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 21:24, 29 August 2015 [1].

---

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rooooney. His goals and his imminent passing of Bobby Charlton's all-time scoring record for England have been the subject of many discussions over the past few months, so I thought I'd bang this into shape. I would be interested to see what the community here think could be improved/added/removed. As always, my thanks all of you who contribute, in whatever form, to the process. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Lemonade51 (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments "Wayne Rooney made his debut for the England in a 3–1 defeat...." Fixed, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Although Ref 3 confirms Rooney broke Owen's record, I don't see it confirming it was against Morocco. Ref added, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Could have extra tables for 'by opponent' or 'by competition'? Lemonade51 (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Could do, but that's covered in the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Some more, mostly to do with sources... Check the publish date on Ref 23 Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Where's the publish date for Ref 30 amd 44? Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Why isn't Wembley Stadium linked in the table? It is. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Silly me! Ref 46 was written by Simon Burnton. Published on theguardian.com, not the standard Guardian paper. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Lemonade51 (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] All done, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on style and structure. Rooney's goalscoring record in the tournaments, particularly the World Cup is often scrutinised. Just an idea, you could rephrase "He has scored a single goal in the World Cup finals," to "...only scored once..." to reflect this? Lemonade51 (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, have tweaked as you suggested. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian

• Support: The Rambling Man, I've completed my review and re-review of this nominated list, and I find that it meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, the list's lede adequately stands alone as a concise overview of Rooney's international goals. The image of Rooney is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and is therefore suitable for use here. This image does need an "alt" citation, though. Also, Macedonia national football team should be wiki-linked in the lede, since England and Australia's national teams are. Lemonade51 addressed the only other issues with the list, which look to have been sufficiently answered. Thank you for writing another featured-worthy list and congratulations on a job well done. -- West Virginian (talk) 04:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi West Virginian, thanks for your support and your comments. I've added alt text, but Macedonia is already linked on its first appearance in the text. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This list needs some kind of visual tally by year and by competition. Nergaal (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Please explain why you think that's required. I can add something but your comment is unclear, by competition is clear from the table and the prose, by year, is that really needed or is it just stats? Thanks for your comment. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Harrias

Comment: I can't help but think that this list would benefit from being sortable? Harrias talk 20:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] You win the £5. I had thought that myself, and I'll do that, but it takes TIME and effort to get all the sort templates done. I had hoped that I'd catered for all the "sorting" questions (e.g. opponents, stadia most scored) in the lead, but if you insist, then I'll have to spend a few hundred thousand hours working it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Another comment: the list says "England score shown first." But that doesn't seem to be the case for the first half of the list. It does hold true for roughly #33 onwards, but not before that? Or am I misreading? Harrias talk 20:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Good spot, I'll go through it all tomorrow, try to make it sortable, damn you, and get back to you. Thanks for your interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] No worries, I'm playing around in my sandbox (well, one of them) with a similar list for Bobby Charlton. So I was looking quite closely at this list for guidance! Harrias talk 20:57, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] What would be REALLY helpful would be a bot or script that turned bare dates into sortable dates... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] I'm learning some coding at the moment in an effort to be able to come up with useful scripts like that. But don't hold your breath, at least not for this FLC! Harrias talk 21:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Check out my recent edit..... Wow! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Cheat. Harrias talk 21:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oh, and removed false note, England score isn't first. It's just standard home team-away team, so I've destroyed that claim. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Harrias fully sortable now, what do you reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Sorting looks good, though I'm not convinced of the usefulness of the "Score" column being sortable. But it can't harm I guess. I know it is the general format convention, but it looks odd have YYYY FIFA World Cup, and UEFA Euro YYYY. Would there be any worth in making it FIFA World Cup YYYY to keep the two consistent within the list? I'm keeping it consistent with the reset of Wikipedia's articles on these things, it makes me wonder though if we need a wider discussion to move them all inline with one another. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Is there a need to link London? I'd say that the Republic of Macedonia is in more need of a link than London! I'm just trying to be consistent, some readers know where Skopje is, some know where Manchester is, so I can either link all the cities, or none of them, all of the countries or none of them, I don't think I can judge on every reader's behalf what places are and are not obvious.... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Do we have another relevant picture to kill some of the whitespace next to the Goals and appearances per year table? (Which could also be made sortable *wink*) Harrias talk 07:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] I'll take a look! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Harrias all responded to or addressed, cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the scores look the wrong way around. #32, #34, #35, #36, #39, #43, #45, #46. Harrias ^talk 07:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Harrias: wow, stoopid me, and sorry for taking so long to notice your comment. Fixed now I think? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, yup looks good to me now! Harrias ^talk 07:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an ancestral Evertonian it goes against the grain to support anything to do with the goblinesque defector, but this FLC seems to me to meet all the criteria. Dammit. Tim riley talk 20:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Tim! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This might seem a little silly, but it's not mentioned anywhere that Rooney is a footballer. Perhaps this is worth adding in the first sentence somewhere? "Rooney has never scored an international hat-trick although he has scored twice in a match on ten occasions." Comma after hat-trick? I only count four goals during Euro 2004, not the five stated in the lead "Statistics accurate as of match played 7 June 2015" full stop at the end? This is an excellent list and a novel idea that will surely catch on. Fantastic work. NapHit (talk) 20:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Fixed as you suggested. Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - It will be the first FL for international goals unless I'm mistaken and it sets a nice template for future articles of this type. The prose flows really smoothly even though it is incredibly stat-heavy, which is a great achievement. Spiderone 11:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - as second-equal top scorer or as the second-equal top scorer - and one behind or and behind. Other than this, the list is very well written and made.--Cheetah (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Mattythewhite (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mattythewhite "As of August 2015": should this not be the date of his last cap? Well both are valid. Both are true. And quite possibly I'll need to update this list in a week or so's time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "He has only scored once in the World Cup finals, in a 2–1 loss to Uruguay": which World Cup? Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Per WP:DTAB, tables should have captions to describe their nature. I thought only if it wasn't obvious, e.g. if it follows on from a heading. Anyway, added a caption. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] In the prose the FIFA/UEFA acronyms are not included, but in the list they are; should be consistent. I tend to disagree here. In the list, they are designed to link to specific articles, but in the prose it becomes very awkward to keep mentioning UEFA, FIFA every time when we simply don't do that in common parlance. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "Republic of Macedonia": just Macedonia? If we were to write out the official names of every country, we'd have the Portuguese Republic, Kingdom of Denmark etc. Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "San Marino Stadium": no settlement, unlike the other venues. Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "Statistics are accurate as of match played 7 June 2015": I should hope not, seeing as Rooney was last capped on 15 June 2015! Reused note from previous table. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] No, thank you. I believe I've responded to and/or addressed your concerns, cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, not that I think it needs any more support !votes...! Mattythewhite (talk) 20:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2015 (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 00:53, 26 August 2015 [2].

---

Nominator(s): — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2011 Indian Tamil drama film, Aadukalam starring Dhanush and Taapsee Pannu. This film is notable for garnering Dhanush and Vetrimaaran several awards and nominations. It is my second attempt at FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Sorry I see a 3(b) violation here. The size of the parent article is just over 8k chars (1.3k words). I see no point in splitting the awards page unless the main article is expanded by a sizeable fold. Besides, your previous candidate has two opposes with a few outstanding concerns still left. —Vensatry _(ping) 12:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Oh I see. Thanks for making me aware of it. If that's the case, should I withdraw the nomination? — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 12:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssven2: I don't have a final say here. So wait for others opinion. Cheers —Vensatry _(ping) 12:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm retracting my oppose as Ssven2 has expanded the parent article. Although my rule-of-thumb is 12k chars, this looks fine for me. —Vensatry _(ping) 05:37, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm going to have to disagree with Vensatry on this. I think the table is just long enough to qualify for a separate article. It would look excessively bloated in the main article. It's a well sourced list which looks near FL criteria to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not with this list, but with the parent article. As pointed out earlier, since the size of the parent article hovers around 8k chars, I see no point in forking this list out of it. —Vensatry _(ping) 19:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But Ssven has stated that Aadukalam will be a future GA for him, so he will expand it to who-knows-what-length. And the film, being a multiple NFA winner, will definitely have at least 100 news sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So this list can well be nominated when the parent article gets expanded long enough. Whether or not, it becomes a GA isn't an issue. —Vensatry _(ping) 09:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't understand why would it "bloat" the main article, when the prose part of this list can easily be covered there. —Vensatry _(ping) 19:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Frankie

