Knowledge (XXG)

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 20:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Next from the Laureus family, small and neat, the Sport for Good award. As always, your comments, suggestions and support are all welcomed, and I will do whatever it takes to address them in a timely fashion. Cheers all! The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Great job bringing the series to featured quality. Can't wait for the rest! Cheers. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Another good job TRM. Just four more to go after this one to complete the series. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Another fine piece of work you've done here. And the same festive wishes back to you!. MWright96 (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

• Source review – All of the sources are reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker shows no problems. Spot-checks of refs 10 and 20 also come up clean. I'm comfortable calling this source review a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:15, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

PresN, anything more or can this one be shipped out? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:29, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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) 22:04, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2017 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Another aviation list (my current thing) but quite a small one this one. Yes, I know I have other FLCs running, they all have at least three supports and a couple are waiting for closure, so it's all okay! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment from BeatlesLedTV

• After a read through, I think you got a pretty solid list here. It reads well and the table is great. The only thing I noticed was center the "no event" text from 2011–2013. Other than that I got nothing.

Support – I'll offer my support now. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That's done, thanks for your interest and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Support with minor comments –

• The archive date format in the second reference is YYYY-MM-DD when the others are written as DD-MM-YYYY
• Reference eleven has an ndash error; it is misspelled as "&nadsh"

Otherwise this is one of your better lists that you written. Could not any issues with the prose. Good work! MWright96 (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

MWright96 sorry for the delay in getting back to you, and thanks for those notes, I've fixed both issues. Cheers for you kind comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi TRM, mostly just suggestions this time...

Prose

• "...in which competitors have to navigate a challenging obstacle course in the fastest time." - doesn't really make sense. (I know you 'inherited' this prose). Something more like 'in which entrants compete to navigate a challenging....'?

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• "...and have to complete tight turns through..." - argh "have to" again - manoeuvre to?

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• "...consisting of pylons, known as "Air Gates". - insert 'inflatable' before pylons

  Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• "...but are also held at airfields or natural wonders." - any examples of "natural wonders"? Any of these places Seven Wonders of the World#Seven Natural Wonders of the World? or maybe referring to famous landmarks?

  Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• "...accompanied by a supporting program of show flights." - are show flights aerobatic displays, stunts?

  Removed, as not actually sourced. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• "...and are broadcast, both live and taped, in many nations.and are broadcast, both live and taped, in many nations." - RB website talks of 'live and highlights', no mention 'taped' (replayed?) and also says can view via the website and rb.tv, apps etc.

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• "The inaugural series in 2003, which consisted of two races, one in Austria and one in Hungary, was won by the Hungarian pilot Péter Besenyei, with the German Klaus Schrodt coming second in Hungary, followed by the American Kirby Chambliss." - doesn't mention that Besenyei won both races or is it meant to say Schrodt second (without the in Hungary bit)?

  The latter, it was surprisingly difficult to source individual race results from the early series. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• "...divide the field into classes, namely the "Master Class" and the "Challenger Class" in which young pilots competed." - needs Oxford comma after Master Class?

  Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• "...having died in a helicopter accident before the end of the championship. - maybe add 'unrelated' before helicopter and/or 'year' after championship?

  Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Table

• Because the two classes are mentioned, should table header say Master Class Winners..., or thinking of adding Challenger table later?

  Well, the Challengers don't win the "World Championship" which is in the title so I thought it was clear enough.....? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• 2004 - third place was shared by Jones and Schrodt. Ref 5 rb history says "joint third" and both Jones and Schrodt's articles says they came 3rd.

  Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• 2016 - there is no key to explain Arch dagger but can be added later when/if more symbols are added and their meaning is not obvious in prose?

Refs

• Added key. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 12 Robin Leach - authorlink

• Ref 13 Guardian - pubn date should be 5 Nov

Other

• Seeing there is no infobox should Red Bull official url be added as an ext link?

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

• Template - add Muroya

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

That's it I reckon. JennyOz (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

JennyOz, thanks as always for your review, much appreciated. Bonus - we found the iPod too. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 16:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, looking good, just a few more minor niggles...

• "...in which competitors compete to navigate..." - did you mean to change competitors to entrants or happy with rep?

  Not happy, didn't review properly, adjusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• "...and are required complete tight turns..." - to

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• "..."Challenger Class" in which young pilots competed." - compete

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• 2004 - is it possible to tweak the third place cell to enable names and nationalities to sort? (Actually, Germany sorts correctly but that's just serendipitous.)

  I've rowspanned the table, is that the sort of thing you were looking for? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

That's it! JennyOz (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

JennyOz, thanks again, I think I've got everything? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep, everything. Champion job. Very happy to sign support. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support - can't see any issues now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

PresN, Giants2008, this is good for a source review and hopefully promotion now, any chance of a look? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Source review – Just a couple of formatting tweaks needed.

• All of the references appear sufficiently reliable.

  Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 11 needs a publisher (Red Bull Air Race?)

  Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• The publisher of ref 17 should probably be spelled out, as I'm not sure how many people are going to know what FAI stands for off the top of their heads (I didn't).

  Well it's linked for that purpose and is most commonly known as FAI, just like UEFA is most commonly known as UEFA and not "Union of European Football Associations", NASA instead of "North American Space Administration" etc. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• I must briefly comment about the author of ref 12. I was set to complain about linking the author Robin Leach to the Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous Robin Leach, only to find out that they actually were one and the same. Who knew?

  Indeed. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Spot-checks of refs 6, 12, and 13 show no issues.

  Cool. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• The link-checker tool also shows no problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

  Uber-cool. Thanks.

