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The list was withdrawn by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With my earlier nomination receiving substantial support and no outstanding issues, here's a filmography of another Filipino actress. Bea Alonzo's career started two decades ago at 15 years old. She has achieved considerable success in film and television, particularly for a string releases with perennial collaborator John Lloyd Cruz, starring in almost a dozen films and television series combined.

Created in April, this list article has been expanded to include an interesting and readable introduction of the subject's work. I’ve tried my best to thoroughly search for RS (publications, newspapers, etc.) that are available online, since sourcing can be a challenge, especially for Filipino subject(s). Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The parent article has only 2155 characters (355 words), 17K in size. This list has 2533 characters (434 words). Any reason why this couldn't be folded back to the parent article and the career section expanded from the text in this list per WP:SPLIT? Cowlibob (talk) 18:01, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Cowlibob, I've considered that as well prior to creating a separate list, but have done a similar approach previously with the Angel Locsin filmography, where I've created a list in March and took to FL, before expanding the main article in May which had almost similar content to that of Alonzo's parent article before being reworked. My approach on these projects I'm working on is usually list, then parent article (which I understand can be quite unorthodox given the guidelines you mentioned). Pseud 14 (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough as long as the parent article is expanded per the other articles. FLCs normally take time to be approved so I would suggest that the expansion of the parent article also be started. Cowlibob (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mentioned it, I feel more inclined to re-nom this at a later time, once I've completed the expansion, as I did not want to rush the rework, usually takes me 4 to 6 weeks in draft, before I update the actual entry. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FLC director and delegates: In light of above discussion, I'd like to withdraw this nomination. If you would be so kind to archive please. Given that it has not attracted additional comments yet, I hope to re-nom at a later time once I've completed an expansion of the parent article, which is usually a 4 to 6 week undertaking for me. I may have another list that I feel ready to nominate instead. Thanks for your time and apologies for the invconvenience. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:45, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:06, 26 May 2022 (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 archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next up in a series of lists about general officers commanding British divisions, is those for the 4th Division. It was raised for the first time in 1809 for service in the Napoleonic Wars, and then again for service in the Crimean and the Second Boer Wars. In the early 1900s, new 4th Divisions were formed, renumbered, and formed again. It served in the First World War and the Second World Wars, and was raised, disbanded, and renamed a whole bunch of times through to its final disbanding. Three of the individuals listed were killed in action, five were wounded, and one was captured.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "The 4th Division was an infantry division of the British Army and was first formed in 1809 and disbanded for the final time in 2012" - "The 4th Division was an infantry division of the British Army which was first formed in 1809 and disbanded for the final time in 2012" reads better, I think

  Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikilink Napoleonic Wars

  Already linked in the infobox, table, and in the lede: "As the British military grew in size during...". Am I missing somewhere a link should go?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No column does not sort correctly - if you sort on another column and then sort on No, all the Acting/Temporary/Vacant rows go to the bottom

  Do you have any advice on how to get the table to sort correctly?

• You've got a "vacant" row after Colville, but not after Alexander Campbell, even though the note suggests that the post was vacant for three months

  Good point. Vacant line removed, and expanded upon Colville note to explainEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "On 11 April 1815, the division was reformed in Southern Netherlands" => "On 11 April 1815, the division was reformed in the Southern Netherlands"

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, no vacant row after the many Inkerman commanders, even though there seems to have been no commander for seven months. Either have vacant rows whenever there was a vacancy or just dispense with them and let the notes deal with it

  I have tweaked the note as Campbell held command (as a temporary appointment) through to the next year.

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address your concerns, and have left comments and questions above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• I see Chris has looked at column one ... I didn't really follow what's going on there, but I'll defer on that.
• In the "Notes" column, you're sorting "The division" under "T" and "A new" under "A". I don't have a problem with this ... I get that it's really not all that important to sort this column correctly. For this reason, the way that columns like these are usually handled at FLC is just to not sort them at all, but maybe this is a picky objection, so it's your call, you can leave it as is if you like.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I'll piggyback on Chris's prose review. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the one image seems fine ... I see there's some disagreement over the license, but I'm not the guy to ask about that.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the review and comments. I have made one change to the article, by removing the ability to sort by the notes column, after you highlighted that above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see my review on the 3rd Division list and ensure that the general issues mentioned there are implemented here.
• Could link killed in action.
• When sorting by "No." it goes all out of numerical order. That needs to be fixed. Ah I see why. You're using No. to mean "exclusive" so people re-taking command are given the same number. That's confusing indeed.
• Major General or Major-General?
• Linked items should be linked every time in a sortable table because after a re-sort there's no way of knowing which instance comes first.
• Consistency with full stops in the Description column please. Full sentences should use one, fragments should not.
• Are there periods where no GOC was in place, e.g. you have James Dick-Cunyngham dying in office yet not being replaced after his death for three weeks.
• Allard, a Canadian! So are there any other non-British GOCs here? They seem significant and should be highlighted.

That's enough for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Giants2008 and PresN: @EnigmaMcmxc: hasn't edited for a month, looks like this one might need to be archived. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 01:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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