... "The film's story revolves around Karuppu who is the understudy of an experienced Cockfighter" – why is cockfighter capitalized? An unnecessary space between ₹150 and –. The size of the image is a bit large. "Aadukalam won six awards at the 58th National Film Awards ceremony held at New Delhi in 2011" – I think "held at New Delhi in 2011" is redundant. In the same sentence "more than any other film at the ceremony" since the succeeding sentence mentions the record. "with Kannathil Muthamittal (2002) for the highest number of National Film Awards" – "highest" → "most". "It won awards under the Best Direction (Vetrimaaran), Best Actor (Dhanush), Best Screenplay (Original) (Vetrimaaran) ... categories". Every sentence I see starts with "it won at the xxx awards under the xxx categories". Consider rephrasing some. References (which are already in the Accolades section) from the third paragraph should go away as they are not supposed to be repeated in the lead when they are already covered in the main body, per WP:LEAD. References after dates of awards i.e. The Chennai Times Film Awards and Mirchi Music Awards South are unnecessary as they don't need to be verified by sources. Since you have presumed that one award is equal to one nomination, I would suggest to add the Enthiran footnote in FN#1, preceded by the current sentence. Page no for reference 8 should be changed to "p. 15" to maintain consistency. Publisher of ref 16 and 17 should read as Norway Tamil Film Festival Awards. I would suggest you to go with full name of publisher of ref 19. Ref 20 should read as CNN-IBN. I think the Sources section does not need to have two headers. It can be used as a subsection of References. I would have to disagree with Vensatry on content forking as the list, including the accompanying prose, would be too long to be included in the parent article. And as Dr. Blofeld said, it would look bloated in the main article. -- Frankie talk 12:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] @FrB.TG: your comments have been resolved. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Sven, I have capped my comments. I shall take a final look, and see if I have more to quibble about. Asides this, I think this is a job well done. -- Frankie talk 20:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "The film garnered awards and nominations in several categories, with particular praise for its direction, screenplay, Dhanush's performance. music," – replace the full stop (.) after "Dhanush's performance" with a comma. Done Didn't notice this one. My bad. Thanks. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "As of August 2015, the film has won 26 awards." – what's wrong with not mentioning the total number of nominations? Done included the nominations. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "Ref(s)" should be replaced with either "Ref." or "Refs" as you can see there is no row which has one ref, but multiple in all of them. @FrB.TG: Don't understand what you mean here. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Well, Reference(s) refers to the fact that there might be one source at a place, while there can be multiple sources at a different place. But that is not the case here, as you can see that all of the entries under "Ref(s)" are filled with multiple sources. Thus, this should be either changed to "Ref." or "Refs." -- Frankie talk 12:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] @FrB.TG: Got it. Thanks, Frank. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:22, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] I don't know why is there an FN regarding the dollar exchange of INR. This is a global encyclopedia, not a US one. @FrB.TG: Some editors might question the amount conversion if it was not there before. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Once you mention the winner's name in parenthesis, preceded by the certain award category, I don't think you need to repeat it. For example, remove Dhanush's name in "including Entertainer of the Year (Dhanush)" as it's already written above. Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Replace "p.16" with "p.xvi" in ref 7. I know you changed it per my suggestion, but p. 16, I believe, is different than p. xvi in the book. -- Frankie talk 11:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 12:03, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – after an exhaustive and comprehensive review, I can't find anything else to fault. -- Frankie _talk 12:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks, Frankie. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Ssven2, I find that this article meets both the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. This list is in keeping with other Featured Lists of accolades received by Indian films, and it does not stray from the successful formula. I have no other comments or suggestions, as they have all been addressed by FrB.TG. Thank you for your good work on this article, and for your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 23:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@West Virginian: Thanks, West Virginian! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 01:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2015 (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 00:53, 26 August 2015 [3].

---

Nominator(s): Frankie _talk 16:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is my 16th nomination this year; this one on the filmography of actor Brad Pitt, who is well known for his roles, such as Thelma & Louise (1991), Seven (1995), 12 Monkeys (1995), Fight Club (1996), Ocean's Eleven (2001; and its sequel), The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008), and Moneyball (2011). Thanks to all reviewers indulged in reviewing this list. -- Frankie _talk 16:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "and played his first major role in the slasher film Cutting Class." — The year of the film's release can be added like "and played his first major role in the slasher film Cutting Class (1989)."
• "In 1993, Pitt was cast in the role of a serial killer in the road thriller Kalifornia, and featured in the Tony Scott-directed black comedy film True Romance." — Does citation number 4 cover this as well?

• Well, that supports only his Golden Globe nomination. The other parts are verifiable through the main body of the list.

• "in which he played a detective on the trail a psychopathic serial killer" — "in which he played a detective on the trail of a psychopathic serial killer."
• "both nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture" — "both of which were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture"
• One link has a redirect. Fix it.
• In the 2001 image, you can mention where the photo was taken.

That's about it from me. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 12:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ssven2. All resolved. :) -- Frankie _talk 12:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Thank you for resolving them quickly, Frankie. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Sven. Your time and support are much appreciated. -- Frankie _talk 13:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks a sound list to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:54, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc! -- Frankie _talk 08:59, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction "Brad Pitt is an American actor and film producer. His acting career began in 1987 with uncredited roles in the films No Way Out and Less Than Zero." – "Brad Pitt is an American actor and film producer whose acting career began in 1987 with uncredited roles in the films No Way Out and Less Than Zero. (The first sentence seems too simplistic so I suggest combining it with the second.) "In 1993, Pitt was cast in the role of a serial killer in the road thriller Kalifornia, and featured in the Tony Scott-directed black comedy film True Romance." – "In 1993 Pitt was cast in the role of a serial killer in the road thriller Kalifornia and featured in the Tony Scott-directed black comedy film True Romance." (Commas not necessary) "He took the role of vampire Louis de Pointe du Lac in the horror drama Interview with the Vampire (1994), and for his performance in the epic drama Legends of the Fall (1994), he earned his first Golden Globe Award for Best Actor nomination." – "He took the role of vampire Louis de Pointe du Lac in the horror drama Interview with the Vampire (1994) and for his performance in the epic drama Legends of the Fall (1994) he earned his first Golden Globe Award for Best Actor nomination." (Commas not necessary) "Pitt re-teamed with director David Fincher to star in the apocalyptic film Fight Club" – When was their first teaming? It's not mentioned above. "He earned critical acclaim for producing and starring in the 2011 films—the experimental drama The Tree of Life and the biopic sports drama Moneyball—both of which were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture." – "In 2011 he earned critical acclaim for producing and starring in two films—the experimental drama The Tree of Life and the biopic sports drama Moneyball—both of which were nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture." "Pitt won the Academy Award for Best Picture for the period drama 12 Years a Slave (2013) – "Pitt's production of the period drama 12 Years a Slave (2013) won the Academy Award for Best Picture ." Television Since Pitt is an American and all of his television appearances have been in the United States, the column titled "Channel" should be changed to "Network", which is more appropriate for American television. ("Channel", I believe, is more appropriate for British television.) — Jimknut (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Jimknut: Thanks for taking time to leave comments. I believe I have resolved them.. -- Frankie talk 18:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) -- Frankie _talk 19:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: FrB.TG, this list easily meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. It is also in keeping with the established format set forth by other featured filmography lists. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot mate. -- Frankie _talk 14:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Under "Theater" section, it probably should be changed to the accepted spelling of "Theatre", especially given that's how the venue spells it.
• Overall, a really excellent list. — Maile (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Maile66: Thanks for your concern. I have fixed it. -- Frankie _talk 14:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Everything looks good. — Maile (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. :) -- Frankie _talk 18:13, 18 August 2015 (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 00:53, 26 August 2015 [4].

---

Nominator(s): — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 12:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides a listing of the notable awards and nominations received by the 2010 Indian Tamil science fiction film, Enthiran starring Rajinikanth and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan. This is the first Tamil film list to be attempted for FL and also the first time I'm nominating an article for FLC. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 12:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)

Mild oppose Need a comma after editing and Antony. "around the scientist's struggle" - around a scientist's struggle Link android robot "report by Sun TV Network" - report by the Sun TV Network "with praise particularly directed at with particular praise for" - Needs a desperate rephrasing "As of August 2015, the film has won 26 awards." - The table lists only 19 awards "Enthiran won two National Film Awards ..." - Year and ceremony needs to be specified winning for The film won two Screen Awards at the 17th Screen Awards ... Year needed for IIFA The piped link for 17th Screen Awards should be unlinked Does Ghanta Award count as an accolade? I'm not very sure because as far as I can see this isn't listed in any Indian accolades list. I'm not sure if technical awards like Best cinematography, Best Production Design, Best Costume Design have nominations. Since Robot, the Hindi version, too received quite a few awards you should perhaps add a line in the opening para mentioning that the film was dubbed into Hindi as well. "Aishwarya Rai Bachchan" appears twice in the lead, keep the last name for the second occurrence. Behindwoods and Oneindia Entertainment qualify WP:RS? The NDTV refs. (#11, ... , #16) are one and the same. Mumbai Mirror should be italicised Publisher for ref #5 should simply be Bombay Stock Exchange I don't understand why we are so keen to add archived URLs for every single ref. They are not at all necessary in the article. Date for ref. 26 is 26 June 2011 Except for the second and third para which need a slight copy-edit, prose seems to be okay. But I'm a little worried about the quality of sources used in the article. Behindwoods, OneIndia – the article is heavily dependent on both of these. —Vensatry (ping) 13:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Vensatry: Resolved almost all your comments. Oneindia was about the only one which covered the Filmfare Award ceremony completely (both winners and nominees for both technical and performance). All other sources I tried finding on the net were quite unreliable (except a few cases where I got TOI for IIFA awards, which I now have used instead of Behindwoods). I'll try and reduce the Behindwoods sources in the article. Regarding technical nominations, is it ok if just the winners are included? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 14:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] It's such a disgrace that Indian media does not cover much about award ceremonies. I still hope the ceremonies are available for viewing on YouTube; nominees in them ar typically announced. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Vensatry: Got the official link for Vijay Awards on YouTube. Removed Behindwoods and Oneindia sources from the article. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 09:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Ssven2: I haven't really had a look at the list since my initial review. Part of me feels you've done a good work so far. Since both the questionable sources are replaced now, I'm retracting my oppose. I'll revisit the page tomorrow. —Vensatry (ping) 19:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Meets the standards. Nicely improved since my previous visit —Vensatry _(ping) 15:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Thanks for the thorough review, Vensatry! Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The image of Rajinikanth is licensed CC BY 3.0, so it is acceptable for use here.
• The first sentence of the article's lede needs to have an inline citation that verifies S. Shankar as the director and Kalanithi Maran as the producer.

Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest adding an and behind the semicolon in the third sentence of the lede's first paragraph.

@West Virginian: I wrote "The film stars Rajinikanth and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan in the lead roles with Danny Denzongpa, Santhanam, and Karunas playing supporting roles." If that's alright. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please ensure to use an Oxford comma consistently throughout the lede, as it is not used in the third sentence, but is used in the fourth sentence.

Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather than "The film was dubbed into Hindi as Robot," consider "The film was dubbed in Hindi as Robot."

Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Produced on an estimated budget..." vs. "Made on an estimated budget..." Produced sounds more professional here.

Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest inserting an Oxford comma in the sentence outlining areas of "particular praise."

Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If the National Film Awards are not always held in New Delhi, I would mention that New Delhi was the venue for the ceremony along with the year.

Done as asked. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 00:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there an inline citation for the final sentence of the third paragraph?

@West Virginian: Yes, the citations are available in the list. I want to keep the information in the lead like other Indian film award FLs. I'll add the citations if you want me to do so. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 07:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am surprised there are not more Tamil language sources referenced here. I would engage in a cursory search of Tamil language media sources to see if there are any other sources out there to include here.