Giants2008, responses above, cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd say this source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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) 21:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2017 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR ] 08:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because as a I feel that if this list gets featured it will be a giant step towards ccountering systemic bias on Knowledge (XXG)-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR ] 08:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support – I got nothing else. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde

• I'm new to FLC, but I'm fairly well versed with Indian politics, and I think this list does a very decent job of conveying the relevant information. Somebody less familiar with the topic should check the prose bits to make sure they make sense to folks who don't know the topic.
• I said this when I took a look at this before the FLC: the Janata Party and the BJP should not share a color (certainly not the BJP's official color). They were distinct parties, with distinct ideologies. Prominent members of the latter just happened to be members of the former during its brief period of ascendancy. Either just say "other parties" or, preferably, split them into two colors.
• Bit uncertain about the grammar of "Although the president is vested such powers by the Constitution of India", but that's a vague discomfort only, something for a more knowledgable person to check.

Vanamonde93-I have addressed your concerns,Please take a look-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR ] 11:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. You've got a tiny sliver of white space because of the percentages in the pie chart not adding to 100. I'm willing to support now, though. Vanamonde (talk) 12:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed silver by adjusting the percentages-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR ] 11:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• Link De facto.
• Mention alt text in Images.
• You can replace 'The President' with simply 'they' at few instances, to avoid repetitiveness.
• Remove 'current' from the last sentence and replace it with 'as of', per WP:RELTIME.
• Hindustan times --> Hindustan Times.
• How "mapsofindia.com" is a RS?
• m.indiatoday.in --> India Today
• I feel "presidentofindia.nic.in" should have a better name.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher:Could you please clarify your statements ( statements 3 and 8) -To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR ] 08:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I was talking about the prose in the lead where many sentences starts with 'The President' which can be replaced by 'they' in some instances. The fourth one has been fixed. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher:-Done lease take a look(the content in ref 9 has been verified from other sources but since it is the most comprehensive it is used)-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR ] 08:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 08:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Oppose too much needs to be addressed for this to be supported at this time.

• What does "first citizen" mean?Clarified
• "The post of President is known in Hindi..." this sentence is unreferenced.Removed
• "... introduction of the post in 1950. The post was established ..." repetitive, could merge.Done
• "death of Zakir Husain, who died in office" somewhat tautological, perhaps "in 1969 after Zakir Husain died in office"?Done
• Inconsistent capitalisation of "president" throughout the lead.Done, as far as possible manually
• " as an independent candidate" this is oddly introduced before you talk (in the next para) about the political affiliations, suggest it's noted in one place.Done
• "They may remain... " reads odd here, I would make a new para, or move this to the first para which basically introduces the whole concept of President.Done
• "constitution of India" our article capitalises the C of constitution.Done
• Avoid single-sentence paragraphs.Done
• "the only person to be elected as an independent candidate." yet 47% of candidates were independent... did they only become independent after being elected?Removed
• Two decimal places seems excessively accurate here.Adjusted
• You can't use just colours to denote something, it's a failure of MOS:COLOR.Done
• Birth–Death doesn't need that capitalisation.Done
• The rowscopes should really be on the names of the presidents, not the number.Done
• Where is the data used to create File:Presidents by state of birth.png verifiable?Ref added
• Where you don't have an image of the individual, place a {{center|–}}.Done
• Candidate of - would this be better as "Affiliation"? Either way, lose the space.Done
• "holding office for 12 years as the only president to serve two terms in office. " refs in numerical order, but more importantly, I though each term was limited to five years?Removed unsourced statement, Done
• "vice chancellor" is usually hyphenated.Done
• " received Bharat Ratna award" missing "the" ... and link the award.Done
• "He was the first President from South India." no ref.Done
• As the table is sortable, everything you've linked should be linked on every occasion.Done manually
• You could denote those who have died in office with a {{dagger}}.Done + some more of footnotes
• You could add another column for the duration of their tenure, especially as you note the "shortest" duration in the notes.

Not done. Out of 17, 12 presidents will have 5 years, only 5 others will have varied number of years

• Is it "Acting President" or "acting president"?Done manually
• "He resigned in a few months" after instead of in.
• "president during Emergency" again, missing a "The" here.
• Mysore state should be Mysore State to avoid piping to a redirect.
• "Muhammad Hidayatullah" or "Mohammad Hidayatullah"?All Done
• Punjab, India, not Punjab (India).

Not done .Denotes Punjab state of India (Not of Pakistan)

• "He has also" as he is dead, this should be "He also".
• Our article does not use a capital G for Governor of Rajasthan.
• Same for Bihar.
• Member of parliament links to a generic page, you could be more specific, on that page there exists three links to India-specific articles.
• What's BJP and RSS?
• Timeline could be coloured per political party and "acting" could be a symbol (e.g. *) after the acting president's names instead of the way you currently have it.
• Our article hyphenates "Vice-President".

All done

• Consistent date formats in the references.
• Consistent and long ISBNs please.

Both Not Done, Please clarify what you want, I didn't find any thing wrong with them

• You link Hindustan Times but none of the other works. Be consistent.Done

The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Duly noted, will try to do all by 26th November 2017.( Do not have time to do all just now )-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR ] 14:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man:-The timeline part of the page has gone askew (behaving oddly in the legend portion ) after implementing your recommendation. -To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR ] 07:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)I have corrected the problem after tinkering the Wikisyntax -On a more important note, I have done some edits in accordance to your recommendations and would like you to do a status update (Of your comment or any subsequent new problems )-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR ] 10:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

P.S:From what I know at DYK, you probably have the scripts to carry out your last two recommendations(Which I could not locate despite trawling through your monbook.js). Please do it for me(Despite you being the reviewer who asked it to be done)-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR ] 10:41, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man-I have done most of the edits suggested. Please take a look at the article and the notes above-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR ] 10:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The Rambling Man - Done All recommended edits after a bit of deliberation.Please take a look and reconsider your oppose-To ping me add {{ping|Force Radical}} OR ] 09:13, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Just noting that I may be unavailable to make any major changes to the article for this ensuing week due to heavy meat-space workload, that being said I will certainly keep track of changes to this nomination and be rest assured that I will respond to any improvements/suggestions (informing if I will have enough time to make those changes) within 96 hours. Thanks — comment added by Force Radical (talk • contribs) 04:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Source review – Found a couple issues to look at, but it shouldn't be too much work.

