Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2014

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

The list was promoted by  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC) diff.[reply]

Nominator(s): ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete list of extant light houses in Connecticut and contains fully sourced details for each lighthouse. Each entry is given an image and a link to the article with accurate geographical coordinates. This is my first Featured List nomination. Also note that this work was done in 2013 and is not subject to Wikicup rating. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Favre1fan93

Prose:

Great.

Lead:

Should not start out with "This is a list of". Choose something more engaging, as a reader will most likely already know it is a list, based on the page. End of paragraph 1 information has no source. Same with the end of paragraph 2.

Comprehensiveness:

It seems fully comprehensive of the specified content.

Structure:

Very easy to navigate.

Style:

Not sure what all the super scripts after reference 5 represent. I cannot open reference 11, and reference 20 does not give me the article it intends. All the notes you used do not have sources. All references can possibly use "filling out" with some more information, and the page needs date formatting per

WP:MOSNUM

.

A) Visuals are fine.

B) Images are fine.

• • The number represents the page the information can be found on. Reference 11 opens fine for me. Looking into Ref 20. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stability:

Article is stable - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I'll get right on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Lead is well written, easy to read, but seems just a little bit short.
• Images should have
  WP:ALT
  text.
  •  Done ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Does the coordinate and status columns need to be sortable?
  • I suppose not. Removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• You may want to put an en-dash in the empty deactivated cells.
  •  Done ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Destroyed table (one item) doesn't need to be sortable.
  •  Done ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Several references missing retrieved date.
• Dates that are present should be in a single format.
• Comments from the first review are still outstanding.-Godot13 (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments resolved, now I Support.--Godot13 (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Agree with comments, above, by Godot13. Also, would be helpful for the reader if there were in-line-citations after the factual info presented in the Notes section, after each one of those individual entries. After that's addressed, I'd be happy to reconsider support. Keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 01:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the updates and sorry for the delays, I've been completely overwhelmed with work for a number of weeks now and I've been scrambling to fix up other much demanded things I owed other editors as well. Thanks for the clear information on what is needed Godot13! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @ChrisGualtieri: Pinging nominator to remind them that they have outstanding comments in this review. The page nominated has also been dormant. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:53, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Currently addressing issues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I cited the alternative names, but removed one because of lack of prominence or a proper reference to the alternative name. I also had to add a template for notes to allow a reference within the note reference - something which was prohibited by the format before. I did some touching up on the lead and it looks better now. Is this good to go? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes 1 and 6 can be consolidated to one, as they state the same thing. The "skeleton tower" info is not sourced in the lead or the table. References still need expansion to the best of the info available, and date formatting per

WP:MOSNUM. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I cannot figure out how to combine the two notes into a single one, could you please assist? I've added the access dates and made all the dates compliant. I added Anderson to the author list from his website and unified all the publisher fields to LighthouseFriends.com as well. I replaced the last reference with the United States Coast Guard source. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note issue fixed... is it good? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - All issues resolved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate comment: If this does not get any more reviews in the next couple of days, I will have to archive it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Godot13 added his support on March 29, above. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:15, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate note: This list has been promoted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 07:25, 28 March 2014 [1].

Mack 10 discography

Nominator(s): CrowzRSA 03:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am renominating this for featured list because there is no reason why this article should not have been passed as FL. All the comments by TheRamblingMan were addressed and no one else took the time to comment on this discography. I will be pleased to address any concerns with this article. Thanks, CrowzRSA 03:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question I'm not familiar at all with Mack 10, but is "I Want it All" really a cover of the Queen song as you've linked in the Guest appearances section? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it's an original song; I Want It All (Warren G song). It'd sound quite odd converting Queen's music to rap, in my opinion xD. CrowzRSA 17:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So link it correctly. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, Fixed. CrowzRSA 16:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Quite well organized. Presents a great deal of information in a meticulously referenced and simultaneously accessible format for the reader. Well done. — Cirt (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you!!!!!! CrowzRSA 05:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 05:47, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed everything, any other issues? CrowzRSA 17:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I don't see any further problems Cambalachero (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! CrowzRSA 01:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Does anyone else have any comments/supports/objections? CrowzRSA 02:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice work.
  Adabow (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thanks Adabow! CrowzRSA 01:44, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Any other users have comments? It's been a while since I first nominated it and I'd really like to see this pass. CrowzRSA 00:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment: This nomination has been promoted. There may be a delay in the bot closing this nomination. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 02:08, 24 March 2014 [3].

John Gielgud, roles and awards

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Gielgud was a prodigious actor whose career ran from 1921 to 2000. He appeared in a huge number of films, stage shows, television dramas and radio plays. As one of the foremost actors of the 20th century awards and honours were heaped upon him (although he was always rather indifferent to such presentations). – SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – A prodigious achievement. I watched with admiration the growth of this page from scratch to its present magnificent fulness. I shall, of course, be supporting its promotion with the utmost enthusiasm, but before I do so I must take a few days to crawl over the page with critical eye. A few things occur to me immediately:

• Lead
  • I find "Sir John Gielgud" much easier on the eye than "Sir John Gielgud" and would pipe accordingly in the opening line. A matter of taste, I concede.
    • No, I agree! Tweaked appropriately. - SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Stage roles
  • The Vortex – Surely both mentions should be just "Nicky Lancaster" rather than "Nicky Lancaster and Nicky"?
    • Saw I missed one - many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her Majesty's Theatre – you should pipe to [[Her Majesty's Theatre|His Majesty's Theatre]] for all appearances before February 1952, as the theatre changes its name to match the sex of the reigning monarch.
    • Both done. - SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Film roles
  • Someone has just today rightly amended the biographical article John Gielgud (soon to appear at peer review) to add mention of a silent role, recorded on JG's 96th birthday, in David Mamet's film of Samuel Beckett's short play Catastrophe (see Morley (2001), p. 452).
    • Already on there (thankfully!) - SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Looking forward more than I can say to combing through this masterly compilation. Tim riley (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Deirdre of the Sorrows, October 1924: I think Naise should be Naoise. See here.
• The High Constable's Wife, June 1925: Might give Julien de Boys-Bourredon his full forename
• Gloriana, December 1925: Harrington, not Harringdon, according to Croall (2000, p. 535) and Morley, p. 53 (though not p. 461, I notice).
• The Seagull, January 1929: Constantin this time, but he was Konstantin in October 1925. I prefer Constantin (but then I prefer Tusenbach to Tuzenbach, so what do I know?)
• April 1930: Here's a mystery: Croall (2000, p. 536) lists another play and role between The Man with a Flower in his Mouth and Hamlet, namely Mr Hughes in The Rehearsal (by Anouilh). Neither the play nor the role is mentioned in Croall's main text, nor can I find mention of it in the archives of The Times, Manchester Guardian or Observer. Morley doesn't mention it, and neither does Gielgud. It would be injudicious to add it to the main table, but I wonder if a footnote might be in order.
• Fumed Oak, July 1940: Henry Gow, not Henry Crow. Morley is in error. Croall correctly gives "Gow", which I have also confirmed from the published text of the play.
• ENSA tour review, December 1942: I think this should read "revue" rather than "review"
• The Circle, September 1944 and October 1944: Might give Arnold Champion-Cheney his full forename.
• Richard II, July 1953: The venue was the Royal, Bulawayo, according to Croall (p. 537)
• The Cherry Orchard, December 1961: Another odd-looking transliteration. I have only ever seen the character's name given as Gaev.
• Oedipus Rex, January 1967: Two points here. The link should be to
  Stravinsky's opera
  , and the Festival Hall performance (conducted by Solti) was on 16 March 1967.(Sadie, Stanley. "Vigorous Stravinsky", The Times, 17 March 1967, p. 12) There was no performance of the work there in January '67.
• The Best of Friends, January 1988: "Voice only" is miles wide of the mark. JG played Sir Sydney Cockerell and was very much there on the stage before the audience's eyes. The theatre was the Apollo, not the Royalty. Checking in Morley I see what's gone awry here: the neighbouring entries for The Best of Friends and A Tale of Two Cities have got themselves conflated.
• I have corrected "Lyttleton" to "Lyttelton" (No Man's Land, April 1976). You have incurred a three-match suspension from Mornington Crescent.