@West Virginian: Not much reliable tamil newspaper/magazine/website sources (online) cover the award ceremonies. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 11:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Ssven2, these are my only comments thus far. Overall, I asses this list to meet several of the criteria for Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. Once these items have been addressed, we'll go from there, and I'll engage in a re-review before making a final decision. Thank you for all your hard work on this list. -- West Virginian (talk) 18:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Ssven2, thank you for addressing all my concerns in a timely manner. While this is a short list, it would make the article for the film much too long if this list were added to it. With that said, this list is quite comprehensive for the subject matter, and I support its progression to FL status. Thank you for all your work on this one! -- West Virginian (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@West Virginian: Thank you very much, West Virginian! Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 03:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Before I start a thorough review, I just want to say, this article doesn't seem very necessary, just over 30 awards from a mere six award shows amassing to a total of less than twenty references for the entire article, what's stopping this table from being slipped into the main article? It seems somewhat fork-y from my point of view. Azealia911 _talk 22:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Azealia911: The main article faced length issues, especially during its first FAC. That's why the awards section has a separate article. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 01:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But...you created the awards article in February 2015, and you didn't nominate the main article for FA until March 2015 for the first time, so how exactly was it an issue? After reading over some of the issues presented at the main articles nomination for the first time concerning length, it seems that issues were to do with repetition of language, as opposed to that the article was too bulky. There's nothing wrong with a long article, so long as it doesn't waffle, which is what the editor took issue with, I really don't see any issue merging the table into the awards section. I'm not going to review this, sorry to say, and currently take the stance of oppose, withdraw and merge, per this being an unnecessary split. I could be otherwise persuaded though, but at this point I'm not seeing enough notable information concerning awards for a stand-alone list. Azealia911 _talk 01:43, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree. Although there is no specific rule on the limit, an accolades list with 15+ awards and close to 30 nominations is definitely a legitimate fork. You may want to see similar FLs with less than 15 awards. —Vensatry _(ping) 07:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Azealia911: The length was actually discussed during the main article's first peer review. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 10:01, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By giving the awards a separate article, the main article became concise enough to to pass its FAC. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Frankie

... I think the exclusion of infobox started from Kahaani's accolades (the first FL on an Indian film accolades), which did not include it, because certain awards have no prior nominations. I think an infobox can be added with a footnote as seen in this list. To see an example of a tally to add, you might want to have a look at this list. -- Frankie talk 20:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] @FrB.TG: Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 04:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "Enthiran won two awards at the 58th National Film Awards ceremony, held at New Delhi in 2011" – de-link New Delhi as WP:OVERLINK suggests "the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, and religions [should not be linked]". Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "Enthiran won three International Indian Film Academy Awards at the 12th IIFA Awards ceremony held on 25 July 2011" – 25 July 2011 not needed. Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] All of the entries under "Recipient(s) and Nominee(s)" should be linked (even if repeated) as the table is sortable. Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] The names under the aforementioned column should sorted by last names, using {{sort}}. @FrB.TG: Where to place it exactly? — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] [[Kalanithi Maran]] should be changed to {{sort|Maran|[[Kalanithi Maran]]}} and so for others, who have last names. -- Frankie talk 11:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] IMO, the publishers/owners of publishers in references are really not needed, e.g. Press Trust of India in ref 2. @FrB.TG: Changed to "author" if it's alright. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] To be honest I want this to go away for the sake of consistency. -- Frankie talk 11:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] @FrB.TG: Done as asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] I would disagree with Azealia911 on content forking as the list, including the accompanying prose, would be too big to be included in the film's article. -- Frankie talk 11:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Just a final point – "Enthiran won three International Indian Film Academy awards at the 12th IIFA Awards ceremony under". -- Frankie talk 12:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] @FrB.TG: Done. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 13:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – nice work on your first list. -- Frankie _talk 13:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Thanks, Frankie. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks a decent list to me.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr. Blofeld: Thanks, Doc. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 02:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from - Vivvt (Talk) 04:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* No need to use three level sections for notes, footnotes, and sources. Use ";". Also, sources section should be changed to bibliography and footnotes to references. @Vivvt: There is already a title "References". It would cause another Duplicate title to be created. I have used "Citations" instead of "Footnotes" and used ";" for all the three if that's alright. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC).[reply] Its unfair to use only Rajini's image. You can use File:Rajini and Aishwarya Rai.jpg. Unfair by what means? It's a free image with proper license. —Vensatry (ping) 19:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "Only" is the keyword here. Why use "only" Rajini's image and not one with Aishwarya Rai alongside? Both the images are from commons anyways. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Vivvt: She was hardly nominated for any awards except the favourite heroine in the Vijay awards. She also won a Ghanta Award for Worst actress (which, per se, is not an accolade, hence removed from this list on Vensatry's suggestion). That's why "only" Rajini's image is used. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 06:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] I dont get this argument. She wasnt nominated so doesnt deserve an image then why not include image for the most nominated people like V. Srinivas Mohan or Cyril. I know this is not a film article but the complete story revolves around her. We can go on with these arguments but I dont think thats the agenda for this FLC. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Is that a requirement? This is an accolades list after all. I'd be more happy to include the images of Shankar, Srinivas Mohan, Sabu Cyril (if we have a free image), and Randy. —Vensatry (ping) 12:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Vivvt: Done I have used the image you mentioned, tweaking the sentence below it a bit. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 11:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Consider re-writing "The film garnered awards and nominations in several categories, with particular praise for Rajinikanth's performance, cinematography, visual effects, art direction, and costume design." Sounds like Rajini did all that. Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Enthiran won two awards at the 58th National Film Awards ceremony, held at New Delhi in 2011, --> At the 58th National Film Awards ceremony, Enthiran won two awards... Year and place is not required in this list. Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] For "Best Art Director (Cyril) and Best Costume Design", add an Oxford comma after Cyril. Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] At the 5th Vijay Awards, it was nominated --> At the 5th Vijay Awards, the film was nominated Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] (Maran) and Favourite Director, add an Oxford comma after Maran Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] 12th IIFA Awards under the Best Special Effects, Best Art Direction and Best Makeup categories, add an Oxford comma after Art Direction Done. As asked. — Ssven2 Speak 2 me 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] - Vivvt (Talk) 06:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good work overall. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vivvt: Thanks, Vivvt. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 05:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2015 (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 00:53, 26 August 2015 [5].

---

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(ping) 18:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A decade-old list, I've completely re-written the lead and worked on the table and formatting stuff. Look forward to comments and suggestions, as always —Vensatry _(ping) 18:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments You abbreviate ICC but never use the abbreviation. Why not link England and Australia cricket teams in the lead? " if it ends up " maybe "if it concludes" or at least remove "up". Duckworth and Lewis should be separated by an en-dash. "There are also two matches where the scores ended level, but the team which had lost fewer wickets was declared the winner." was this a local rule change that over-ruled the ICC definition? Guess it was a local rule. Can't find sources for the same, anything from your side? —Vensatry (ping) 11:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "The first tie in ODIs happened" bit awkward reading for me "The first tie in ODI history took place..." Why not link Aus and WI? " occurred after a gap of five years during the second match" the way that's currently written it could be inferred that gap of five years took place during a match... "Starting from 1991, a further 30 ties have occurred in ODIs, more frequently than ever before" not keen on this really, and I imagine that more ties occurred because more matches were played... Added a source and rephrased the bit. —Vensatry (ping) 11:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "Australia was involved in" instead of was, maybe "has been" (or BritEng "have been") Kingsmead cricket ground -> Cricket Ground. Some of the notes make claims which need referencing, e.g. Note A. Note G - overs, not over. Not sure you need to relink D/L method every single time it's used. That's it from a quick run-through. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the comments —Vensatry (ping) 11:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support looks good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian

• Vensatry, I only had a few comments for you regarding this list. Overall, fantastic job researching and crafting this lede and list! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The first statement in the first sentence of the lede where the term "One Day International" is defined should have an inline citation at the end of it.
• The image of the Australian team is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0 and is acceptable for use here. Both captions are suitable.
• Over (cricket) should be wiki-linked to the "over" in 40-over, since it comes before the next usage of the term in the lede's prose.
• In the last sentence of the first paragraph, two matches are mentioned but no specifics are given. Is there a way to include more information here regarding those two matches? I know this content is below in the table, but this could be elaborated further in this sentence.
• Bangladesh needn't be wiki-linked in the final sentence of the lede.
• All the images included are licensed appropriately and are suitable for use here; and all images have acceptable captions in keeping with FL standards.

• @West Virginian: Thanks for your review. Hopefully, I've addressed all of them. —Vensatry _(ping) 07:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Vensatry, congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 11:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Fine work on the list. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 14:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments' "There are also two matches where the scores ended level..." -> There have been two occasions where a match has been tied, that the team which had lost fewer wickets was declared the winner. "the Wisden Cricketers' Almanack called..." called makes no sense, change to stated "occurred in till..." in till -> until I would move the green key indicator to before the table so the reader knows what it represents before they view the table Other than these looks good. NapHit (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] @NapHit: All done. Thanks for the comments —Vensatry (ping) 05:59, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 12:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2015 (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 00:16, 25 August 2015 [6].