• References 5 and 15 come from print publications, so the publishers should be italicized in each. Other than that point, the references are well-formatted, and they all appear to be reliable.
• The link-checker shows no dead links.
• Spot-checks of refs 10, 29, and 36 showed one issue: ref 10 doesn't support the 25 July date at all. In reality, it looks like the election took place earlier than the 25th, which was when his term started. That sentence should be fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Giants2008- Done-Checked 5 and 15 they are web sources(some software hitch was not going to the url but the archives worked), Also clarified Ram Nath Kovind statement with a citation — comment added by Force Radical (talk • contribs) 07:56, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I cleaned up the formatting of the new reference a bit. With that, and the fixes, I'd say the source review is a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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) 21:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 19:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a list that caps this project, which documents the twenty protected cruisers built for Italy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Many of these ships saw action during the Italo-Turkish War of 1912, and some were active during World War I. I finished writing the list over a year ago, and it passed a MILHIST A-class review at the beginning of the year. I finally have time to take on an FL review, so here we are. Thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Parsecboy (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

• "along with the subsequent Etna class, for which Giovanni Bausan provided the basis—represented the Regia Marina's brief experimentation with the Jeune École doctrine." You may want to define the Jeune École doctrine here; a footnote could be used if you think it would be hard to fit into the paragraph.
  • It's explained in the lead, and the sentences before that touch on it again.
• " She participated in the conquest of Eritrea in 1887–1888 as the flagship of the Italian squadron during the campaign" What squadron was this?
  • Don't know if it had a specific name.
• "where she sank or destroyed seven Ottoman gunboats, destroying Ottoman naval strength in the area." What definition are we using for "naval strength" here? Were those 7 gunboats all the ships in the area? Most of them? Or did it just force the Ottoman ships that remained to pull back or not operate?
  • That was more or less all they had in the Red Sea - the only major Ottoman unit in the area was the cruiser Peyk-i Şevket, but she had been interned in Suez.
• "During World War I, she was assigned to the Second Fleet, based in Brindisi, but she did not see action." Is it known why this is?
  • She was 20 years old by that point, and the fact that both sides adopted the fleet in being strategy didn't help either.
• That is all of my comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:56, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Iazyges. Parsecboy (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
• All my questions have been answered, so Support. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

In §References, all sources are listed using cs1 templates. Except for four of them. Why is that? Shouldn't they all be one style?

On a whim, I clicked the oclc link from the first one:

Annual Report of the Navy Department. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 1902. OCLC 2480810.

That link sends the reader to the associated WorldCat page where one finds a link to a google preview. The citation says 1902; WorldCat doesn't state a year; google preview shows a preview of the Report from 1921. Perhaps a better citation might be:

{{cite book |title=Annual Reports of the Navy Department for the Year 1902 |location=Washington, DC |publisher=Government Printing Office |date=1902 |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015025950539;view=1up;seq=10 |page=4}}

Annual Reports of the Navy Department for the Year 1902. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. 1902. p. 4.

I have not looked at the others that depend on WorldCat oclc identifiers but if this one is suspect, the perhaps others are as well.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The {{cite journal}} template doesn't allow you to omit an article title, without generating an error (see for instance here), so I just produced the correct formatting manually. Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I moved your post out of my post (it was a single post, not a series of separately signed posts).

{{cite journal}} has a specific meaning in cs1. From its documentation page (first sentence): "This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for academic and scientific papers and journals." Annual Reports of the Navy Department is none of those. Rather, it is a report, or in this case, given its length, a book. As an 'annual' it is a 'periodical' because a new issue is/was published yearly but this does not make it a scientific or academic journal.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, though it's general practice to reply to points directly below them (see the section above, for instance). In any event, the Annual Reports are closer to a journal than a book (Worldcat, for example, classifies it as a ""Journal / Magazine / Newspaper"), and I don't know that {{cite book}} is appropriate for them. And certainly not for the Journal of the RUSI or Appleton's. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I have written elsewhere that WorldCat is not a well curated site; it depends on individual librarians across the world to add stuff to it so, in a sense, WorldCat is as well curated as Knowledge (XXG). I would suggest that the journal / magazine / newspaper classification at WorldCat for Annual Reports ... is a result of that low quality curation. The real benefit of WorldCat is the ability it provides readers to locate a physical copy of the source item – but only if we can provide an accurate oclc identifier. Beyond that, the WorldCat metadata are suspect. If we cannot exactly identify the source's ture oclc, and the evidence shows that in these cases we cannot, then we should not be including an oclc to represent the 'journal'; which, for Annual Reports.. is a designation I dispute. I If in a citation at en.wiki we include an oclc that isn't specific, we have not aided the reader's search for the source we used so we should not be providing an oclc or any other identifier that doesn't specifically match the source.

Journal of the Royal United Service Institution is certainly a journal so I would cite it:

{{cite journal |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b2877238;view=1up;seq=688 |title=Notices of Books |journal=Journal of the Royal United Service Institution |volume=XLVII |issue=303 |page=624 |date=May 1903}}

"Notices of Books". Journal of the Royal United Service Institution. XLVII (303): 624. May 1903.