• I was just in mid-move from Morden to Aldwych too! - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me on the stage roles. I'll be back if I have any comments on the other tables, other than sheer wonderment. Tim riley (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Television

• A Day by the Sea was shown on ITV on 31 March 1959. JG played the role of Julian Anson, as in the 1953 stage production. ("Concentration of Talents", The Times, 1 April 1959, p. 5)
• "Play for Today" – Home, was on BBC1. ("Broadcasting", The Times, 6 January 1972, p. 19)
• Brideshead Revisited – JG as Mr Ryder was only in the first two episodes, so the dates don't tally. Episode 1 went out on 12 October, and Episode 2 eight days later.(Davalle, Peter. "Television: BBC's Borgias v ITV's Waugh", The Times, 9 October 1981, p. XVI)
• The Tichborne Claimant – something's gone adrift with the date. The BFI says it was made in 1997 and released in 1998.

More to come. Tim riley (talk) 13:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• All done (apart from the BR bits!) Many thanks for all your work on this! - SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw my comments on Brideshead (though I may return to the fray later, as mentioned by email) but I have a residual quibble, viz that in fixing The Best of Friends you have lost A Tale of Two Cities, which Morley lists, though Croall doesn't. Tim riley (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Films

• Assignment to Kill, 1967 – Curt, not Kurt Valayan, according to Croall and the BFI
• Galileo (1974 film) – I imagine the lack of piping is a simple oversight
• 1974 – Croall (p. 541) lists also Frankenstein: The True Story. The BFI confirms this, though gives the year as 1973.

• Listed in the Television section (first shown in the US in November '73). - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Aces High, 1976 – If we're being really pernickety, the scene is set at Eton, where they call the boss man the Head Master (two words). I suppose you have to follow the cast list, though.
• Murder by Decree, 1978 – not sure we need Salisbury's job title: Disraeli, earlier in the list, manages very well without it.
• 1983 – Need to add Tony Palmer's Wagner. It has been edited in various versions, including a television mini-series, I believe, but it had a cinema release in December 1983. It is notable as the only film in which Gielgud, Olivier and Richardson played scenes together. They played three courtiers bitching about Ludwig II. JG's character was called Pfistermeister.

And that really is all from me. Superb achievement on your part. I look forward to adding my support on my next visit to this page. Tim riley (talk) 09:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• All covered (I hope!) Many thanks for your very complete review: much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This page wholly meets the Featured List criteria for Prose, Lead, Structure Style and Stability, and as for Comprehensiveness, I can find nothing on the web that comes anywhere near it. It is more accurate and complete than the comparable lists in the authorised biography and other books. An achievement of which the nominator, and Wikipedia, should be very proud. – Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks! Much appreciated, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cass

• "He continued working on stage until 1990. Gielgud was also active as a director, sometimes while also acting in the play." →"He continued working on the stage until 1990 both as a director and actor." My only thinking around this is in its current form is that ending with "while also acting in the play" leaves us asking "what play"?
• It's a shame that the lead image has the writing at the bottom of it. I find it a little distracting actually.
• "Gielgud is one of the few who have won all four major annual American entertainment awards" -- One of the few what? Actors? directors? males? persons?

• Many thanks! 1 and 3 are both done: I'll have a mull over the image question - I'll either swap it with something, or see if I can doctor the text out somehow... - SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to tinker with the image, Loeba and Crisco 1492 are the people to go to. They keep a team of image gnomes (in humane, free-range conditions) and can conjure wonderful things out of them. Though I can't say the lettering bothers me. Tim riley (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went for the cropped version: it shrinks the overall image slightly, making it less of a portrait style, but still just about within the bounds of acceptability. - SchroCat (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Another cracking list, congratulations! Cassianto^talk 18:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks! Much appreciated, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The title seems very ungrammatical to me; is there any precedent for that format? I would much prefer something like "Roles and awards of John Gielgud" or "List of John Gielgud roles and awards". Reywas92^Talk 02:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that grammatically the title is fine. The two suggestions you have made are not, at least in formal, encyclopaedic English: "Roles and awards of John Gielgud" is missing the definite article and should be "The roles and awards of John Gielgud". As our MoS eschews the use of the definite article in such a format, it makes sure the title fails a basic Engvar hurdle. Your second suggestion: "List of John Gielgud roles and awards" whould at least be "List of John Gielgud's roles and awards" to pass muster: of the two, I think the current form is better. There is precedent for this, not least in
  Ian McKellen, roles and awards. - SchroCat (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support - Coming late to the party as I am, and not being as conversant as some of the other commenters on the details in the list, I'll only comment on the format and layout. Very well done. Tim riley nailed it on the head. Very well organized, very well laid out, my only negative is you might add a photo or graphic to reduce the white space. I was attempting to look at it as someone who had no knowledge of this performer, and was looking to do a spot of research; as such, very easy to navigate. Onel5969 (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Onel5969. I'll have a hunt round and see what other images I can drop in to smooth over the white space: with the length of some of the tables it is unavoidable to some extent, but I'll see what I can do. - SchroCat (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - a few minor quibbles before I support. The title bothers me as well, but I realize now what the problem is- if it was just awards, it would traditionally be "List of awards received by John Gielgud", and for roles, if he was just a movie star it would traditionally be "John Gielgud filmography", but there isn't an equivalent word for performing arts roles in general (List of performances by?) and it wouldn't fit the "received by" format in any case. Condensed comma wins the day, it seems- "List of awards received, and performances by, John Gielgud" is just awful, no matter how you rearrange it.

• "Gielgud is one of the few people who have won all four major annual American entertainment awards, being an Oscar[...] an Emmy,[...] a Grammy[...] and Tony Awards" - "being" is a really awkward construction- I'd rather see "namely" or "those being", as otherwise the subject is unclear.

• I've gone with "these being". SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Murder on the Orient Express 1975" - comma
• "CBS, (USA)" Dupont Show, TV - no comma
• "The South Bank Show: Laurence Olivier – A Life" - quotes
• Link Why Didn't They Ask Evans?
• In awards, you have one row with "for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Miniseries or Movie" (Emmy) and one with "Outstanding Lead Actor in a miniseries or Special" (Emmy) - they should be the same style
• Notes is cutting off the first note weirdly between columns at several different screen resolutions- can you adjust it to two columns instead?
• --PresN 21:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All done, bar the final one. I think it depends on the size of your viewer. I edit (and view) on an iPad, a laptop and a widescreen (28") monitor. Depending on the width, one of the other looks odd. A two-column section looks bad in the widescreen, while the 30em width looks odd with mid-size screens (but great on iPads and mobiles). I think it's one of those situations where you can't please all the people al the time, really! - SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, sounds good. --PresN 05:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 02:08, 24 March 2014 [4].