---

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on Thursday just gone, we witnessed one of the greatest bowling displays from an English cricketer in the history of the game. With his performance, Stuart Broad unlocked the door to 300+ wickets, became the fourth greatest English bowler of all-time and snuck onto the foot of the 15 or more fifers chart. I knocked this list up in the last 24 hours and humbly submit it to the scrutiny of the community. Note: I have another, similar, list here at FLC, but it has two supports and an indication from a third editor that they see no major problems other than the one they pointed out. As ever, my thanks to anyone and everyone who takes the time to participate in this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: The Rambling Man, the prose is professionally written and the lede meets the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and is both engaging and comprehensive in content. The list itself is in keeping with the standards set forth by other featured "lists of international cricket five-wicket hauls." I also prefer the key being placed in a table, as it is here. More importantly, the references cited are verifiable and are in keeping with Wikipedia standards. The first image is licensed CC BY 2.0 and the second image is licensed CC BY-SA 1.0, so both are acceptable for use here. Great job and thank you for your continued contributions to Wikipedia. -- West Virginian (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping)

Comments As of 9 August 2015 – Do we really need the date here? Since we're in the middle of a Test series, yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] I'm sure "all-time combined five-wicket haul takers" can be rephrased in a better way. Also, not sure if 'five-wicket haul takers' is good English Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] What about 'five-wicket haul takers'? —Vensatry (ping) 11:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Not sure I see a major problem here, we say "he took a five-wicket haul" so he's a "five-wicket haul taker", no? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] I cannot find this usage outside our WP lists. —Vensatry (ping) 11:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Link Kingston in the lead Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] You use Kingston in one sentence and Trent Bridge in another. Be consistent —Vensatry (ping) 11:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Sabina Park. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "In Test matches, Broad has been most successful against Australia, taking six of his fourteen five-wicket Test hauls against them." – 'Test' and the 'against them' bit are redundant. Reworded, but yuck. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "He took the only wicket, that of Shoaib Malik, in a rain-curtailed match" – You need be more clear here; earlier England were bowled out in the first innings. More clearer. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Why 'one-day' format and not 'One Day'? Also, something is missing in the sentence. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] The ODI table says his fifer came against India in 2007, which again is wrong (guess you remodeled the Mitchell Johnson list). Indeed, massive oversight, fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] The Riverside Ground image needs alt text Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] The double dagger thing should be added for the twin fifer that he took at the Riverside Ground. —Vensatry (ping) 11:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Why aren't the cities linked in he "Venue" col.? Avoid linking common geographical terms. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Agree, we shouldn't link countries. But not sure if all cities fall under 'major geographical regions'. Also, in that case you shouldn't have linked Kingston in the lead. —Vensatry (ping) 11:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Replaced with Sabina Park. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] This one is a personal preference. Given that, he first played ODIs and took his first ODI fifer before Tests the lead and table could follow a chronological ordering. —Vensatry (ping) 09:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, I've tended to stick to Tests, then ODIs, then T20Is in all of these kind of things, regardless. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your comments, I hopefully have addressed them. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support —Vensatry _(ping) 12:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from NapHit (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments "the first Test of the 2008–09 series in Sabina Park," should it be at instead of in? "pick up a fifer..." perhaps take a fifer? Apart from those two slightly pedantic comments, I see little wrong with this list, great work. NapHit (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Both fixed as you suggested, thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Harrias

;Comments Could the phrase "As of 9 August 2015, Broad has taken 308 wickets in Test matches, 177 wickets in ODIs and 65 wickets in T20Is." Be re-written so that it wouldn't need updating so often to keep it up to date? Something more like "has taken over 300 wickets in Test matches, and almost 250 across ODI and T20Is." Actually, that sounds pretty pants, so maybe not! I'm only keeping it like that until the end of this Test, I'll make sure it's updated accordingly after this omnishambles we're experiencing! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Fair enough. Harrias talk 07:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] I'm not sure that "fifer" is encyclopaedic language that we should be using in prose. Excised. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps add Jamaica into the location for the first ground? Harrias talk 07:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Ok, fair enough so it isn't confused with other Kingstons. Done, thanks again! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks for resolving my concerns nice and quickly, nice list. Harrias ^talk 07:11, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:38, 25 August 2015 (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 00:16, 25 August 2015 [7].

---

Nominator(s): Frankie _talk and Snuggums (talk / edits) 09:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This list was previously the part of Katy Perry discography, but was separated by the user Samjohnzon. Also, I would like to acknowledge and thank the fellow editor SNUGGUMS for the contributions he has made. I believe this a second open nomination for me, with the first one having already 5 supports and no outstanding concerns. I will try to resolve reviewer's queries with the best of my ability. Cheers. -- Frankie _talk 09:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my name as a nominator given my edits to the article. Hope you don't mind. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:44, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not in fact I was going to add your name anyway~, but it automatically inserted my name. -- Frankie _talk 14:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Consider a lighter shade of red for the infobox listing for "Television"
• Could the N/A templates possibly be expanded? EG {{N/A|None}}. A bare N/A always feels so vague to me.
• Can you explain the "Other videos" table to me? I see no reason why it can't be slotted into the above table.
• Are any of the descriptions actually covered in the references? I've checked a couple, and in the two I've checked; Kesha isn't mentioned in the Hot n Cold reference, while Matt Dallas isn't mentioned in the Thinking of You reference.

• Since this is for plot, I don't think we need to provide references for each and every plot point. And as the description does not provide any additional analysis, the contents should be easily verifiable. In that case, I am not sure if multiple references will help. Besides, no reference really states the "entire" plot of a narrative. Every plot point is only verifiable if we watch the entire music videos. Thanks for your other comments anyway. I shall resolve them tomorrow. -- Frankie _talk 21:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I worded it wrong, I wasn't asking you to verify every single detail in the column, EG, I'm not going to strong oppose due to the fact that the Part Of Me reference doesn't say who Perry's boyfriend cheated on her with, while the column describes her as a co-worker. Just things that may be challanged like the two examples I gave prior. Azealia911 _talk 21:23, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I personally do feel sources should support plot details, and will spot check the references Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have replaced those two sources, which now mention Kesha's and Dallas' appearances.

• Add {{small|(featuring Patrick Stump) to the "Artist" column in "Guest appearances" for Cupid's Chokehold, like how Bitch I'm Madonna lists Minaj's feature.
• "Company and product" is the header title for the "Commercials" table, yet there are no products mentioned in the column.

• Of course there are e.g. Proactiv.

• Nothing on this for commercials?

• I am not sure about this one, but an ad was released by her to promote the film by Pepsi (which is mentioned in the list). Couldn't find a reference on this one.

• Ref #61 is dead.

That's all I spotted. Azealia911 _talk 19:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Azealia, all fixed. -- Frankie _talk 22:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per my comments being addressed, quickly and politely too. Any comments at an FLC I currently have open are greatly appreciated! Azealia911 _talk 22:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the comments and support. I'll take a look at your nomination tomorrow. -- Frankie _talk 22:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, thank you very much Azealia911 :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments. The Wikipedian Penguin 09:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... "After starring in several music videos between 2005 and 2007, including 'Simple', a low-budget music video for 'Ur So Gay' was released."—I think we need some context here. Was "Ur So Gay" her first mainstream single? "In 2008, she released music videos for 'I Kissed a Girl' and 'Hot n Cold' – both released from her second album One of the Boys – and the latter took place during a wedding."—"released ... released" is repetitive. You don't need to say "music video" every time; it gets repetitive. You can use "video" in subsequent instances when it is clear you are talking about a song as opposed to eg. a film. "Her 'Firework' video won the MTV Video Music Award for Video of the Year,[1] and the music video for "E.T." took place in outer space."—odd connection "Perry voiced the Smurfette character in the animated feature The Smurfs and its sequel The Smurfs 2."—mention years, and move this to before her documentary for a chronological order. Why is the description cell for "Ur So Gay" centred? Awkward seeing Katy Perry as the name of the website. You can say "Katy Perry (Official Website)" or simply hard-code it ("KatyPerry.com"). The same thing with Toyota. Feel free to justify otherwise. Ref 7 also results in a connection error. Overall, this is great work you guys. The Wikipedian Penguin 12:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Cheers @Wikipedian Penguin:. All sorted now. -- Frankie talk 14:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] I was working on these but you beat me to it, FrB.TG :P, though thanks for helping Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Note: "Simple" has been replaced with "Goodbye for Now" and "Cupid's Chokehold"; they actually have their own articles unlike "Simple", and those were also her first acting features along with "Learn to Fly" (but that doesn't have its own article) Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thanks, some more: When describing the content of fictional work like songs and videos, use present tense (eg. "is set in", "takes place", "features the singer"). "...and the latter took place during a wedding"—I know the intent with this is to summarize the video, but can we do without it? It just feels out of place and disrupts the flow. If you do remove this, you can change the dash to a comma. "The Yoann Lemoine-directed video "Teenage Dream" saw her play a euphoric teenager."—journalese writing. Maybe "...depicts her as a euphoric teenager"? "The music video for the song featured her in a jungle after a plane crash, followed by "Unconditionally", which focused on unconditional love."—sentence lacks logical flow and parallel structure Current version can still be improved. It reads as though "Unconditionally" was released after the plane crash. The Wikipedian Penguin 22:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Tweaked a bit Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] I think the lead would flow better if the third paragraph started with the films than with Prism. Not sure what you think about it, but I've also moved her TV roles to where the films are and gave Prism its own paragraph Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] This may be a matter of personal taste, but I still think the lead would flow better with the film/TV appearances in one paragraph. Maybe merging Prism info into the second paragraph? The Wikipedian Penguin 00:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Be consistent with whether the year column is centred across all tables. In the television table, "Role" should be "Role(s)" since she has played multiple roles in SNL. In the commercials table, the first header should be "Company or product" since we don't mention both in each cell. For the last row, for the sake of specificity, you can use Toyota Yaris as the product instead of just Toyota as the company. The Wikipedian Penguin 19:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for your detailed review. All fixed. -- Frankie talk 20:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support—nothing else to quibble at, well done! The Wikipedian Penguin 09:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such an exhaustive review. Much appreciated. -- Frankie _talk 09:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated indeed, Wikipedian Penguin Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS and FrB.TG, following my review of this list, I assess that you have adequately addressed many of the concerns previously raised above by Wikipedian Penguin and Azealia911. The template at the top is beautifully formatted and the image of Perry in the info box is licensed CC BY-SA 2.0, so it is suitable for use here. The only unsourced content within the lede is content that is sourced below in the list, so that will do, which is in line with other featured videography lists. With that said, the article meets the criteria outlined in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. I only have two comments, which are merely suggestions and are not deal breakers by any means. Great job on this article! -- West Virginian (talk) 18:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather than say just "music market" which seem truncated, would it flow better if you render it as "the music industry market"?
• Rather than sometimes using "video," every mention should be rendered "music video" for consistency's sake.

Thanks West Virginian. I changed "music market" to "music industry", but Wikipedian Penguin above advised against using "music video" so much as it was repetitive. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A thanks from me, too, West Virginian for such a polite review, which is quite rare in this encyclopedia. -- Frankie _talk 21:06, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: SNUGGUMS and FrB.TG, thank you for addressing my two points, and for all your hard work on this list. Congratulations on a job well done! While I would prefer "music video" being used consistently, I will defer to Wikipedian Penguin's review on that one. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for your kind review. Coming to your first query, I would agree with you on certain points. However, as WP Penguin said, it gets a bit repetitive as every time the readers know we are talking about music videos until the mention of film and television releases. Again, thanks for your review and support. -- Frankie _talk 00:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, West Virginian, and thanks for the support :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:39, 25 August 2015 (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 00:16, 25 August 2015 [8].