Appletons' Annual Cyclopaedia... is an encyclopedia supplement so:

{{cite encyclopedia |last=Huntington |first=Frank |title=Brazil |url=https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/58253#page/99/mode/1up |encyclopedia=Appletons' Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1896 |volume=XXXVI |location=New York |publisher=D Appleton and Company |date=1897}}

Huntington, Frank (1897). "Brazil". Appletons' Annual Cyclopaedia and Register of Important Events of the Year 1896. Vol. XXXVI. New York: D Appleton and Company.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The Worldcat link isn't for a specific volume, it's for the journal. As far as I'm aware, the expectation at FAC/FLC is that a reference should have one of the standardized identification numbers (whether that's an ISBN, an ISSN, an OCLC, etc). Parsecboy (talk) 12:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Is that documented anywhere? There are a lot of Annual Reports of the Navy Department – emphasis on 'Annual' – see this list. If an oclc identifier is required and so is provided in the citation, it should, in my opinion, be an identifier for the specific source stated in the rest of the citation; in this example case, that oclc number is OCLC 5164555. Providing an oclc that misidentifies the source fails to live up to the 'our best work' rubric.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Is what documented anywhere? The expectation OCLCs/ISBNs/etc. at FLC/FAC? Not that I'm aware of, but I've done 60+ of these, and that's the experience I've had. As for Worldcat, when you look at the entry for the Journal of the RUSI, you don't get OCLCs for individual editions, you just get the journal. Same with Appleton's. The OCLC for the Annual Report is to the generic Worldcat page, not to a specific edition. I have no idea how you got the preview link for the 1902 edition (I can't find it by simply searching for the title, even copying the title from that OCLC number), or why that's a separate OCLC number, but Worldcat is a fairly screwy site. Parsecboy (talk) 12:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, the expectation. It seems to me that if editors haven't seen fit to codify such an explicit requirement then the requirement doesn't exist. ...but Worldcat is a fairly screwy site. My point exactly; and sufficient reason in my view to only include identifiers that aid readers in locating a copy of our sources.

For OCLC 5164555 find the 'Find in a library' link in the left panel at the Annual Reports url. Even though that particular oclc does link to a google books facsimile, WorldCat being what it is, I would not include an oclc in this source's citation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Navy and Army Illustrated is listed in §References but not referred to from §Notes. Also, Cernuschi & O'Hara are listed in §Notes but do not have a matching citation in §References.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:16, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Have replaced the references with the versions you put above, and added Cernuschi & O'Hara - good catch. This is the footnote for Navy and Army Illustrated. Parsecboy (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

{{cite magazine |editor-last=Robinson |editor-first=Charles N. |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924069276362;view=2up;seq=532 |title=The Venezuela Blockade |magazine=Navy and Army Illustrated |date=10 January 1903 |volume=XV |issue=310}}

Robinson, Charles N., ed. (10 January 1903). "The Venezuela Blockade". Navy and Army Illustrated. Vol. XV, no. 310.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Replaced (and I've gone through and copied those refs over to the individual articles as well). Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

{{cite magazine |last=Kunz |first=George Frederick |date=October 1909 |title=The Hudson-Fulton Celebration of 1909 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PqUVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA317 |journal=The Popular Science Monthly |publisher=The Science Press |location=New York |volume=LXXV |issue=4 |pages=313–337}}

Kunz, George Frederick (October 1909). "The Hudson-Fulton Celebration of 1909". The Popular Science Monthly. Vol. LXXV, no. 4. New York: The Science Press. pp. 313–337.

{{cite book |last=May |first=W. A. |title=The Commission of H.M.S. Talbot |chapter=The Battle of Chemulpho |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=iWmKygAACAAJ&pg=PA140 |location=London |publisher=The Westminster Press |date=1904}}

May, W. A. (1904). "The Battle of Chemulpho". The Commission of H.M.S. Talbot. London: The Westminster Press.

{{cite book |last=Reeve |first=A. |title=The Commission of H.M.S. Perseus: East Indies. Including Persian Gulf and Somaliland, 1901–1904 |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433008439873;view=2up;seq=10 |year=1904 |publisher=The Westminster Press |location=London}}

Reeve, A. (1904). The Commission of H.M.S. Perseus: East Indies. Including Persian Gulf and Somaliland, 1901–1904. London: The Westminster Press.

Because specific page numbers belong in §Notes:

Annual Reports... url should change to: |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015025950539;view=2up;seq=6 and |page=4 should be removed

Huntington url should change to: |url=https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/58253#page/96/mode/2up

RUSI url should change to: |url=https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b2877238;view=2up;seq=686 and |page=624 should change to |pages=623–625

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

All fixed, thanks Trappist. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments Support –

• Giovanni Bausan: Should the last mention of the ship's name in this section be italicized?
• Campania class: "The last pair of protected cruisers built by the Italian Navy was intended for colonial service, and were based on experience from Calabria." In describing the pair of cruisers, we have "was" and "were" in this sentence, which mixes tenses. I would use "were" for both, but in any case they should be made consistent. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Good catches on both, thanks Giants. Parsecboy (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Link scrap/scrapped, zinc
  • Both done.
• Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Sturm. Parsecboy (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Supporting now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC) .

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 12:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Who does not know "The King of Cool"? Steve McQueen was probably one of the most badass personalities to have ever walked this Earth. He enjoyed a success like no other actor could have. From making it on the small screen to becoming the highest paid actor in the world, he's seen it all. His body of work encompasses 20-odd films. He was in the industry for 27 years. Constructive comments are most welcome.  — Ssven2 12:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• "McQueen played an uncredited role as Fidel" --> He played an uncredited role of Fidel.
• I'm just concerned with the lead's size. Try trimming it down a bit.

Rest is fine. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: I have hopefully resolved your comments. Do let me know if there is anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 14:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Thank you, Yash. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 14:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• In the lead, "winning McQueen the Best Actor at the Moscow" → removed "the" or change to "the award for Best Actor"
• You gotta fix both sorting issues for films that begin with "The" in both tables
• "Ref(s)" → "Ref." in television table. Only 1 ref per show.
• Center the year columns. I know it's a lot of coding; if you don't want to I can for you.
• Add a space between last two sentences in lead.

