its relative brevity), I can't imagine there were any other writers involved. -- Zanimum (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Everything otherwise looks very well done. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 01:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay, I've been dealing with a museum opening. I've now added in the proper reference. -- Zanimum (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. is there a reference for Action Theatre in the table? —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Source comments –

• I still see a blog in use as ref 5, and think that this is not reliable enough for an FL.

Removed ref.--Dom497 (talk) 20:44, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• Ref 8 requires a publisher (Canada's Wonderland).

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• All caps in refs 38 and 66 should be taken out. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Oppose too many issues still outstanding... Consider making the lead image larger, it's a cool picture. Done.--Astros4477 (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC) "...had 26 rides when it first opened in 1981. Today, there are 65 rides, including the water rides..." overuse of the word "ride" here... Reworded to remove two instances. Themeparkgc  Talk  01:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Overcapitalisation in the table and headings (e.g. Height Restriction is just Height restriction, No Height Restriction -> No height restriction, Children's Maze->Children's maze etc etc). Done for all except actual model names. Themeparkgc  Talk  01:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC) "Sledgehammer, the only ride its kind in the world.[8]" missing a word, the period is not required, and what exactly makes it unique? Added "of". As a side note, I believe maintenance/mechanical issues have resulted in the ride not being built anywhere else. Themeparkgc  Talk  01:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Consistency with commas please, e.g. "Under 54", or if over, must" vs "Over 46" or if under, must". Done Themeparkgc  Talk  01:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC) You have "Kid Swing" which I imagine should be "Children's swing" (to be consistent with Children's maze...?) Done Themeparkgc  Talk  01:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Action Theatre has no refs. Done Themeparkgc  Talk  00:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC) "30 - 180180 pounds" needs an en-dash, and do you really mean 180,180 pounds?! Done Themeparkgc  Talk  01:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Height requirement column doesn't sort correctly. Done Themeparkgc  Talk  00:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC) If these and any outstanding issues above are addressed, I'll return to conclude my review. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:10, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Support - In addition to TRM's above, I would add:

• It seems quite strange to me that "N/A" sorts under N as if it were a manufacturer (add a sortkey to sort it as "0")
  • Done Themeparkgc  Talk  01:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• References should not sort in the second table
  • Done Themeparkgc  Talk  01:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• In the "Vortex" row the type isn't capitalized right (steel)
  • Done Themeparkgc  Talk  01:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• I don't know why "The Fly" is the only ride to be redlinked.
  • This page was recently deleted because it was created by a sock pupperter.--Astros4477 (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Removed the link. Themeparkgc  Talk  01:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• At least one inconsistency with date types in the references- November 1, 2012 but also 27 November 2012.
  • Done Themeparkgc  Talk  01:36, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Optional, but I'd consider archiving your refs- if the company ever changes its website or goes under, the entire list will lose its references.

--PresN 04:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

As to PresN's archiving references suggestion, even though CW isn't going anywhere, it's still wise. The content on those pages is indded changed here and there. To archive, put this URL in front of the page you want to archive... http://liveweb.archive.org/ ... and then hit "latest". For example, I've already started with this, the park history page: http://liveweb.archive.org/http://www.canadaswonderland.com/park-history/park-history -- Zanimum (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Changed to Support now that issues have been fixed. I tweaked the sorting for the N/A bits a little as well. --PresN 22:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

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