---

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Been a while since I did a cricket list, so I thought I'd give this neat little one a go. Should be shipshape, error free, correctly formatted, accessible etc etc, but I welcome all comments and suggestions for improvement. Thank you in advance for any time and effort expended contributing to the process! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

• Just a quick one I noticed, Fidel Edwards, Ryan Harris and James Franklin have got the team the wrong why round. None of them is English. Looks good otherwise. NapHit (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Can't spot any errors, great work. NapHit (talk) 19:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment

• "It is the home of the Durham County Cricket Club has played host to Test, One Day International (ODI) and Twenty20 International (T20I) matches" - think there's some words missing there..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

• "It is the home of the Durham County Cricket Club" - don't think the second "the" needs to be there. I've never heard cricket fans refer to "the Kent CCC" or similar......

  Hangover from the list I based this one on. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "also making him the only bowler to have taken ten wickets in a match at the Riverside" - a Test match, an international match irrespective of format, or any match at all?

  Added "international". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Chris. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from —Vensatry (ping) 16:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from —Vensatry (ping) "The Riverside has hosted six Test matches" - From the source, I can infer the ground has hosted five Tests. Ooooops, fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] " the first of which was in 1999 when Pakistan defeated Scotland by 94 runs in the qualifying round of the 1999 Cricket World Cup" - 1999 appears twice "of that year's Cricket World Cup" gives me a feeling that a WC is conducted every year. —Vensatry (ping) 10:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] I respectfully disagree. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Ah, I was wrong! —Vensatry (ping) 16:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "best Test bowling performance" - I prefer figures to performance in this context I agree, fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "Australian Ryan Harris" - You ought to be more clear since he has a dual citizenship I'm not sure about that. In the context of this list, he represented Australia and so I don't see a real necessity to go into his dual citizenship, I'm not sure it would add anything. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Not sure, but when you say 'Australian' I thought it refers to his nationality rather than team. It's safe to say 'Australia cricketer'. —Vensatry (ping) 10:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] I have changed it to "Australia's". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] I would change the piped-link from Australian cricket team in England in 2013 to 2013 Ashes series. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "As of 2015, two bowlers have taken five-wicket hauls ..." - Given that, the ground recently hosted an ODI, it's better to include the month also. Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "New Zealand's medium pace bowler James Franklin took 5 wickets for 42 runs against England during their tour in 2004 while England's Graeme Swann achieved 5 for 28 ... " - The usage of while is inappropriate in the sentence. Replaced for "and". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Is 'versus' encyclopedic? I don't see why not but I've replaced it with "against". The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] The batsmen column corresponding to Richard Johnson contains only five entries. Travis Friend went walkabout.... Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Dates for the last three entries should be 9 Aug 2013 Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Check ref no. 17 What happened there?! Must have been parallel editing... Good spot. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] —Vensatry (ping) 09:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Thanks Vesantry, I would have got to these comments sooner if I hadn't spent the day getting to Nottingham to watch the final death knell of the Aussies! I'll do my best to get to them in the next day or so and will ping you when I'm done. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Vensatry, I think I've addressed all your comments, thanks again! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] You seem to have a problem with my username. It's Ven

• Support – Good list —Vensatry _(ping) 16:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – The only issue I have is that ref #6 has the author as First Last, while ref #8 has Last, F. M. I would suggest changing ref #6 to Last, First. Otherwise, a nice little list, well done. Harrias ^talk 06:57, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Fixed, thanks for picking it up and thanks for the support! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:39, 25 August 2015 (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 00:16, 25 August 2015 [9].

---

Nominator(s): Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this is perhaps the most comprehensive and exhaustively-researched list of Edwards's films currently available. One of the preeminent directors of his day, most of his films have sadly been lost and his name has been all but forgotten. I previously nominated this list in February, but life circumstances forced me away from the project for several months, and the nomination failed due to my nonattendance. The bulk of the concerns raised there have been corrected (including the awkward realization that the AFI had swapped its opinion on St. Elmo's directorial credit sometime in 2014!). For the comments which did not result in changes, I've included responses below. And, additionally, I've been able to locate and include the British alternative titles for several of Edwards's films with Theda Bara. This time, I should be able to stick around through the entire process, which hopefully doesn't need much more polish at this point. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding scenerist/scenarist, while the latter spelling seems more common with recent writers, broadly speaking, I've opted to follow the included sources, which vastly prefer the former.
• The Celebrated Scandal is awkward. JGE is listed as having "picturized" the film in its copyright registration, but there are oddities about the credit, and there's no other evidence he worked on the film whatsoever. The AFI's opinion is that he may have written material for an earlier, unused version of the film. The source presented in the first FLC that outright names him as director is self-published and not a RS. I'd be happy to footnote this article with the AFI statement, but I'm not really sure where it would go.
• Original stories that aren't novels or plays are quoted instead of italicized because I believe they are generally less-than-novel length, and quoted titles are the standard for short stories and similar works.
• August 1918 is the best I can do for the second reissue of A Daughter of the Gods.
• "The New Magdelen" really was spelled like that.

@Jimknut, The Rambling Man, Lightlowemon, and Tim riley:: Pinging the participants of the February–April FLC in case they wish to participate in a candidacy I can stick around for. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – good informative (but not overlong) introduction, the lists are evidently comprehensive, and are thoroughly referenced. Edwards certainly is a forgotten man, but this excellent page does its bit to restore him to cineastes' attention. Meets the FL criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 18:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All queries answered, I'd love to see the tidbit about The Celebrated Scandal in the article at some point though, especially if it's mentioned by the AFI. --Lightlowemon (talk) 10:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Included mention as a footnote. Please let me know if this wording and placement is satisfactory. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Happy to support as is; everything seems pretty tickety-boo in regards to comprehensiveness, tone and accessibility. Not convinced it's worth splitting into three tables when two are only one entry long each, though, but that's more of a stylistic preference. I'm also not hugely keen on the image's alt solely describing the pictured people by name but it's, again, not vital. GRAPPLE X 13:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed with the objection to the alt-text, which was not compliant with best practices. New alt text is purely descriptive. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:40, 25 August 2015 (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 00:16, 25 August 2015 [10].

---

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gone Girl is a psychological thriller based on the eponymous novel by Gillian Flynn. The film was directed by David Fincher and received many accolades especially for the performance of lead actress Rosamund Pike. As usual, look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Littlecarmen his wife Amy played by Rosamund Pike Add a comma after "Amy". Neil Patrick Harris, and Tyler Perry Remove the comma. The score was composed by Trent Reznor, and Atticus Ross. Remove the comma. Gone Girl premiered at the New York Film Festival on September 26, 2014,[2] before 20th Century Fox later gave the film a wide release at over 3,000 theaters in the United States, and Canada on October 3. Remove "later" and the comma after "United States". Pike won the Empire Award for Best Actress, and Breakthrough Performance Award from the Palm Springs International Film Festival, and was also nominated at the Screen Actors Guild, and British Academy Film Awards (BAFTAs). Could you split this up into two sentences or phrase it better? You say "and" three times in just one sentence. Flynn was also nominated at the BAFTAs as well as the Writers Guild of America Awards. Add a comma before "as well as". The National Board of Review included Gone Girl in its list of top ten films of the year. Add "their" before "top ten films of the year". African-American Film Critics Association should come before American Cinema Editors in the infobox. Same in the table. Otherwise, this is a great list! Littlecarmen (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Littlecarmen: Thanks for the review! I think I've sorted the above points. Cowlibob (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great job! I also currently have a list nominated for featured list status here. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look :) Littlecarmen (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Frankie

.. "Gone Girl is a 2014 psychological thriller directed by" – I think you missed the word "film". "As of July 2015, Gone Girl is Fincher's highest grossing film" – hyphenate "highest grossing". Empty the references from the third paragraph as they are not supposed to be repeated in the lead when they are already covered in the main body of the article – see WP:LEAD. It should be either Deadline.com or Deadline. Again, it should be either "The Hollywood Reporter. Prometheus Global Media" or "The Hollywood Reporter (Prometheus Global Media)". Why is National Board of Review seen twice in ref 13, and also link it. The date format for ref 39 isn't as others are. Ref 51 is incomplete. I mean it's by The Hollywood Reporter, but I can't see such. I think that's all from me. -- Frankie talk 13:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply] @FrB.TG: Thanks for the review. I think I've sorted the issues highlighted, please let me know if I haven't. Cowlibob (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Great list once again!

--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from - Vivvt (Talk) 08:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments from Vivvt Just like 87th Academy Awards, maintain consistency with Golden Globes --> 72nd Golden Globe Awards, Screen Actors Guild Awards --> 21st Screen Actors Guild Awards and British Academy Film Awards --> 68th British Academy Film Awards You can use "The film" instead of Gone Girl alternatively if you want. - Vivvt (Talk) 09:12, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Vivvt: Thanks for the review. Ssven2 has gotten ahead of me and has resolved these queries. Let me know if it was satisfactory and any other further comments you'd like to make. Cowlibob (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Above comments are resolved. I have trimmed some of the references. Feel free to revert if you do not like it that way. Also, could you please add Portal:Film in the United States under "See also" section?

• Support - Vivvt (Talk) 08:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:40, 25 August 2015 (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 00:16, 25 August 2015 [11].