That's all i got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@BeatlesLedTV: I have hopefully resolved your comments. Do let me know if there is anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 15:33, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support – All good for me. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@BeatlesLedTV: Thank you, BeatlesLedTV. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 17:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dr. Blofeld

I think the prose could still do with smartening up before this is promoted. It's a bit repetitive in places. Also given that he was supposed to have been the highest paid actor at one point, it's not clear how he would have gone bankrupt for Le Mans unless he was producing it and putting up most of the funding. I'll try to look more into this later.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Now that you mention it, McQueen's production company, Solar productions, was a shareholder in Le Mans. After the film's lacklustre performance, he was, in his biographer Terrill's words, "slapped with a $2 million back tax from IRS". Plus the filming and post-production work was extraneous. He had to fold up his company to get the money to pay the IRS tax.  — Ssven2 15:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you think a footnote might help?♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: You just read my mind!  — Ssven2 15:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support I've given the prose a copyedit and am content with it now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: Thank you so much, Doc. Your thoughts, contributions, and comments are deeply and greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 18:01, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

I will be focusing my review on the lead so my comments are completely focused on prose and will not address anything relating to source use or reliability:

• In this phrase (McQueen's screen persona was that of portraying cool, reticent anti-hero roles), I would add a link for anti-hero.
• I would change this part (played an uncredited role of Fidel) to (played the uncredited role Fidel).
• The following two sentences seem to repeat the same information (n 1960, McQueen achieved stardom when he co-starred alongside Yul Brynner in Sturges' western, The Magnificent Seven. Based on Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, it helped McQueen establish himself as a star in Hollywood). Both sentences repeat that the film established McQueen as a star and you can edit this information down. The only real new information in the second sentence is that the film was based on Seven Samurai.
• I would spell out the acronym POW on its first use.
• I would change this following phrase (a shot of Hilts riding a motorcycle jumps a series of barbed-wire fences) to (a shot of Hilts riding a motorcycle and jumping a series of barbed-wire fences). The current sentence construction is not correctly formed.
• Please clarify the year in which Love with the Proper Stranger was released.
• For this sentence (The film was a critical and commercial disappointment, rendering him almost bankrupt.), I would make it clear how the film’s poor critical and commercial performance led him to become bankrupt.

Great work with this list. Once my comments are completed, then I will support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC? Either way, have a great rest of your day and wonderful job with all of your recent FLCs. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have resolved your comments save the last one, which is exactly what Dr. Blofeld also enquired about.  — Ssven2 16:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Fixed the last one too, Aoba. Do let me know if there is anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 17:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your responses. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you, Aoba47. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 09:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support Just one question: is it right to sort An Enemy of the People on "An", rather than "Enemy"? - SchroCat (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Sorted to Enemy now.  — Ssven2 11:17, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Thank you, SchroCat. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 08:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Two extra comments:

• "In 1958, he appeared in the science fiction film The Blob, which was incidentally his first film as a lead actor" – The "which was incidentally" part seems superfluous. Couldn't you just say "his first film as a lead actor"?
• For the notes column of the filmography you could mention that in The Blob McQueen was billed as "Steven" rather than "Steve". The film, of course, is readily available on DVD and blu-ray so you could either as your source of information. I leave it up to you. Jimknut (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jimknut: I have resolved both your comments, Jimknut. Terrill mentions McQueen being credited as "Steven" in The Blob (same page no. 430). Do let me know if there is anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 17:47, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Support – Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jimknut: Thank you, Jimknut. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 08:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support I've made this edit, too; hopefully all good. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 15:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hameltion: Thank you, Hameltion. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 16:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support good work, just needs a quick source review and then it's good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thank you, TRM. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated. Giants2008, would you care to do the honours?  — Ssven2 15:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Just one concern, really: TV.com is actually a user-generated database, which WP:UGC warns editors generally not to use as a source. Please change 'em with a reliable, high-quality source. Otherwise, great list. Slightlymad 06:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: I have resolved your comment, Slightlymad. Do let me know if there is anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 12:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you can't support his appearance in The West Point Story with a source? I really think McQueen appeared in that show. It's just a shame, it could impact the "comprehensive" criteria of this list. Is it not chronicled on any of those books in bibliography? Slightlymad 13:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: I have now added a source to it in this manner: "The West Point Story, Episode 23 - Ambush. The West Point Story. New York City. 8 March 1957." This format is safe to use.  — Ssven2 14:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright. I shall leave that wee bit matter to the source reviewer. I give you my support. Slightlymad 14:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Slightlymad: Thank you, Slightlymad. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 14:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Source review – The sources all appear to be reliable enough, and the link-checker shows no problems. There are a couple of small formatting issues I see. First, the second link in ref 2 has "LIFE" in improper all caps. Second, refs 46 and 56 are from print publications, so the publishers should be italicized. Spot-checks of refs 41, 59, and 67 show one minor verifiability issue: ref 67 shows that episode title as being "Human Interest Story", not "The Human Interest Story". Our episode list on the show goes with the TV Guide title, for what it's worth. Overall, this list is a few small tweaks away from passing the source review. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Hopefully, I have resolved your comments, Giants2008. Do let me know if there is anything else. Thanks.  — Ssven2 12:19, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