70th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1998 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I read the requirements and criteria. I also followed how the 1929, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2009, 2010, and 2012 Oscars were written. --Birdienest81 (talk) 18:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). A few comments and suggestions: (1) Image review: All images check out okay, except for File:70th Academy Awards poster.jpg, please format this one with {{Information}}. (2) A few other portals could be added to See also sect, for example Film and Theatre. (3) In Memoriam - not sure this is encyclopedic title for sect or proper to have it italicized, maybe something like Tributes instead, seems like by using same title for our sect as the show it tilts towards bias or promotion a bit. (4) Maybe a bit more in Critical reviews about performance by Billy Crystal, I'm sure there's more secondary source coverage out there about how he was received. Feel free to keep me posted on addressing above, — Cirt (talk) 03:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: I have addressed your concerns (except one, see notes below)

• Added fair use rationale for ceremony poster (akin to movie posters in Featured Articles)
• Added a few more portals such as theatre, film, and Los Angeles (where the ceremony is held)
• Changed In Memoriam to Tribute, but I still feel awkward with just that word.
• Not very sure about reviews. I did mention Billy Crystal reviews. Do you want more positive reviews of Crystal's stint, or what else? I would like more clearer feedback (including maybe an example) because I am not sure what you are asking for.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better. Maybe a few reviews about the singing by Billy Crystal? — Cirt (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Ceremony information: "AMPAS president 'Gil has become...'". First two words should be removed here. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: I have fixed that sentence.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Although one is part of the title, "the" doesn't need to be duplicated for Saranden's presentation. There's also an inconsistency between that line and "Oscar's Family Album" later. If it's just an attributed name and not a published title of the segment it shouldn't be in quotation marks; the same goes for the other segments.
• Just an opinion, you don't have to change if if you don't want to, but "festivities" is a bit of exaggeration for a (singular) awards show.
• Comma between "host commenting"
• Whoopi Goldberg is an actress.

Good work Reywas92^Talk 03:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: I have fixed everything listed above.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reywas92^Talk 21:13, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Quite high quality page. — Cirt (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Excellent work. --Jagarin 19:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I have some difficulty with the lead. The first sentence, while grammatically correct, seems overlong and quite wordy. You might consider breaking it into 2 sentences. Also, towards the end, you use "ceremony" quite frequently, making it seem a bit redundant. Might try using words like "event", "show", etc. The first sentence under Winners & Nominees, I'd drop "the" before actress Geena Davis. I really like the rest of that section though, a lot of info in a short amount of space. You might want to delete one of pictures running down the right side; in the multiple awards section there is a lot of white space, but that's simply stylistic. The tables are great. In the Ceremony section, it's press release, not pres. You also might want to run a check on overlinking, the section has a few (Rehme, Hunt, 69th awards). Other than that, the section is well written and organized. The critical review section, of note, is extremely well done and balanced. I didn't do an in-depth check on citations, but the one I did check (footnote 46), did not support the data in the sentence. If I have more time later, I will go back and check other citations. Would support if these items are addressed.Onel5969 (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: I have fixed everything mentioned above with a few notes

• Moved phrase "films of 1997" to sentence starting with "During the ceremony..."
• Made variations of ceremony such as event, gala, etc. in the lead paragraphs.
• Removed "the" before "actress Geena Davis"/
• Removed one picture
• Delinked some names
• All references have no dead links according to Tool Server
• Replaced ref 46 with a different site containing table displaying all Oscar ceremony ratings and viewership figures (earliest data of total viewership is from 1974 ceremony).

--Birdienest81 (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Nice job!Onel5969 (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I have no issues with the article. Aureez (Talk) 12:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Excellent job once again, Birdienest. --
  KRIMUK90 ✉ 10:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 02:08, 24 March 2014 [5].

Fyodor Dostoyevsky bibliography

Nominator(s):

Tomcat (7) 13:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment: (having stumbled here from
  help with verification. Feel free to keep me posted when above is addressed, — Cirt (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

(2) The notes about the name of the work or where it is compiled is sourced by the respective footnote right left to it. The last two notes are sourced by the references under the column "Ref" in the Letters section.

(3) It meant that adding all works and drafts is probably impossible and unneeded anyway, as only a few or no sources explain them. I removed the tag.

...--

Tomcat (7) 10:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

(5) Those footnotes are short in order to decrease the article's size, which is already high. However, if templates are a must, I will do that.--

Tomcat (7) 12:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Why does the list have an incomplete tag? If you're not listing all his articles or whatever because there's too many to list them all, then you don't want the list expanded from where it is; if you are legitimately missing things that should be included, then why aren't they included?

• Removed.

• You spell it "almanach" throughout the list, despite that being an "archaic" spelling of the term- why not almanac?

• Now almanac.

• I'm very confused why the lead of a list of Dostoyevsky works manages to not once mention Crime and Punishment or The Brothers Karamazov, his most famous works.

• Added a sentence.

• Why do some of the short stories in the table have redlinks and some not?

• Because I planned to create the red ones.

• The publishers in the table, unlike the titles, are sorting by "the" and "a" instead of the first real word.

• Done.

• You say in the infobox that he wrote 221+ articles, but don't mention anything about how many he wrote in the articles section. You also dive right into the Diary articles without saying what the Diary is

• Explained.

• Almanachs, Poems, Mixed works, Pamphlets, Other sections- why are these items not in quotes/italics?

• Done, except the mixed works, as I am not sure if I should use quotes and italics together or without any of them, and other works, which are mostly drafts and plans and of unknown form of literature.

• What is rvb.ru, and why is it a reliable source?

• The Russian Virtual Library is a free resource for pupils, teachers and others. It issues Russian classics only by reliable academic publisher. Their editors are trustworthy scholars [6].

• The two Writer's Diary lines in References should be full citations, not just links.

• Done.

• Consider archiving your online references with something like webcitation.org or web.archive.org, so that changed or removed webpages don't destroy the sources of the article.

• Is there a tool for that? Thanks for your comments, will answer to the remaining points later.--
  Tomcat (7) 10:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• --PresN 21:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• --
  Tomcat (7) 10:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• --
  Tomcat (7) 14:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Last two comments, then- you should remove the chapter/number columns from the Diaries table, since you don't have any information in those columns. Finally, the publisher for the sources should be the Russian Virtual Library, not rvb.ru, just like how you would put the publisher as The New York Times, not nytimes.com. --PresN 23:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I broke up the table, so it is now a simple embedded list. Cleaned up the references.--
  Tomcat (7) 12:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Alright, Support. --PresN 19:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, thanks for the responses to my comments, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - No major issues with the list. Aureez (Talk) 03:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 02:08, 24 March 2014 [7].

List of municipalities in the Northwest Territories

Nominators: Hwy43 (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC) and Mattximus (talk)[reply]

This is the sixth of thirteen lists of "municipalities in province/territory" within the Canadian topic for municipalities to go through FLC (and fifth in the past eight months). The intent is to obtain FL status for all thirteen to achieve a featured topic. This is the first territory to be nominated. It meets the same standards as the recently promoted Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan equivalents with lessons learned from each incorporated into this list. Hwy43 (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Image review: All images check out okay, except for one: File:Downtown Yellowknife 2 second version.jpg = missing info in date field, also the editor that changed the original image should be credited in addition to the original author. Those should be easy image fixes. Otherwise, rest of the image pages look pretty good. Keep me posted when that's addressed, and I'll revisit. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Cirt, this comment is puzzling. FLC reviews involve fixing things on the file pages of utilized images? I haven't seen that previously. It would be wrong for us to speculate the correct date for the missing date field. Hwy43 (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FLC should have a lesser standard. Again, these issues should be quite easy to address. Keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, I see that image is tagged for moving to Commons, you can use

Wikipedia:Moving_files_to_the_Commons#Transferring_using_CommonsHelper to help assist with that. Hope that's helpful, — Cirt (talk) 06:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Done. Okay, I went ahead and took the liberty of taking care of it for you! :) The image is now on Commons. — Cirt (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cirt. Learned a few new things today. I studied what you just did and now have a better understanding of what was being requested and how to address this on my own should this arise again. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, I'm glad! Now that image review is done, I'll see about getting to rest of review soon. — Cirt (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks quite good. Only thing I'd suggest is using {{Portal bar}} to add some relevant portals as a footer at the bottom of the article, or just one or two in the See also section. Great job, — Cirt (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done – added to See also section and did the same for others in the List of municipalities in Canada series. Thanks for the review! Hwy43 (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I have no issues with the list. Aureez (Talk) 03:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks fine to me. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Aureez and Dudley Miles for your reviews and support! Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 02:08, 24 March 2014 [8].