---

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2006 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Please note that the Brokeback Mountain vs. Crash "so-called" controversy will not be addressed due to concerns regarding Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and objectivity concerns. This list/article is primarily focused on the ceremony itself, what actually happened in that event, and analysis pertaining to the ceremony in the form of critical reviews. Birdienest81 (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

* A comma (,) needed after presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) in the introducing line. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences linked twice in the lead. MoS suggests not to link big cities, so de-link Los Angeles in the lead. "with the late Alfred Newman for the second most Oscar nominations of any individual" – I think "late" is a bit informal and redundant, so I suggest to omit that. Are you sure that winners are "highlighted in boldface"? BBC News needs to be linked in ref 17. Ref 20: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences – ditto. I think United States should go away from the entries in the Bibliography section. -- Frankie talk 22:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] @FrB.TG: Done: I have fixed everything listed above. --Birdienest81 (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Good job pal. -- Frankie _talk 12:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – This is another impressive work from Birdie. Plus, I'm glad he didn't include the unwanted Brokeback Mountain vs. Crash drama.—Prashant 16:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work

*"other winners included" and "also" make the sentence a bit redundant." Done: I removed most of the word "also" throughout the article. I think the phrase "other winners included" is important at the beginning of the article since it encompasses and enumerates the other films that won awards prior to the in depth coverage of the article. For better prose, do "Brokeback Mountain garnered the most nominations, with eight total…" Done Several of your references do not have links to the publishers, why so? I only linked the publisher's name on the first mention in the references section to avoid overlinking. I do not mind linking several times for convenience, but that's what was given to me during my first submission for FLC. "the aforementioned category" is a bit vague and made me stop and look for a second to realize what that was, so perhaps do "that category" instead. Done To preface the section on various records and barriers being broken, I would put a sentence like "The ceremony marked several notable achievements by multiple individuals and films." Done: Added "Several notable achievements by multiple individuals and films occurred during the ceremony" as the second sentence of that paragraph. I personally prefer boldface to the double-dagger thing, but you can do either--it's not a big deal to me. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility, bold lettering is discouraged in marking up winners because some screen readers cannot differentiate bold text from non-bold text. Are sources required for the multiple awards and nominations tables or not? That issue came up in the FLC for Academy Award for Best Actor. Cowlibob said, "Number of nominations is implicitly verifiable by the main table." I would give a little more background on Cates' role in the previous ceremony's failure. I am iffy on this one. I know that 77th ceremony's ratings were a decline from the 76th show's numbers, and I do know that most television viewers did not like Chris Rock's performance, but I don't think the failure (to attain higher ratings) would be attributed to solely Cates, though. Furthermore, the sinking ratings could be attributed to the fact that fewer people saw the Best Picture nominees (compared with last year which had Best Picture winner Lord of the Rings: Return of the King). The link in the phrase previous year's ceremony links to everything including the ratings and reviews and is pretty straightfoward. I think you dropped a "before" in the sentence starting "In a statement…" Not sure where the word "before" belongs in the sentence. Could you restate that sentence so I know what you mean? Although a "before" could have worked, you probably just dropped a comma, so I added that. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 15:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] "The show received a mixed reception from media publications. Some media outlets were more critical of the show." Not only is this choppy, the second sentence is kind of obvious given the first one. I like keeping the "second sentences" for both the positive and negative reviews, but instead of just restating, expand it—i.e. "some commented negatively on the show, mainly criticizing x, y, and z." Also, I would switch the positive and negative--for mixed reviews, I usually put the positive first. Done: Switched the positive and negative paragraphs. I think the reviews are straightforward in what each review liked/disliked. @Birdienest81: A few comments. Looks like a great list! Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 00:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] @BenLinus1214:: I've addressed or responded to everything above with either comments or changes. Thanks for the feedback. --Birdienest81 (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Wonderful work. It's great for the wiki to have such great entries on the Oscars ceremonies. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 15:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from - Vivvt (Talk) 05:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* There are 11 "Uncategorized redirects" in the references. The nominees were announced --> The nominees for the 78th Academy Awards were announced it was revealed that 2005 host Chris Rock would not return --> it was stated that 2005 host Chris Rock would not return @Vivvt: Done: It looks like Ssven2 helped me the latter two comments. For the "uncategorized redirects", I tried to replace the URLs with newer ones. All of them now work except the Filmsite.org link which I can't seem to fix. Anyways, even if they were "Uncategorized redirects", the webpage technically still works in itself. Anyways, thanks for the feedback. --Birdienest81 (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very comprehensive. - Vivvt (Talk) 05:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks very good. My only suggestion is on this line in the "Winners and nominees" section: "With his latest nominations for Best Original Score, composer John Williams tied with Alfred Newman for the second most Oscar nominations of any individual." Why not mention how many nominations they received? (I believe the number is 64.) Jimknut (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Jimknut: Done: Added statistic that Newman and Williams were tied with 45 nominations for second place in most nominations. Added footnote in Notes indicating Disney as nomination leader with 64. --Birdienest81 (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:41, 25 August 2015 (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 00:16, 25 August 2015 [12].

---

Nominator(s):  MPJ -US  01:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it hits all the marks for featured lists including an engaging lead, it is encompassing the subject, it is fully sourced with reliable sources, well written, it adheres to the list format for professional wrestling championships and the subject matter is definitely Feature List worthy as a number of professional wrestling championship lists are Featured Lists, including 12 articles I have previous led through the FL process.  MPJ -US  01:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Well nevermind, plans are made, plans change so I will be here and ready to review & improve this list. MPJ -Viva Esfinge  20:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments
  • "For the majority of its existence, it was featured by...." - not keen on the word "featured", maybe try "For the majority of its existence, it was defended in...."
    • Done
  • "NWA Mexico previously tried to reclaim CMLL's three NWA-branded titles" should be "NWA Mexico had previously tried to reclaim CMLL's three NWA-branded titles". Also, when did this occur?
    • Made the change, researching if the sources mention when it was previously attempted to reclaim the championships
    • Doing some research the best I could find was "in 2008" but that was on luchawiki, so that's not a reliable source. Most of what I found basically said "previously" so until I find something reliable to support it I guess the article stays the way it is? MPJ-US  11:28, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case I suggest that "NWA Mexico had previously tried to reclaim CMLL's three NWA-branded titles" be changed to "NWA Mexico had already tried to reclaim CMLL's three NWA-branded titles on a previous occasion" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Updated.  MPJ-US  20:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Forty-five wrestlers have shared 84 NWA Middleweight Championship reigns" - per WP:MOSNUM, either both should be in digits or both should be in words
    • done, digits in both
      • That's great, however the MOS says that a sentence shouldn't start with a digit, so maybe move "Since 1939" to the start of the sentence..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • did not realize that, fixed.  MPJ-US  20:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some of the title changes on early Anniversary Shows, the location is given in the table as unknown, but our articles on the shows do give locations??
    • That is a great catch, based on that I fixed the locations and applied the anniversary source to those reigns as well
    • I researched and found a few more locations. I used the cagematch citation for the location specifically. Cagematch is listed as a reliable source for wrestling results on the Pro wrestling source page.
  • "The event promoted by the respective promotion in which the title changed hands" - the word "respective" does not belong there
    • Reworded
  • "CMLL replaces the championship" - this is in the present tense, but all other notes are in the past tense
    • Fixed tense
  • To work with the "reigns by combined length" table, notes 6 and 7 and also 8 and 9 should indicate which reigns they refer to, eg "The exact date on which René Guajardo vacated the championship during his Nth reign is unknown"
    • Fixed
• Cheers, ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the great feedback, I have looked at the article so many times I had gone blind to some of the details, looking at your feedback everything makes sense to me.  MPJ-US  08:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - all looks OK now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your support and more importantly your input to improve the article.  MPJ-US  18:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from West Virginian

• MPJ-DK, while the prose of your lede meets Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and your list meets Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, I do have one suggestion. Do you have inline citations for the sentence "The NWA has not determined a champion since." and inline citations for the sentences in the fifth paragraph of your list's lede? The content of the fifth paragraph is sourced in the list below, but it should also be sourced in the prose. Thank you for your efforts to improve this list and for your continued contributions to Wikipedia! -- West Virginian (talk) 03:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your feedback. I am not sure how to source that something did NOT happen since there is no official NWA Mexico site. I can look for a recent article stating that there is no Middleweight champion but that may be hard to find specifically, but there are a few options i can look through. I have some year end Lucha magazines, maybe a 2014 recap magazine that usually list champions? Not being on that list could source that? And yes some of the statements in the 5th paragraph can be explicitly sourced, although longest, shortest and most reigns is a synthesis of ALL table listed sources and would be quite a long string of citations, but i could put a note in to refer to the table sources and explain it. I will work on that today. I will let yoh know when I am done.  MPJ-US  12:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support MPJ-DK, that is certainly not a deal breaker, especially since I too was unable to find a source that clearly stated that NWA had not determined a champion since 2010. Because the championship has not occurred since August 12, 2010, it could be assumed without even needing to state it that a champion has not been selected since. You could probably just omit the sentence entirely with that in mind. No need to source the fifth paragraph as those statements are gleaned from the prose below, which uses sufficient inline citations to verifiable references. I hereby support this list. Great job! -- West Virginian (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I took your suggestion on the sentence and just took it out. The list shows it and we are good. Thank you for your support.  MPJ-US  15:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• Not sure how it reads to a layman, but to me "He chose himself as the first champion, and won it in a Wrestle and Romance (WAR) match with Corazón de León" sounds like it's describing the type of match, not the promotion it was contested for. Perhaps the whole sentance could read: "He chose himself as the first champion, and won it in a match with Corazón de León for Wrestle and Romance (WAR) on November 8, 1994, in Korakuen Hall, after which he began promoting the title exclusively in Japan, holding it himself until vacating it in 1998."
• "Dragón signed with World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) and returned the championship to CMLL." - Was this freely given (as the wording implies) or did they buy it back given that he bought it originally?
• Given that it's a red link it might be worth a quick aside to explain if NWA Mexico is a sub-division of, or a similar entity to, "the" NWA.
• The timing of Dragon's first reign coincides with his famous J-Crown run; a quick glance at his article mentions that he held these belts separately--I don't think it's worth explaining why, but it might be worth pointing out that this wasn't one of the middle/cruiser/junior heavyweight belts that made the Crown up.
• On a technical level everything's fine and WP:ACCESS seems fully met, and with this being inactive it's nice to have a discrete list that can pretty much be called "finished". I'm already leaning to support as is but ping me if you implement or even just respond to the above suggestions. GRAPPLE X 12:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Grapple X: I have addressed issues 1, 3 and 4. For issue 2 I do not have any proof if CMLL paid for it or he just gave it back since he worked with CMLL whenever he was in Mexico and co-promoted shows with them. Thank you for your input and support. MPJ-US  20:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Works for me. Happy to support. GRAPPLE X 16:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:41, 25 August 2015 (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 PresN 04:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC) [13].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Azealia911 _talk 12:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article details the discography of American rapper Lil Debbie, from her early 2012 mixtapes to her recent 2015 EPs. It features a strong, well-covering lead along with a well-referenced comprehensive list of releases. Azealia911 _talk 12:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick drive-by comment - "Following an appearance in the music video for group member Kreayshawn's "Gucci Gucci" in 2011" - what group? No group has been mentioned............ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So it hadn't, added a note about it now. Azealia911 _talk

• Back for a proper review.....
  • "In 2011" mentioned in two consecutive sentences, not sure both are needed

Removed one. Azealia911 _talk

• • V-Nasty wikilinked in two consecutive sentences

Removed one. Azealia911 _talk

• • "These videos later saw commercial release as singles" - the videos themselves can't have been released as singles. The songs were released as singles

Corrected. Azealia911 _talk

• • "Due to the relatively minuscule track listing, Queen D was not eligible to chart on any album charts in the United States" - is it really necessary to state this? Why would people expect EPs to be eligible for the albums chart? Certainly in the UK, where I am based, an EP would always chart on the singles chart.