With the fixes made, I see no further issues with the sources. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Thank you, Giants2008. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 08:50, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 17:15, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 19:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): Krish | Talk 00:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that the list meets the FL criteria. Looking forward to lots of feedback on this.Krish | Talk 00:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• The infobox image needs ALT text.
• For this part (who has been working undercover for the FBI as a CIA recruit to uncover a rogue faction of the CIA called the AIC), I would avoid repetition of the “CIA”. I do not believe that the “of the CIA” is necessary and I think you can remove it without losing meaning or context.
• In this part (Parrish must confront a terrorist-instigated hostage crisis at the G-20 summit in), I would add a link for “G-20”.
• For this part (before moving to Mondays at 10:00 pm after its mid-season break), do you think it would be beneficial to link “mid-season break” to the article hiatus (television)?
• For this part (The second season was well-received by critics), I would link “critics” to television criticism?
• In the “Overview” section, FBI needs to be linked in the first sentence. In the same section, I would link G-20 as I suggested for the lead.
• Since you do not appear to be using the Oxford comma in this article, for this part (the President of the United States, the First Lady, and several other world leaders), the comma after “Lady” should be removed.
• In the same section, write out “New York City” in full in the link to “New York” as New York and New York City are two separate things.
• Something about this sentence (The real aim of the group is to get to the surveillance drives the world leaders brought with them before the AIC, who are hiding among the hostages, does) reads awkwardly. I would rephrase it to the following (The group’s real agenda is to get the surveillance drives from the world leaders before the AIC, who are hiding among the hostages).
• For the phrase “CIA director”, I would link it to the following article Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
• For the “Overview” section, you refer to Alex and Ryan by their first names, but you reference Roarke by his last name. I would suggest choosing one or the the other to stay consistent. Since you appear to use the first name for most of the characters, you use “Henry” instead of “Roarke”.
• I am a little confused (While walking in New York City, Alex becomes suspicious of mysterious white vans) by this part. In what context is she suspicious of these vans?
• I would unlink the G20 link in the “Kudove” episode summary as it would linked in the above section per my suggestion.
• For the “Mi6” link in the “Kmforget” episode summary, I think that the i needs to be capitalized to read as “MI6”.
• For this part (Raina is actually Nimah, who is working with CLF; the real Raina is tied up), could you provide context to where the real Raina is tied up?
• For the “Cleopatra” episode summary, is there any reason why the guest star for the “Hannah Wyland” character is brought up while guest stars from other episodes are not addressed?

It's because this episode revolves around her way too much as opposed to the rest. Important details and the motive is linked to her. That's why.Krish | Talk 22:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• I still do not find that a strong enough reason to put the actor in the episode summary when none of the other actors are mentioned in the episode summaries. If the reader is interested in finding out who plays the "Hannah Wyland" character, they could easily look at the "Cast" section. It appears that the actress' name has already been removed either way. Aoba47 (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Please provide ALT text for the Chopra image in the “Production” section. (I am not really sure if the image is necessary as the section does not directly talk about Chopra in-depth and you can already see Chopra in the infobox image, but I will not press this. Just wanted to raise this to your attention).
• In the first sentence of the “Development” subsection, I would add a link for the first season (i.e. mid-way through the first season).
• In the second paragraph of the same subsection, you begin three sentences with “Safran”. I think you can replace one or two of these instances with “He” as the pronoun would be understood through context.
• I am not sure why FBI and CIA are both linked and spelled out in this subsection when they both are already linked (i.e. the contrasting working ethics of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency, saying). Looking at this sentence, I would suggest spelling out FBI and CIA in full on its first instance with the acronym after it in parenthesis.
• I would combining the ‘Filming” and “Casting” subsection as I do not see a real reason to put a short paragraph as its own subsection.

Initially, I ha no subsection but AlexTheWhovian insisted me to.Krish | Talk 22:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• I have combined the two subsections into a "Casting and filming" subsection to keep up with AlexTheWhovian's advice. Aoba47 (talk) 04:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• For this part (involving the current real-life political scenario), I would clarify what is meant by “the current real-life political scenario” as it may be confusing to those reading the in the future. Are the critics referencing anything in particular?
• Is there any reason for the TBD parts in the “Ratings” chart? How is it different from N/A?

Great work with the list. This was a very interesting read and I enjoyed reviewing. I will have to watch this show one of these days lol. Anyway, I will support this for promotion (on the basis of prose) once my comments are addressed. Have a great rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Done.Krish | Talk 22:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for your revisions. I support this for promotion based on prose. Aoba47 (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support – All of my concerns have been resolved. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Kailash

• None. The article looks great to me, and it has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Everything looks good to me. Happy to support. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:01, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant

• Although it looks mostly well done, but I do have a couple of concerns about the critical reception section. I do not believe that the episode recaps from one critic commands an overall well received tag. Also, following it there seems to be no negative review to balance anything at all. I see one largely critical review on RT, but I am sure there are a lot more mixed reviews that can be easily accessed and incorporated into the section. NumerounovedantTalk 14:40, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Numerounovedant: I know what you are saying but I couldn't find any reviews for the Season 2 premiere. The one which I actually found are not reliable sources. So I used the only magazine which reviewed it. I found this and this and both are positive. But I can add some criticism about the early episodes. Are these sources reliable? Well TCOvermind seems like a reliable source since it's parent company is Zap2it. Krish | Talk 21:26, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The opening lines here might be helpful to substantiate your claim Krish. Also, try TV Fanatic, BuddyTV, Entertainment Weekly and Vulture for reviews. TVOM should be fine too. You were right to look for the premiere/finale reviews as they tend to offer a (anticipatory) summary of the overall reception of the season. NumerounovedantTalk 03:31, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Numerounovedant: Added a negative review and another review about the premiere. Kindly check if the new addition is okay or not.Krish | Talk 23:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

How about now? Feel free to work around the edits if you want to. I can support this now, fine work Krish! NumerounovedantTalk 04:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• @Numerounovedant: I like your version and I have no problem with it. Thanks.Krish | Talk 14:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Source review passed (made some minor tweaks). Promoting. --PresN 17:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 19:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC) .