List of colleges and universities in Washington, D.C.

Nominator(s):

talk) 14:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• A few comments...
  • The intro mentions some law schools that aren't obviously members of listed universities. Obviously GWU Law School is part of GWU, but Columbus School of Law is part of Catholic, and there's nothing indicating this. Perhaps a parenthetical should be added.
  • It looks like three of the defunct schools merged into active schools, I feel like this should be noted somewhere. Like a "fate" column.
  • Gallaudet is a noted school focusing on the deaf (to the point of being officially bilingual in English and ASL); this should be mentioned in the intro.
  • The addresses... I'm not sure what they really add to the article. If we're listing colleges in a state, like with the Michigan list, the city is relevant, but that doesn't matter for DC, and the specific address in this list seems to be overkill. Especially since this is just the address of the main office, and ignores the fact that most of these occupy many city blocks.
  • The accreditation for the Paul H. Nitze School and St. Paul's College reads "N/A", or "Not Applicable". Why does accreditation not apply to these? Or is it supposed to read "none" instead?
  • It looks like the Pontifical John Paul II institute should instead link to John Paul II Institute, as this is specifically on the unit in DC. Likewise, maybe its local name ("Pontifical John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at The Catholic University of America") should be used, with a footnote that it's not actually part of CUA.
  • The table is unnecessarily squished. Please find a way of getting it to full width, though getting rid of the address column would help. I tried adding a {{
    br
    }} after the images but it just made a lot of whitespace.
  • There is a 'The' in "The Catholic University of America", but not in "George Washington University", despite GWU branding themselves that way. Should the "The" be dropped? Either way, Catholic needs to sort as C, not T. Same issue with The Institute of World Politics.
  • Accreditation seems useless as an alphabetical sort, and I suggest it be made an unsortable column, unless we sorted based on number of accrediting institutions.
  • Why is the David A. Clark school of law listed separate from UDC? --Golbez (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• talk) 03:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• talk) 21:53, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Looking good, but the intro seems to only concentrate on the Carnegie schools; the four non-Carnegie schools don't seem to be noted at all in the intro. Maybe a small sentence or paragraph explaining their existence? And as for Clarke being listed separately, if it is listed separately by both Carnegie and DOE... I'd like other input on that but that would seem to warrant a separate inclusion, if we were sure we weren't doubling up on enrollment numbers. With a note of course explaining why it's included. --Golbez (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your re-review and suggestions,

talk) 23:04, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support. --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: (having stumbled here from
  to assist with verifiability. Otherwise, very well done and most obviously encyclopedic and educational high quality page. — Cirt (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

talk) 01:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support. My thanks to
  Caponer for being so responsive to my comments, above. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - Might sound like a redundant question but could Note 2 and 3 not be merged? seems like the exact same information.
  Talk) 12:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

talk) 13:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

So "School control and type is based" wouldn't make it less redundant?

Talk) 18:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

talk) 14:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• "Washington, D.C.'s oldest post-secondary institution is Georgetown University, founded in 1789.[2][3][4] Georgetown University is also the oldest Jesuit and Catholic university in the United States.[2][3][5] " Citations are a bit excessive, I don't think you really need three on each.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Each sentences now only has two citations. Thanks for the suggestion! --

talk) 14:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Done! I've modified the sentence to read "as of the spring of 2013" as the data was actually from spring of 2013 and not fall of 2012. --

talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Done! --

talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Done! Good catch. --

talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• "Eighteen of Washington, D.C.'s post-secondary institutions are accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools (MSA). Most are accredited" -again repetition of accredited, change the second wording.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done! The second use of accredited has been modified to "officially recognized." Thanks! --

talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Done! --

talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Working on this as we speak. --

talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Check OVERLINK in the explanatory notes, Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education etc. I don't think the type column of the table really needs to link to that article so many times either, just one link in the notes should suffice.

Done! --

talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Lightened the blue links a bit! --

talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Looks in good shape!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 14:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Support Thanks for addressing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:45, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:46, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 11:21, 19 March 2014 [9].

List of songs recorded by Sophie Ellis-Bextor

Nominator(s): Prism △ 17:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked a lot on it, which was hard since Ellis-Bextor has a musical career since the 1990's. I also want to promote the most articles related to her as they are of degraded condition. Please comment, it would really mean a lot to me and when you decide to support or oppose, please present your reasons and commentary so I can improve the list. Thank you in advance. Prism △ 17:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor

• Put parentheses around the "pictured" in each image.
  • Done.
• Maybe instead of "0-9" in the contents key, a number sign would do the trick?
  • It works! (you mean this [#], right?)
• Drop "the" in the very first sentence of the article.
  • Removed.

And after looking through the rest of the list, I really have nothing else to add. I definitely support the nomination! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! :) Prism △ 21:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WonderBoy1998

• I am going to support this article since it's concise and well-referenced work. However two points→ (1) who had their single "I Know Enough (I Don't Get Enough)" reach the top 25 on the UK Singles Chart - It sounds as if they paid the company to make their single reach the top 25. Why not go for simpler wording, like whose single reached the ..... (2) I'm a little put off by the focus on the charting of the songs and especially the albums in the lead, since they are not really important to the subject of the list. I would appreciate more focus on the sounds and composition of the album and how they tie into her choice of colabs. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 08:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WonderBoy1998: Done and done! Prism △ 13:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking much better now --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Adabow

• Support
  Adabow (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ref 13 has its title missing.
  • My bad! Added. Prism △ 16:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, I didn't see any major issues in the article so I'm more than happy to support it. Good job! :) decodet. (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! :) Prism △ 16:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cirt

I'd like to see inline-citations to back up the assertions in the Notes sect. I'll mention if there's anything else, but otherwise looks pretty good. — Cirt (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cirt: They are all sourced now. Will you support the FLC now? Prism △ 17:39, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Quite well referenced, thank you. — Cirt (talk) 18:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SnapSnap

• In the lead, I think "including collaborations with other artists" sounds better than "some of which were collaborations with other artists"
• You should probably replace "
  indie music" with something less ambiguous, like "indie rock
  "
  • Done and done!

Aside from these minor quibbles, the article covers all significant aspects of the topic. I support your nomination. SnapSnap 18:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Prism △ 18:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

• The artist column for "Sophia Loren" sorts on Sophie, rather than Ellis
  • Done.
• FN 54 "August 13, 2001" and "March 3, 2014" are in an inconsistent date format
  • Done.
• Not sure we need "pictured" in the image text (surely that's obvious?)
  • I have removed them except for the ones it's really needed. Prism △ 19:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- SchroCat (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more

• As this is written in BrEng, it should use the definite article when describing people, thus "The English recording artist", "the indie rock band Theaudience", etc
• "However" shouldn't really start a sentance (and probably shouldn't be in there anyway: it doesn't aid understanding.
• "On 28 March 2005, a": on this and in a couple of subsequent places, you don't need to post-date comma (a horrible Americanism)
• "credited as Mademoiselle E.B.—, titled": you need to just check out the punctuation there. Is the comma and space an error, or part of the nom de plume?

- SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have done all. Prism △ 20:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. I've got nothing else to add to this. As an FL delegate I won't add my formal support, but if someone else doesn't close this by the morning, I'll do it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 06:01, 17 March 2014 [10].

Silver certificate (United States)

I am nominating this for featured list because it provides a well-referenced overview of United States silver certificates and it contains a table of images presenting a complete set of all designs and denominations issued. In addition, it is part of an effort to improve the encyclopedic content of numismatics (in particular, U.S. banknotes)... :Nominator(s): Godot13 (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT In the last image, you correctly indicate that the bill is a star note, however, can you link that in the image descriptor? Otherwise, Support.Coal town guy (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done, and thanks for the support!-Godot13 (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT

• In the first paragraph dates are listed in the international fashion of day/month/year "(for one year – 24 June 1967 to 24 June 1968)" whereas later in the article they are the standard US format of month/day/year.
  • see below.
• In the second paragraph "(1878 to 1923)" I think should mention that we are referring to those series as they were of course often printed and issued after their series dates.
  • In progress (completely agree, looking for appropriate ref)Fixed and referenced.
• " In 1928, all United States bank notes were re-designed and the size reduced.[6]" Would it be relevant to list those dimensions?
  • fixed, added note to first line of the second paragraph.
• Under History here: " Members of congress claimed ignorance that the 1873 law would lead to the demonetization of silver" Congress should be capitalized as we're referring to the U.S. Congress.
  • fixed.
• In the Large-sized silver certificates section: "Congress used the National Banking Act of 12 July 1882" Here again the date is listed in international standard.
  • see below.
• In the Small-sized silver certificates section: "Due in part to the outbreak of World War II and the end of his appointed term, any recommendations may have stalled." a simple typo, should be WWI instead of II
  • fixed.
• Same section: " On 20 August 1925, Treasury Secretary Andrew W. Mellon appointed a similar committee and in May 1927 accepted their recommendations for the size reduction and redesign of U.S. banknotes.[31] On 10 July 1929 the new small-size currency was issued.[32] In response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Hawaii overprint note was ordered from the Bureau of Engraving and Printing on 8 June 1942.[32]" Three more instances of dates in international standard.
  • see below.
• In the End of silver certifications section: " enacted on 4 June 1963 which repealed the Silver Purchase Act of 1934, and the Acts of 6 July 1939 and 31 July 1946,[38] " Three more instances of dates in international standard.
  • see below.
• In the series and varieties table: "The Act of 4 August 1886 " One more instance of date in international standard.
  • see below.
• In the small size table: "1613W – Clark and Snyder (1935D) Wide – blue. 1613N – Clark and Snyder (1935D) Narrow – blue." Should we include a notation mentioning what makes these "wide" or "narrow"?
  • In progressDone
    

Other than that a great step up with improving this article Support NiceCurrency (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for the comments and support. I'm working my way through them:
    • Regarding the date format, I've changed the U.S. format into International format for internal and external consistency. In two other lists that are Featured I have used the International date format.-Godot13 (talk) 22:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • All comments addressed/resolved. Thanks again.-Godot13 (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The note descriptions are not full sentences and thus should not have a full stop. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment

Fractional currency (United States) list and make the same correction there for consistency...-Godot13 (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• That looks about right. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: (having stumbled here from
  so the reader and other editors can attempt to verify this information. Keep me posted if these issues are addressed, and I'll revisit, — Cirt (talk) 03:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thank you Cirt for the comments. I have made all the suggested changes (except for #4, which you changed, much appreciated). I cited most of the major references so the further reading is not extensive (#5), but I will give it additional thought. If any of changes are not satisfactory please let me know. -Godot13 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks better, thanks for being so responsive to my above recommendations. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support!-Godot13 (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - I understand why the text is hidden on
  Fractional currency (United States) from a practical sense it makes sense (eg $0.50 Third Issue), but the hidden content in the template doesn't seem to unreasonably distort the table in this list, any clarification is very much appreciated. Aureez (Talk) 21:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Aureez- Thanks for the question. You are correct, I have removed the hidden key sorting from the value columns. --Godot13 (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't what I was referring to, the content in the Signature & seal varieties column was what I was raising a question to. Aureez (Talk) 04:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aureez-- Okay. The hidden (expandable) content only exists for those type notes with more than 4-5 different varieties. In these cases the cells would become elongated and make the Signature & seal varieties column unnecessarily long and disproportionate to the others. --Godot13 (talk) 05:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not so disproportionate. It could be removed... - Godot13 (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All removed.--Godot13 (talk) 05:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice "inconsistent citations" in 2 of your references. Aureez (Talk) 17:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aureez, the bot notices have been removed. Two minor corrections were made to two other references as well.--Godot13 (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Godot13 The "United States paper money" Reference needs a retrieval date and Footnotes 14/16 are the exact same footnote. Aureez (Talk) 23:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out Aureez. I believe I've addressed your comments. Please let me know if there is anything else.--Godot13 (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes 16 is still pretty redundant, anyway to change that? Aureez (Talk) 01:04, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aureez- Not sure how to combine footnotes like references. Any assistance would be welcome.--Godot13 (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Refn Maybe? Aureez (Talk) 02:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Aureez, worked well. - Godot13 (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - All my issues have been fixed. Aureez (Talk) 03:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks!--Godot13 (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A clear consensus appears to have formed. I will be promoting this article now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most excellent, Crisco, MA - Godot13 (talk) 06:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 10:40, 13 March 2014 [11].

Popjustice £20 Music Prize

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A novel music award from the UK. I have knocked the article into a shape which matches that of various Grammy-related FLs, let me know what you think. Note that, although I only have the second highest number of edits on the article, the editor with the most seems to have left WP about six months ago....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should add references to the entries in the table. You may skip them in the second table, as those are self-evident from the first, but the first needs references. Cambalachero (talk) 13:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well everything in that table was already referenced by the general ref at the bottom, but what the hell, I've adde dit to each line instead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – looks to me like it meets all 6 FL criteria. Nice work! —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Quite well referenced and great structure throughout. — Cirt (talk) 11:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:
• The "Artists nominated three or more times for the Popjustice £20 Music Prize" table could have "Artist" and "Nomination" as sortable columns.

• The Saturdays and Rachel Stevens have both received four nominations and won the prize once. Stevens was also nominated once as a member of the group S Club. The sentences in this paragraph read choppily. Try combining two as one sentence. Seattle (talk) 14:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for featured list status. Seattle (talk) 01:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I see no major problems with the list. Aureez (Talk) 18:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 10:40, 13 March 2014 [12].