I'd say it was appropriate. I too live in the UK, but rules are seemingly different for US charting. EG, her first EP, Queen D featured five tracks and charted on singles charts. However, her second EP, California Sweetheart, Pt. 1, released less than six months later, featured eight tracks and charted on an album chart. Both are technically EPs so are listed as such, but one charted on singles charts while the other logged in on an album chart. The note clears up any possible confusion. Azealia911 _talk

That makes sense, but "Due to the relatively minuscule track listing" seems a little verbose, I'd be inclined to say simply "Due to its short length". After all, I presume the criterion is based on total run time rather than number of tracks. Napalm Death could release a CD with 20 tracks but it would still probably be eligible for the singles chart ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lol you're right about Napalm Death, changed the sentence. :) Azealia911 _talk

• • "commercial success of it's predecessor" - there should not be an apostrophe in "its"

Corrected. Azealia911 _talk

• • "The EP featured guest appearances from Wiz Khalifa, Paul Wall and Bricc Baby Shitro." - not sourced

Sourced. Azealia911 _talk

• • Promotional singles table - sources do not confirm that these were promotional singles? For that matter, what is the definition of a promotional single as opposed to a regular single?

Regular singles are always released commercially. However, the lines on what promotional singles are is quite blurred, especially on this site. Usually, anything that garnered notable release but wasn't an official single gets thrown in that box. From my perspective, after seeing examples in other discographies and reading over the article for promotional single, anything that was released for free, but was still largely reported on, used to promote a project, received artwork ETC, is a promotional single. I'll use that for the two specific listings.

The "What It Look Like" remix received an artwork, notable coverage from Complex, and was released for free. Having another rapper on the song reaches out to their fanbase and promotes the work of Lil Debbie. "420" was released on July 30, a day before the Home Grown EP dropped, and was the only track to feature a barely-relevant rapper she's ever worked with, hyping up the release for the EP. However, that is my interpretation and you may well class that as WP:OR, but I think you'll struggle to get the same answer out of two people on what a promotional single is. Azealia911 _talk

• • List of non-single guest appearances - two of them apparently did not appear on any album. If they weren't on albums, and weren't singles, what were they??

They're just that, guest appearances. Songs in which she wasn't the lead artist of, that didn't garner a single release. You'll find non-album guest appearances a common occurrence in modern FL discographies. Azealia911 _talk

How were they released, though, if not either as singles or on albums? That's what I'm struggling to grasp...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the two tracks were released to online streaming, the song "Not the Same" was uploaded to AudioMack, a site where users can stream/download urban music, while the song "Pump" was uploaded to Red Bulls site. Azealia911 _talk

Thanks for the clarification. I fear I'm a bit out of touch with all the ways the kids get their music these days ;-) Out of interest, if tracks had been uploaded to those sites which were not guest appearances but were by Debbie alone, where in the discography would those have appeared.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lol it's fine, I appreciate the thorough review. Umm, if Debbie was the lead artist, I probably wouldn't have included it, maybe if she had enough stand alone releases as a lead artist, I'd create an "Other releases" section like I did at Azealia Banks discography. Azealia911 _talk 09:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's all I've spotted thus far..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Azealia911 _talk 12:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - all seems OK now, thanks for bearing with me ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:58, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem whatsoever, thankyou for the support :) Azealia911 _talk 12:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Littlecarmen (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Littlecarmen "all of which received music videos" -> "all of which were accompanied by music videos" Done Azealia911 talk It did however, chart Remove the comma. Done Azealia911 talk "The EP featured no guest appearances as opposed to her earlier releases" Neither did Queen D, just leave this part out. Done Azealia911 talk "In October 2014, a compilation of the two California Sweetheart EPs was released, with a re-edited cover, exclusively on CD format." The cover art and format aren't that important, you don't need to mention that. Remove the year. Done Azealia911 talk "In November of that year, Debbie's second mixtape, Young B!tch, was released." You can remove "of that year". Maybe say "a month later" Done Azealia911 talk "as a part of the Colt 45 mixtape Colt 15." -> ", which appeared on the Colt 45 mixtape Colt 15." Done Azealia911 talk For "Lofty" you only mention a year, for Home Grown you give an exact date. Mention the months "Lofty" and Home Grown were released. Done Azealia911 talk Maybe move the references behind the place it was released. It looks cleaner that way. Done Azealia911 talk References: Only italicize magazines and newspapers. Done, side note, can you link me to the relevant guideline/policy on italicization in references? It seems to be a reoccurring issue at my FLCs that I should see to before nominating in future. Azealia911 talk WP:CITEHOW mentions what should be in italics. Littlecarmen (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Commercial sources should be avoided on Wikipedia. Can you find other references for the info sourced by Amazon, iTunes Store etc.? Littlecarmen (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Unfortunately not. Believe me when I say that I searched high and low for non-commercial references. I completely cleared out Complex and HotNewHipHop, as well as trundling through every urban hip-hop site imaginable. The two hardest things to reference were the "Me and You" single, where I actually resorted to an archived iTunes link from Italy, as the US and UK versions have deleted it from their database, as it was seemingly pulled as a single after a bad response, and the California Sweetheart compilation, which was seemingly a limited release, and not reported on at all. Any commercial references are the last resort. Thankyou for your comments! Azealia911 talk 20:10, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] All right, I don't think commercial sources are forbidden, it's just best to use others if possible but I completely understand that it can be difficult and sometimes impossible to find other sources. Littlecarmen (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support! Littlecarmen (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! Azealia911 _talk 21:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Eurofan88 (talk)

• You should change the number of singles from 14 to 12 as 2 of them are promotional singles.

No, they're still singles, promotional or not. Azealia911 _talk

• Why Riff Raff's name is capitalized? It's a stylization and should be omitted anyway.

Changed. Azealia911 _talk

• Use Director(s) in the Music video section as Joe Dietsch and Louie Gibson directed two vidoes together. --Eurofan88 (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changed. Azealia911 _talk

Thankyou for your comments. Azealia911 _talk 22:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, in overall it's a good list, but sad that none of her releases have their own articles on Wikipedia. --Eurofan88 (talk) 22:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the support, yep I agree, it's hard due to her being such a low charting artist, although I am working on a couple. Azealia911 _talk 22:19, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Frankie talk

* "It did however chart at" → "However, it charted at". Done Azealia911 talk Why am I seeing so many months in the third paragraph. Normally we mention years of works, and here I see too many months. Reduced, reshuffled. Azealia911 talk Why is Amazon is piped to Amazon.com in ref 3? ".com" is the part of its title. Done Azealia911 talk Is there a substitute available for BallerStatus? Substitute meaning a different source? Azealia911 talk Yeah! -- Frankie talk 12:35, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Replaced :) Azealia911 talk I see instances of WP:SHOUTING in references. Can you point out where? The only instances of shouting are RiFF RAFF's name styling and "Suckas ASKiN QUESTiONS (feat. LiL DEBBiE)" which is how it's stylized in the source. Azealia911 talk "Rap Dose" is not the part of the titles of ref 46 and 47. Removed Azealia911 talk I don't know if it's only me, but I think she looks pretty much like Lady Gaga in this image. -- Frankie talk 09:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Hmm, I don't see it! Azealia911 talk 11:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — Frankie _talk 14:04, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! Azealia911 _talk 14:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WillC

Disclaimer: I'm unfamiliar with the style of discographies so I'm going to try my best here.

• Not much to really look at now. My only issue is as far as I am aware, tables are exceptions to overlinking. If I'm not mistaken that is my only issue with formatting stuff in the tables is linked only once.
• I'll take the references in good faith. I'm sure some of them have already been covered above and from what I can tell they seem to check out. Overall, I'm not really finding much of an issue here.--WillC 02:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlinglover Do you have any requests for change on the article? Sorry to ask, but you comments seem like observations as opposed to suggestions. Azealia911 _talk 17:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is the linking of all terms in the table even if they are featured several times. Wish I had more, but I don't really see any issues since I'm not familiar with the style too much.--WillC 20:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlinglover While I see what you mean about overlinking regulations not applying to tables, I think I'll leave it if it's all the same to you. Once in the lead and once in the first occurrence in a table seems to be enough. Thankyou for your comments. Azealia911 _talk 16:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter to me really. Just a preference of mine, you don't have to share it. No one else seems to have an issue with it so I'm fine.--WillC 00:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support from WillC. Azealia911--WillC 00:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou! Azealia911 _talk 08:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Azealia911, following my review of this list, I assess that it meets the criteria for both Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and it looks like the concerns raised above have been addressed and incorporated into the list. While Lil Debbie lacks a robust musical catalog, this list is the most comprehensive compendium of her work out there, and is in line with other music artist discographies. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou very much! Azealia911 _talk 17:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

Looked through this list before going to promote it, and I have some issues with the lead that I'd like to see fixed first:

• I'd like at least one sentence actually saying who Lil Debbie is before launching into her album count. Just the first sentence of her article, "Jordan Capozzi (born February 2, 1990), better known by her stage name Lil Debbie is an American-Italian rapper, model and fashion designer.[1]" is fine.
• In the second paragraph, you say that the other two members of the group were Kreayshawn and V-Nasty, but the very next sentence you reiterate that Kreayshawn was a member of the group and don't mention that V-Nasty was when you mention her. I think you should change "group member Kreayshawn's" to just "Kreayshawn's".
• "In August [...] California Sweetheart, Pt. 2[, ...] later, a compilation[, ...] the following month Young B!tch..." - so the compilation was released a nebulous "later", but Young B!tch was released one month after later? either the compilation or Young B!tch need a more specific date, because one month after later doesn't make much sense. I'd replace "later" with an actual month, because right now it's the only release to be so vague. --PresN 01:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: Thankyou for your comments, done. Azealia911 _talk 09:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing as passed --PresN 04:07, 18 August 2015 (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 08:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC) [14].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC), Hawkeye7 (talk), and Gecko G (talk)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...it is a well organized list and is suitably written. It passed an A-class list review earlier this month. Just a list of all the (notable) campaigns that the Army served in during World War II. All comments are welcome. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support.