Nominator(s):  — Calvin999 09:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... this is a comprehensive list of all of Steps songs. Same vein as many of my previous song list nominations. As they were most active between 1997-2001, it's been difficult to source some info but I've tried my best to make do with the relatively little there is compared to 2012-2017. I believe it a smart, presentable, clean cut list worthy of being featured.  — Calvin999 09:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• The songs "A House is Not a Home" and "A Love to Last" should sort under, respectively, "House" and "Love". This needs to be corrected. Jimknut (talk) 16:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I wondered that, but I thought perhaps it was only for 'the'. I've amended it now Jimknut.  — Calvin999 09:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comments from Golbez:
  • I would sort the B-sides in album titles by what they're the B-side of, rather than all sorting under "B". So "B-side to "Chain Reaction"" would sort next to Chain Reaction. Likewise, "Single release only" should just sort at the top or bottom of the list, rather than with "S".
    • Good idea.  — Calvin999
  • Refs don't need to be sortable.
    • Unsorted.  — Calvin999
  • Otherwise, I think it looks good. --Golbez (talk) 13:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Thanks Golbez  — Calvin999 08:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
• Support. --Golbez (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you.  — Calvin999 16:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Golbez, the acoustic version of Scared of the Dark is included on their forthcoming deluxe edition edition of their most recent album, should I include it as a song from the re-issue as opposed to 'Single release only' which is was in April as a standalone download to the non-acoustic single? I think it would look tidier.  — Calvin999 11:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
      • We should take this to the article talk page. --Golbez (talk) 13:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Hopefully my support helps it become featured. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you.  — Calvin999 11:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Didn't spot any problems while reading through the list. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

My other FLC is already far in the process so I'm going to nominate this one. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria and has the ability to become featured. If not, I'm open to any suggestions on how to improve it so it does meet the criteria to become featured. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ojorojo

• Lead
  • Somewhere in the beginning, it should be briefly noted that this is a list of his recordings as a solo artist and doesn't include PF songs.
  • Check for repetition – "English musician Syd Barrett recorded many songs during his short career as a musician." "One of the founding members of English rock band Pink Floyd, he was the dominant force of the band in their early years,... and recording several unreleased songs with the band." "in 1969 to begin work on his first solo album," "Barrett began work on his second". "Work on The Madcap Laughs proved difficult,... Produced by Pink Floyd members David Gilmour and Richard Wright, the sessions proved difficult". "Barrett would record two solo albums,...left the music business entirely". "Two years later, Barrett would sign a document ending his association with Pink Floyd and any financial interest in future recordings and left the music business entirely". (plus would and entirely don't add anything).
  • "Barrett was excluded from Pink Floyd in April 1968 and was subsequently replaced by guitarist David Gilmour." According to the PF article (and from what I remember reading), Gilmour was brought in before Barrett was left out.
  • Unneeded words – "the majority of the material found on their first album," (found doesn't add anything). "His first and only single" (if it was his only single, then it would be his first, last, etc.). "The Madcap Laughs and Barrett would be double-paired" (would and double don't add anything). "In 1988, Barrett himself approved the release of Opel," (himself doesn't add anything).
  • "alternate takes of songs from his solo albums, as well as Opel." The Crazy Diamond article seems to indicated that it includes all of TML, Barrett, and Opel, plus alt takes.
  • "The greatest hits album Wouldn't You Miss Me? followed suit," (his only single single never charted; compilation or collection is a better description).
  • "Vegetable Man" and "Scream Thy Last Scream" were previously going to be released on Opel, but was blocked by Pink Floyd." (the songs are already mentioned in the previous sentence; album details are unneeded).
  • Since this is a list of songs, there could be less emphasis on his albums. For example, "Barrett's highly sought-after song "Bob Dylan Blues" was issued on WYMM and the previously unreleased twenty-minute long instrumental "Rhamadan" is included as a bonus track on the AITSB CD."
  • Maybe add something about the style of his songs, contrast/similarity to PF songs, which are particularly noteworthy, etc.

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:16, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Fixed mostly everything. Also I can't get a picture of Barrett on the page because every picture of him Knowledge (XXG) has is under fair use. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good. Have you tried a google-type search for images in the public domain? Without his photo, I wonder if the other photos should be included. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

I found some photos of him through google that are labeled for noncommercial reuse. The original photos were posted on flickr. Would I have to contact any of the users that posted them or just upload them here? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG):Image use policy includes "Note that images that are licensed for use only on Knowledge (XXG), or only for non-commercial or educational use, or under a license that doesn't allow for the creation of modified/derived works, are unsuitable." Flickr images usually note "may be subject to copyright". I doubt that most who uploaded the images know anything about the copyrights. Sydbarrett.com has some photos marked "1968 Spring photoshoot, photographer unknown", but I don't know if they're OK to use. Maybe ask them. —Ojorojo (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Alright I'll ask them. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC) Follow up. I got permission from them to use a photo whose photographer is unknown. I'm working on uploading it to Knowledge (XXG) and figuring out the copyright issue because I was told that they cannot claim copyright nor deny me permission to upload it as they specifically don't own it. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC) You can't upload images with an unknown copyright so I'm going to work on obtaining a copyright use for image with the photographer known. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Ojorojo I've been talking to the estate management office of Barrett and I received the ok to use an image of Barrett from 1967 however I'm not sure if I want to use it. All I was offered was pictures of Barrett when he was still with Pink Floyd and this page is about his solo songs. Also, I don't have all the information needed to upload it so I don't think I'm going to bother. Is a picture of him really needed for this page? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC) Update. The only image of Barrett I've found on Wikimedia that's not fair use is this one, although it's not an actual image, it's a drawing of him that's actually pretty accurate. Although I don't think it's good to use a drawing of someone for an official page like this. What do you think? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