List of Millennium episodes

Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 05:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is who were are. Been tinkering with this one on and off for a while; the last few pieces of the puzzle came tonight from a book published nearly fifteen years after the show was canned. I've based the list on a few of the more recent episode list FLs, and while I'm not particularly keen on the transclusion approach it seems to be the norm. I'm happy to subst it all in if that's preferable though. As always, I should be readily available to deal with any issues raised, so if there are any questions to be asked, fire away. GRAPPLE X 05:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm confused, this lists three seasons worth of episodes; Millennium only had two seasons. You must be having a horrible nightmare dreaming up a season that never existed to ruin one of the best shows on TV. Cough, I mean, hm, lemme take a look at this. The obvious point is the X-Files episode. I understand why it's in the summary, because that acts as a table of contents. However, it seems a bit clunky, since it's not included in the total number. Maybe it should be listed separately in that opening table? I dunno. Really, this is the only potential issue I see with the list, but I can't think of a way to resolve it, which is why I say potential. --Golbez (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You mean the "Series overview" table? It's in there as a separate entry already, unless you mean slotting it in after the "Complete series" entry. I don't mind either way, though the episode is included on the season 3 (and full series) DVD releases so I figured it should be lumped in before the complete series. I'm happy to put it wherever it works best. GRAPPLE X 18:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I meant separate from the table itself. Also, there's nothing in the article that states it's included in the Millennium DVDs, which is an important fact. :) Also, it doesn't fit in with the whole "season premiere/season finale" structure, and if it's on DVD then should the release date be for X-Files or Millennium? It seems simpler to split it out of that table altogether and simply have a paragraph explaining it and why it's included in this, and what DVDs its on. --Golbez (talk) 21:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  For the release date, I went with the earliest one, which was the season 7 X-Files set. I could ditch the "premiere/finale" columns and list the seasons as date ranges ("October 25, 1996–May 16, 1997") so there's less inconsistency there. I've added a bit about the episode being on the Millennium DVDs though. GRAPPLE X 22:21, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  One last thing then - the total of the Complete Series DVD is 67 episodes, yet if the X-Files is included, wouldn't it be 68? Or is this just listing the episodes of the series? --Golbez (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  67 and a "special feature". I could change it to 68 and add a note to explain that the extra one is the X-Files episode? GRAPPLE X 16:37, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I think leaving it at "67", and then adding a footnote saying "Also includes the X-Files episode", would work. --Golbez (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Added a note like you suggest. Thanks for looking at this one. GRAPPLE X 17:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, even if the above isn't done the list seems pretty good. --Golbez (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Well sourced throughout. I especially like how the factual assertions in the Notes section all have in-line-citations. Nicely done, — Cirt (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Everything seems fine. Aureez (Talk) 18:43, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 10:40, 13 March 2014 [13].

List of cricketers who have scored centuries in each innings of a Test match

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(Ping) 11:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that how such an important list has not been created before. I believe it meets the criteria and look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _(Ping) 11:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"T2" has two entries in the key. --Golbez (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed and thanks —Vensatry _(Ping) 06:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude (talk · contribs)

"Players from teams that are full members of the International Cricket Council (ICC) have scored centuries in each innings with the exception of Bangladesh" => "Players from all teams that are full members of the International Cricket Council (ICC) have scored centuries in each innings with the exception of Bangladesh"

• Done —Vensatry _(Ping) 07:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"was entered into the record books as "Most runs scored by a player in a Test match (Male)"" - I don't like the Easter Egg link on "record books", also why the need to refer to "record books" at all? Why not just put "his combined tally [...] set a record for the highest aggregate score achieved by a player in a Test match"......?

• Removed the pipe link. Isn't a mention of "Guinness Records" noteworthy as it caters to a wide range of audience rather than cricket enthusiasts alone. —Vensatry _(Ping) 07:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes a certain amount of sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"His compatriot Michael Vaughan has the least aggregate" => "His compatriot Michael Vaughan has the lowest aggregate"

• Done —Vensatry _(Ping) 07:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Lawrence Rowe of West Indies and Yasir Hameed of Pakistan are the only debutants to accomplish this feat" => "Lawrence Rowe of West Indies and Yasir Hameed of Pakistan are the only debutants to score centuries in both innings of a Test". As it stands "this feat" sounds like it's referring to the bit in the previous sentence, which it isn't.

Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done —Vensatry _(Ping) 07:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

• A comma is needed after "the longest version of the game" in the lead.
• In the table, Warren Bardsley's first century score isn't sorting in the right order. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments. Hope I've fixed them —Vensatry _(Ping) 09:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). (1) Paragraphs in lede look sort of uneven in size. Consider splitting the 2nd paragraph in two. (2) Notes section: notes "c" and "e" could use citations at the end of those sentences to assist the reader to find sources for that info. (3) Image review: All images check out okay. Y. (4) Overall it's pretty good, address those recommendations and I'd feel ready to support at that point in time. Keep me posted, — Cirt (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cirt: I think I've addressed each of them. Thanks for the comments —Vensatry _(Ping) 10:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Thanks for the polite, prompt, and punctual responses to my comments, above. Much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 11:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I'd like to see an aggregate column as this is mentioned a couple of times in the lead.
  • Is it really needed? I don't see either cricinfo or cricketarchive reporting it. Besides, except for a few players that wouldn't be worth mentioning. —Vensatry _(Ping) 05:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But you have mentioned it a few times in the lead so it's relevant, no? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've mentioned it only twice – Highest and lowest. The highest is an all-time record, and made it to the Guinness books. Others don't seem significant enough to make a mention. —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is each innings denoted with a T, i.e. T1 and T2? Why not 1st innings and 2nd innings?
  • That would confuse the readers as Test matches have a maximum of four innings played. —Vensatry _(Ping) 05:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really, and besides, wouldn't that imply that the title of this list is confusing? Are there cricketers who have scored in four innings?! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be misleading again since from the match's point of view, we don't know in which of the two innings he made centuries! —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • What I mean is the title of the list says "in each innings of a Test match" so that'd be up to four centuries in a match then?! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I had this doubt whether to use "each" or "both" after creating this article. You want me to move the page now? —Vensatry _(Ping) 17:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "completes 100 runs in" wouldn't it be 100 or more?
  • I think both are right. Isn't it? —Vensatry _(Ping) 05:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I mean is that it's not exactly 100 runs, it's "100 runs or more"... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done as suggested —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "on both the occasions while scoring centuries" probably could just say "in both innings", as it's clear you're talking about double centurions.
  • Done —Vensatry _(Ping) 05:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• You note the nationality of some but not all centurions, seems anomalous.

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Done —Vensatry _(Ping) 05:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "... a total of 73 players ..." the table shows 74 players?
  • Rephrased since my original statement was wrong —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think they are 74 and 61. Are they? —Zia Khan 22:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fixed —Vensatry _(Ping) 05:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm counting 60 and 74?! —Zia Khan 06:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've used "Since then", so ignore Bardsley —Vensatry _(Ping) 06:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Most runs scored by a player in a Test match (Male)" I don't known the M should be in capital????
  • It has to be lowercase. Done —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Australia's David Warner...." I think Australian would be more appropriate here. —Zia Khan 15:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes no difference —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Why T1 and T2, and not C1 and C2?
  • It's just a notation used for the items used in the table. I don't think we have any specific guideline on deciding key notations. —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Add a note about table sorting.
  • Done —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a problem with Warner's entry.
  • Fixed —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 1st century should sort secondarily to the 2nd or vice versa.

—Zia Khan 15:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have already used a secondary sort based on dates for both columns. —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:15, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sort by date and then look at the No. column! Also there is a double entry in the No. column. —Zia Khan 22:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed and thanks —Vensatry _(Ping) 05:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sahara4u: I think I've addressed your concerns. Let me know if there are any further issues. —Vensatry _(Ping) 18:25, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I see no major issues with the list.
  Talk) 11:18, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 10:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 10:40, 13 March 2014 [14].

Audie Murphy honors and awards

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the subject matter is of historical significance to both military history and the film industry. It is also one of three articles I would like to take to Featured Topic. The main article of

• Comment - the FLC instructions state that Users should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. As the filmography list has not gained the required level of support as yet, this list should not also have been nominated....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have put a request on the FLC for the filmography to be withdrawn. — Maile (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delegate comment - The second review has now been withdrawn and removed from FLC. - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A great list about a distinguished soldier. Took me a moment to work out which of the 3rd Infantry Division's ten campaigns and four amphibious assaults he missed out on. (For the record, his nine campaign stars were for: Tunisia, Sicily (with arrowhead), Naples-Foggia, Anzio, Rome-Arno, Southern France (with arrowhead), Ardennes-Alsace, Rhineland, Central Europe) Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – About the Service ranks section: I think it would be better to name the "Notes" column as "Date of promotion". This seems to make the meaning of the date clearer. Jimknut (talk) 01:23, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree, and have renamed the column. — Maile (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Extremely well done and quite thorough. I echo the comments by Hawkeye7, above. This is a most encyclopedic page about an educational topic. I think it is more standard to name the References sect "Notes" and the Bibliography sect "References". Good luck with the rest of the Featured Topic quality improvement process, I'd like to hear how that all turns out. Great job overall by Maile66, — Cirt (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments -
• Per
  WP:DATE
  All article body text should be in a consistent date format, "..by President Harry Truman on 25 September 1950." "...by Gov Rick Perry Aug 19, 2013".

Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "September, 2008 No comma between month and year.

Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes should also have consistent formats "..Congress, 2 July 1926.."

Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "[60][61]In 2012" Space between citation and text.

Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No Retrieval date for Ref 29.

Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Texas Legislative Medal of Honor" Notes should have a full stop.

Fixed. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed them all now. You have a very good eye. Thanks for catching these. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I see no issues with the list, maybe get in touch with the other reviewers and see if they have any further comments.
  Talk) 12:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: I was asked to revisit my comments here. I took another look through the page and it is high-quality and well-referenced throughout. I reiterate my Support. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 21:09, 9 March 2014 [15].

List of songs recorded by Miley Cyrus

Nominator(s): WikiRedactor (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After giving this page a full revamping, I believe that it now meets the criteria for featured list status, and will compliment the existing featured list Miley Cyrus discography nicely. It is a fully-comprehensive list with all of Cyrus' published tracks, including those on her studio albums, those on her soundtrack albums, and those in which she is featured. All song credits are sourced with the liner notes of the appropriate album, or when not applicable, reputable external sources. With Cyrus' last full-length record released nearly four months ago, there is a good chance that this list will not be significantly expanded in the near future; when she releases another project, this list will be easy enough to update with the necessary information due to its simple internal formatting. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:11, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WonderBoy1998

• I hink I better picture should be chosen for the lead, focusing more on Cyrus' face since seeing this at first glance one might not recognise her

• Done

• Doesn't this list seem to different from other recorded songs list, like Rihanna's. I've seen various lists regarding the subject and they seem radically different from this one. I am going to be needed to be convinced that this format is suitable to move forward with my comments. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 19:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at List of songs recorded by Rihanna, it appears that the only major differences are the inclusion of pictures and an expanded introduction, which I will get to improving momentarily. I will also add the color key noting whether or not a track has been released as a single.

• @WonderBoy1998: I've expanded the introduction, which now mentions Cyrus' chart successes and gives more detail about some of her records. I also added the color coding that distinguishes singles from non-singles, although I felt that the amount of pictures that the Rihanna list had was mildly excessive, considering that the table is already packed with information as it stands. If you would really like some more pictures added, then I will gladly do so!

Indeed it is in much better shape now. Good choice of picture too. Some points though-

• "performed by Cyrus, which are credited to Hannah Montana" - How about turning "which are" to "who is credited as Hannah Montana" or " eight of its thirteen tracks were performed by Cyrus under the alias/name of Hannah Montana"

• Done

• Putting the main emphasis on commercial performance of the singles makes it seem like an XYZ singles disocgraphy. An articles on recorded songs should spotlight writing/production teams, new collaborators etc. Such as "Adopting a more hip-hop oriented musical style in 2013, Cyrus appeared on various XYZ tracks by XYZ rap artists etc" (I may not be factually correct) but you get the point I hope. I don't want to make you continuously change and add but I am very much ready to support this after this change is made :) --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries, I do what I need to do to make sure that the list is in tip-top shape! I added a paragraph at the end of the introduction which gives a summary of her most popular collaborators and musical styles; if you'd like me to add more, I certainly will!

Certainly worthy now, hence I support. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Simon (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead should only include one picture. For me, I prefer the latest picture of Cyrus (the 2013 People's Choice Awards attending)

• Done

• The iTunes sources for single release should include an en-dash, not a normal dash

• Done

• Add !scope="row" before the song titles per
  WP:ACCESS

• Done

— Simon (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I know how time consuming it is to make one of these lists and I can see you have put the time into it.  — ₳aron 11:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you so much! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This list is very well constructed and following a thorough analysis of the article itself, I have no further issues to address. It certainly deserves FL status for being a comprehensive list. I give my Support. Prism △ 11:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you! WikiRedactor (talk) 14:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No singles were released under the name of Hannah Montana? I just noticed that the list has been forked into two tables, and while the Cyrus section has the green colour coding to denote singles, the Montana one doesn't. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think using the term "single" for most of the Hannah songs is questionable; most of their articles have unsourced release dates, and most of them that do list a "source" only show that the song was made available with the parent album. None of them were pushed to radio either in the United States, which leaves only "The Best of Both Worlds", "Nobody's Perfect", and (somehow) "Ordinary Girl" as sourced, official Hannah singles. This has now been added to the list, thank you! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:39, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems like the list has improved a LOT since it was nominated. I really like how it looks now, so a pure Support from me. ^_^ — Tomíca^(T2ME) 12:17, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the kind words! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The list page is well formatted with good tabular structure. Meticulously sourced throughout. I particularly like the fact that the footnotes are given backed up with inline-citations, and that the intro lede section is so well grounded with background info for the reader and well-cited as well. Excellent quality improvement efforts, — Cirt (talk) 03:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support
  Adabow (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thank you! WikiRedactor (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:09, 9 March 2014 [16].

List of Golden Martín Fierro Award winners

Nominator(s): Cambalachero (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it has a similar quality to other lists of awards recipients, recently approved as featured lists. All the points mentioned in the previous nomination had already been fixed months ago. Cambalachero (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2014 (UTC) Note: the previous nomination has been archived today simply because of a malfunctioning bot, the nomination had been rejected months ago.[reply]

• Support: No other problems found.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Good structure and well sourced throughout. Only thing is it'd be nice if the infobox had an image of the award itself, if possible. If not, no worries. High quality page. — Cirt (talk) 03:13, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the article reads quite nicely now and I see no more problems with it. Excellent work! CrowzRSA 04:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:09, 9 March 2014 [17].

Marvin Miller Man of the Year Award

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly over the past month and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - well-sourced, well-formatted, excellent work. --Carioca (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Educational, certainly quite encyclopedic, and well-sourced throughout. Excellent work, — Cirt (talk) 01:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 21:09, 9 March 2014 [18].

74th Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2002 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I read the requirements and criteria. I also followed how the 1929, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1994, 1996, 1999, 2000, 2004, 2009, 2010, and 2012 Oscars were written.--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The first two references in the lead are a bit trivial and may be skipped; as they are detailed in the body of the article. References in the lead should be just for statistics, such as the 4 awards (correctly referenced) and the audience (which should be referenced). long comments between brackets should be re-written to avoid the brackets, for example the "the seventh film to achieve this feat" may be reformulated as a second sentence. That Halle Berry "made Oscar history" sounds a bit excessive, considering that she's not the first African-American to win an award (being the first one to win in one specific category is too technical). The "Academy Honorary Award" and "Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award" (two and one entries) seem very short to be standalone sections, and may be merged into a "minor awards", "special awards" or similar name. You shouldn't include "in order of appearance" in the section headings, simply say at the introductory text of the "Presenters and performers" section that tables are ordered by order of appearence. File:74 academy awards poster.jpg Seems fine, but you should complete it with the templates {{Non-free media data}} and {{Non-free media rationale}}. Cambalachero (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed: I have fixed most of everything you mentioned above with some notes:

• Reformated the 13 nomination sentence into two sentences.
• Removed "made Oscar history" but still kept Halle Berry fact with mention of first African American WOMAN to win Best Actress. I think this must be mentioned since this was one of the reasons why this ceremony is historic.
• Changed non competitive awards to format like in 64th Oscars.
• Updated the rationales for the poster.
• Relocated in order of appearance to intro sentence.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine, so I Support the nomination. On a related issue, the file is also used at the article Alex Ross, the artist that made that poster, when discussing the awards ceremony; but that has no influence over this nomination. I will leave a comment on the talk page for that. Cambalachero (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Nice work, once again.--Jagarin 20:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed: I fixed the alt captions problem. I also found a new citation source that is in print.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, well done once again.
  © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support: (having stumbled here from
  WP:FL pages on the same subject. Excellent work, — Cirt (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

List of Chocobo media

Nominator(s): PresN 23:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the latest SF award list is done, I'm alternating back to video game lists. With this one, we should be done with Square Enix-related lists for the foreseeable future- and I even had to create this one in the first place, since it was going nowhere as an article. I present to you all List of Chocobo media: the quirky, weird games (and music albums) that Square Enix claims as a distinct series, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with each other beyond having the

• Support on comprehensiveness, it's a complete list of the topic. Thanks for User:PresN's contribution on SE-related lists.--Wangxuan8331800 12:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: reliable sources; well-formatted; easy-to-read; comprehensive. Tezero (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - just a drive-by here, you've got a couple of the publishers backward in your references. You have GameSpot linked to Ziff Davis and IGN linked to CBS Interactive; that's actually backward. IGN is owned by Ziff Davis and GameSpot is CBS Interactive. Also, good use of the GameSpot ref; that's an okay way to use GameSpot as a reliable source (just bringing that up because I know I've bugged you about that the last few times). Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...}_{check out the Sega task force} 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoops, not sure how that happened. --PresN 03:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And since I always bug you about it, archived my refs. --PresN 03:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Meticulously cited with good reference formatting throughout (after above issues since addressed), and good presentation. Nicely done, — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Another excellent Featured List, covers all the games, and uses reliable sources. The last Square Enix list! The end of an era. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator(s): — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... although I created and worked for it pretty much fast, according to me the list satisfies the criteria to be a FLC. Jake Gyllenhaal's impressive roles and appearances make this list shine even more. I think that the lead covers the most important content from the table, which is sortable and people can see 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) 20:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor

• There are only a couple external links that need correcting.

• Done/Fixed them. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In the sortable tables, you might want to consider putting the column for years before the column with the film titles. It appears to be a standard for filmography tables from what I've seen.

• Well, actually there is not a standard. In this kind of tables they use the years first, while in examples like this one (which I have created), I use the name of the film first. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe you can drop the 's' in 'music videos' in the heading "Music videos appearances".

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list really looks to be in good shape, and I don't have any further issues; I trust that you will make these minor corrections, and I am confident in giving my support for the nomination. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiRedactor: Thank you very much. I hope you are satisfied with my responses:). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm happy with the revisions! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starting comments – by IndianBio. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Born to the Gyllenhaal family --- This should be Born in the Gyllenhaal family per nomen, like Born in the USA

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think somewhere you need to establish that Stephen is his father,without people having to read Gyllenhaal family.

• I am not sure about this one, but check it out. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• although the film was received warmly from critics,[1] Gyllenhaal's portrayal of the NASA engineer Homer Hickam was praised --> This is not correct, the sentence should begin as a fresh one. Also received warmly and praise are not contrasts, they are complementary. So the although usage is also wrong.

• Is it okay now? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• alongside his sister Maggie and Drew Barrymore --> This makes it sound as if Drew is also his sister, suggest a comma after Maggie.

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Gyllenhaal starred in the 2004 disaster film The Day After Tomorrow;[3] despite receiving mixed reviews from critics,[6] the film was a commercial success at the box office --> Another instance where a splitting would benefit the construction or a tweak like this: "Gyllenhaal starred in the 2004 disaster film The Day After Tomorrow, which, despite receiving mixed reviews from critics, emerged a commercial success at the box office".

  Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the thing, why don't you end the Lead with something concise, like oneor two sentences from critics which talk about Jake as an actor or his acting methods? At present it has a bit of proseline effect with sentences going in a particular structure "In XXXX, he starrted in film YYYY, received a/b/c reaction"

• Well, that basically happens with every filmography (I explain facts about how the film is going/went). However, if you see there are some facts about his most important roles and acclaim and awards he gained. Also, I reduced the use of "In XXXX" etc. I think it's okay as it is. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• USD$ the $ symbol isnot necessary when you write USD.

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the reference titles need an en-dash.

• I believe the script fixed them. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The magazine articles needs issn and the album booklet references needs catalogue ID.

  Done for the magazine reference, changed the booklet refs with an iTunes ones since I was not sure about the ID. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The main infobox image. I think it works perfectly fine without the upright parameter and it is defaulting itself to screen size as well. I checked it in my laptop lowering the resolution.

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my key scrutiny on this list. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you @IndianBio:! Here are my responses. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Brilliant, and I'm happy to provide my support for this wonderful list. Congratulations if it gets promoted. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much! ^_^ — Tomíca^(T2ME) 14:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Very well organized. Good presentation throughout. High quality referencing. — Cirt (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Pretty Reckless discography

Nominator(s): Decodet (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that after doing some hard work on it, this list finally meets the criteria. I have nominated (and successfully promoted) other discographies before so I'm aware of the criteria and the way a featured list should be. It is all organized, everything is well sourced and the references are properly formatted. Let me know if there is anything wrong that needs to be changed so I can resolve it. Thank you in advance. Decodet (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prism

+ The lead section is rather short. Isn't there any information you could gather to describe the process of being signed to Interscope, or who discovered them? It would add a lot to the page. Try searching on Google Books for the band, if you're lucky, you may find some noteworthy Billboard magazines. Also, why were they dropped from Interscope?

I've added some information. Thanks for the tip! About being dropped from Insterscope, we don't have any clue. Probably poor sales, but it's not covered by any reliable source. decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ I'd recommend you to add the parameters '|people=(add director)' and '|format=Music video' to the references that link to a video page (music videos section).

Done! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ FN9 has website Lescharts italicized.

Fixed! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ If US Alternative is shortened to US Alt. (with the dot) why is there not a dot on US Main(stream)? If you know what I mean.~

Fixed! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ I reccomend you to change FN14 to Peak positions for singles as main artists and then the cite web template.

Done! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ FN15 should have title changed to The Pretty Reckless — Kill Me - Single.

Done! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ "Heaven Knows" needs reference to prove it's a single.

There was no source because it has charted. But I've added a reference anyways! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ On the extended plays section, "List of albums, with selected chart positions and certifications" should have albums changed to extended plays.

Fixed! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ Lead needs references for singles (on the last paragraph).

Done! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ In the Going to Hell part of the wikitable (Albums section), Release should be changed to Released. (typo)

It is not a typo, actually. I put "Release" instead of "Released" because, well, the album has not been released yet. So putting "released" would be incorrect. March, 2014 is a future date as of now. Therefore, I choose to change it to "Release". ~~

+ FN11 has AllMusic italicized.

Fixed! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ FN12 and 13 should not have Billboard and respective publisher wikilinked.

Fixed! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ FN19 has VEVO italicized.

Fixed! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I oppose this nomination, but I will support it as soon as you fix the issues I pointed out. :) prism △ 20:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment! I've worked on the issues you've pointed out. Do I have your support now? decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do. I Support this nomination now. :) prism △ 13:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Succinct and well sourced. Nicely done, — Cirt (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! decodet. (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]