• I supported this article at A Class and re-reading it I think it is FL standard. A couple of minor points.
• The lines - Gustav Line etc - are italicized even though they are not in the lines' own articles. Done
• "American troops hit the beaches, near Algiers, behind a large American flag, hoping for Vichy French troops not to fire." As you mention that they were hoping for the French not to fire, you should say whether they did. Done
• Dudley Miles (talk) 17:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tables review - Needs MOS:DTT formatting to each table. Specifically, based on how you set these up, I think the column headers need the scope="col" , as in . — Maile (talk) 13:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Maile66: Done.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images review - Good use of appropriately licensed images; all images captioned. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citation error check - No issues found. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Thank you for taking care of the tables issue so quickly. A-class review seems to have vetted much on this article. Well done. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Tomandjerry211 (alt), Tomandjerry211, Hawkeye7, and Gecko G, I assess that this list meets the criteria laid out in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. A review of the images, their licenses and captions, the references, and the formatting did not turn up any errors or questions. I hereby support this list and congratulate you all on a job well done. -- West Virginian (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2015 (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 08:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC) [15].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): AssociateAffiliate, ChrisTheDude

AssociateAffiliate started this article and created the table, I have added an extensive lead and generally tweaked it a bit, and now feel it meets the FL requirements. I have an open FLC for List of Derbyshire County Cricket Club grounds, but that has two supports and no unresolved comments. All changes in response to user comments on that FLC as well as the recently promoted List of Warwickshire County Cricket Club grounds have been incorporated into this article too --

Support and will look in at Derbyshire's list when I have time. (Sad to see that the last Essex match at Valentines, a lovely ground, was twelve years ago.) I can't think of anything in which this candidate fails to meet the FL criteria. Next, a statistical and meteorological analysis to show why Lancashire should get out of Old Trafford and back to Aigburth would be welcome. Tim riley talk 21:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Like Tim I'm struggling to see any reason why this list does not meet the criteria. Great work. NapHit (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support AssociateAffiliate and ChrisTheDude, in concurrence with NapHit and Tim riley, I find that this list definitely meets the criteria outlined at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section and Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. The list is in keeping with other featured lists of county cricket club grounds in England. The image of the Leyton county ground is licensed CC BY-SA 3.0 and the image of the Chelmsford county ground is licensed CC BY 2.0; so both are acceptable for use here. I would recommend modifying the widths of both images so that they are of equal height, which would be more aesthetically pleasing. -- West Virginian (talk) 03:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted (hopefully) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude, this definitely looks much better and all seems to be in order. Congratulations again on a job well done! I echo my support for this list's promotion to FL. -- West Virginian (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've already got two more of these lists ready to bring to FLC, but I'm going to hold off for a couple weeks as I'll be off on holiday shortly so wouldn't be available to respond to any issues raised..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:41, 17 August 2015 (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 PresN 02:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC) [16].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): —Prashant 02:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel the list meets FL criteria. This article provides a listing of the awards and nominations received by the 2008 Indian drama film Fashion starring Priyanka Chopra. I hope to receive constructive comments for the same.—Prashant 02:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am listing the issues i have encountered after a thorough read and am expecting the nominator to rectify the following issues or give a valid explanation within a reasonable period of time.

• The film features Priyanka Chopra as Meghna Mathur, an aspiring fashion model and her transformation from small-town girl to supermodel in the Indian fashion industry — consider rephrasing it as The film focuses on the transformation of Meghna Mathur, an aspiring fashion model played by Priyanka Chopra from a small-town girl to supermodel in the Indian fashion industry. And, i don't think so it stops there. Rise, fall and rise. Isn't it?

Tweaked it a bit.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Music director has been credited. What about the rest of the relevant technical team like the director of photography, editor and lyricist(s)?
• ...to positive reception — from whom? if critics, please change it to critical acclaim.
• ...collected ₹600 million (US$9.4 million) — Is that gross figure? If yes, please changed it to "grossed" as Nett and Share are collected in general.

Done.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• was noted for being commercially successful despite being a women-centric film with no male lead — I think, no male-lead is not that necessary. The statement can be rewritten as was noted as one of the commercially successful women-centric films in India IMHO.

Well, a similar line is use in Chopra's page and her filmography. Also, it was the first box-office hit featuring a female lead in a long time. So there should not be any problem.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please add the ALT text for the image of Chopra in the lead section.
• Nineteen references in total and eight of them have issues (one of them is dead). I request the nominator to archive all the references to prevent link rotting.

Added ALT and replaced those dead links, I have archived all the sources and will add when I have time.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Is iDiva a reliable source?

Yes, it's a part of The Times of India.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Owners of the website, does not establish that an individual is notable or reliable. Please state how this site meets GNG, do other RS sites cite it? Cowlibob (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why the ones "Golden Trident Awards", "Cine Blitz Awards" and "Lions Gold Awards" are given priority over National Film Awards, Filmfare Awards, Screen Awards etc.? Those three don't even have articles here and since the chronological order is not followed, i suggest the nominator to place the ones with articles existing on the top and the other ones down, though the list is sortable.

I hereby request the nominator to ping me after all the issues have been addressed. Yours sincerely, Pavanjandhyala (talk) 11:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavanjandhyala: Done. Thanks for the comments.—Prashant 10:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where done? The last adjustment hasn't been made yet. And, i hope you shall archive all the references soon. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the awards were placed alphabetically and Yes i will add them ASAP.—Prashant 16:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Pavanjandhyala (talk) 16:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The film focuses on the transformation of Meghna Mathur played by Chopra, an aspiring fashion model from a small-town girl to supermodel in the Indian fashion industry." — Can be rephrased as "The film focuses on the transformation of Meghna Mathur, an aspiring fashion model played by Chopra, from a small-town girl to supermodel in the Indian fashion industry."

That's about it from me. Really good work on the article, Prashant. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 10:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssven2: Done. Thanks.—Prashant 11:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 11:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: No major issues found from my perspective.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the article, and it is all fine; it has my Support. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

*Cannot state critical acclaim by using two reviews especially as one is by Taran Adarsh. It is a NPOV issue. Ref 1 is a simple cast list. It does not specify who is the lead roles or supporting or that real models are playing themselves. A film review of it probably contains this info so find one with the info and add it. Editor is stated as "Devendra Murdeshwar" in the ref. His name is Deven Murdeshwar and, published wrongly in Bollywood Hungama celebrity directory.—Prashant 04:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Where is the ref for the budget? What makes Golden Trident Awards, Cine Blitz notable? Provide some refs of secondary sources discussing these awards in depth rather than mentioning who won what which is routine coverage. Why no one questioned anything here?—Prashant 04:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] WP:OSE is not a good argument with. FL status doesn't mean they are perfect and can't be improved. In any case, the unlinked awards in that article can be supported with [[17]], [[18]], [[19]], [[20]], [[21]]. For the awards without links they should at least able to be redlinked. So that it's not just an indiscriminate list of awards.Cowlibob (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done.—Prashant 02:57, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Not quite I could easily redlink the Cowlibob International Film Awards but that doesn't mean they should be redlinked as they need to be notable and verifiable or soon to be created per WP:REDLINK. I personally can't find any reference about the Golden Trident Awards apart from the one line saying Chopra won the Best Actress award or any on the Cine Blitz Award. Cowlibob (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Removed. However, in 2009 both awards were covered by a large section of the media, but i found no sources for them now.—Prashant 02:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] As above, what makes iDiva an RS? Having a reliable owner does add to its RS status. Plenty of RS have websites that we wouldn't cite for anything. Provide some evidence why it's an RS. To replace iDiva you could probably use these [[22]] [[23]][[24]] for the Fashion being women-centric and [[25]] for it being noted as being commercially successful + women-centric. Surely we can source the IIFA awards with a better reference than DesiHits? Cowlibob (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done.—Prashant 04:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] I see Stardust is also ref'd by Desihits, any replacement? The list also has an error where there is an accessdate for ref with no url. Please check refs to find which one it is. Cowlibob (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done.—Prashant 09:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prashant!, I have a few comments and suggestions for you regarding this list. Great job overall! -- West Virginian (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The first sentence of the lede should probably have an inline citation for the film's direction by Bhandarkar and its production by UTV Motion Pictures. Strangely enough, the article for Fashion fails to specifically mention that the film was produced by UTV Motion Pictures in its prose, and only lists that it was distributed by the company in its info box. All content in the lede should be backed up by inline citations to verifiable references, even well known or obvious statements like these.
• "Produced on a budget..." may sound more formal than "Made on a budget..." This is merely a suggestion.
• The lede should probably also mention that this is specifically a Bollywood film.
• The image of Chopra is licensed CC BY 3.0 and is therefore acceptable for use in this list.

Done. But, i think it is better to call it an Indian film. It's not a problem. And, thanks for your inputs.—Prashant 07:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Prashant!, the film could be referred to as both in the lede (perhaps in different places), stating that it is an Indian film of Bollywood production, to distinguish it from Tamil cinema and Telugu cinema for example. This, however, is merely a suggestion and it is not a deal breaker. Following my re-review of your list, I find that it definitely meets all aspects laid out in Wikipedia:Featured list criteria and I hereby share my support for its promotion to FL. Congratulations on a job well done! -- West Virginian (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this nomination as Passed. --PresN 01:59, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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