You've done a good job exploring all the possibilities, but I don't think the drawing or a PF-era photo is optimal. Again, without a good image of him, including the other photos seems unnecessary (PF members & Joyce seems incongruous). It's not a deal breaker, but I'd like to see what others think. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The images don't seem to concern other editors, so your approach is OK. The article needs a source/ref review – I'll try to do it in the next few days. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ojorojo Thanks very much. Care to check out my new FLC? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Structure & Style – No problems here. You have the formatting, etc., down from a previous FLC, although the period at the end of "Name of song, producer(s),..." is not needed. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Stability – OK. This list has been largely untouched since 2012 and there are no comments on the talk page. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• Comprehensive – Double checked with AllMusic and all his solo songs are included (the split of "Waving My Arms in the Air"/"I Never Lied to You" is noted). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• References

• The info in the links to the album labels and notes all check out. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• The Pink Floyd HyperBase is a personal website. Crawfurd lists his sources, but seems to add some of his own commentary. He also includes some complete song lyrics, which may be a copyvio. Is he included as a source in any books about Barrett or otherwise seen as an authority? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Not that I've seen. I could find a link that possibly shows some of Barrett's unreleased songs. Update: I replaced that ref with a CoS ref that talks about unreleased songs being released on Early Years

Better. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• Sydbarrett.net appears to be user generated and Jones and other source info is not in the linked page. Is there a better link or source for this? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Basically this is a PDF of Malcolm Jones book The Making of The Madcap Laughs posted to sydbarrett.net. I can try to find the actual book with actual page numbers I just thought this would be easier as the whole thing is right there. It's also spoken in first person.

Maybe cite the book, but include the link in the URL field. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I found the actual book in one PDF and made a new ref to that. I wasn't able to find the ISBN number for it. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice. That will do. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Awesome. So status on review? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• The website appears as "Official Charts". Perhaps use |website=, instead of |publisher= and wikilink Official Charts. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
• The cite:web format for AllMusic should be consistent. One includes "Octopus - Syd Barrett : Listen, Appearances, Song Review", but something like "Syd Barrett: Octopus – Review" should be sufficient. Generally, en dashes should be used instead of hyphens. Also link the first appearance of the author's name (the other refs should also have authorlinks). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Ojorojo Fixed what you commented on. Notes are above. Thanks very much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Authors with WP articles should be linked: Thompson, Gilmore, Fricke, Chapman, Tolinski, Schaffner, et al. It adds to credibility. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Done. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• The Stranger page includes a link to "Rhamadan", which has been removed (probably copyvio). This ref doesn't look like it's needed and should be removed —Ojorojo (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

• "Watkinson, Mike; Pete Anderson. Crazy Diamond: Syd Barrett & the Dawn of Pink Floyd." – This should also use cite:book, unless there is a reason not to. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Fixed BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• "pinkfloyd-co" – "pinkfloyd.com" looks like the official website. Pinkfloyd-co.com & pinkfloyd.co.com appear to be fans sites. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed sentence entirely. Felt it was unneeded. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support It meets the six FL criteria as discussed above. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks very much Ojorojo! Care to check out my next FLC? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support FrB.TG (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Giants2008 PresN There's multiple supports and a source review has already been done. This one good to go? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comments
  • "contain the unreleased song "Two of a Kind"" => "contains the unreleased song "Two of a Kind""
  • Remove the brackets in note E
  • That's all I could find -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude Done. Thank you so much for your comments! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support - seems good to go now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I genuinely loved doing this list. A fascinating early history and some amazing individuals throughout. I gave it the TRM treatment, so MOS compliance should be there, lots of good refs, and some images for good measure. Thanks in advance to any of you interested enough to comment, much appreciated. I know I have a handful of other FLCs but they have at least three supports each, so "it's all okay"! The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Awesome, looks good to me. Happy to sign support. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:01, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Rodw

An interesting list on a topic I know nothing about (so I have learned from it). A few minor queries:

• Is there any way to rephrase "commissioned soon after his death after breaking the" for after..after?

  Yes, done. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks but the sentence " Segrave's wife had the trophy commissioned following his death after breaking the water speed record on Lake Windermere." could now be read as meaning his wife (her name would be nice) broke the record.— Rod 21:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Reworded based on additional BBC source. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• I see the citations are quotes and therefore are correctly "word for word" but would wikilinks eg to places or plane types be useful to the reader?

  That's probably a good idea, I need to refamiliarise myself with the MOS on quotes before I commit though... The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• If you sort the Recipient column, all of the "No award" years come between Adrian Newey and Richard Noble which seems a bit strange

  Fixed now hopefully. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 17 Segrave Trophy for Neville Duke from Flightglobal gives a CS1 error "|format= requires |url= "

  Missing URL added. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• The citation includes (pictured) for a couple where a pic of the plane is used but not in the Nigel Mansell ones where a car is shown - it might be better to include a portrait of him (eg File:Nigel Mansell - Mexican Grand Prix 01.JPG).

  I agree. The point I was trying to get across was that this was Mansell in his Indy car, rather than his F1 car. Have added a pictured comment, is it enough? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• So what are the cars in 1992 & 1993?— Rod 21:44, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Okay, added that info. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I have to dive out now but will look in more detail later.— Rod 19:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Rodw, I've addressed most of your initial concerns, I will need to re-read the MOS on links within quotes (I take your point wholeheartedly), and I'd like your opinion on the Mansell update. Plus, any further comments gratefully received. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Rodw I've made as many pertinent links as possible, drawing on other FLs which do similar (Nobel Prizes). Anything else? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, works for me and I can now Support this list as meeting the criteria.— Rod 15:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from magiciandude

Very nice work on the list TRM! I've checked high and low on the prose, the deadlinks checker, and categories this article is pretty much flawless. I do have one question regarding this sentence: "A subsidiary award, the Segrave Medal, may also be given." The sentence is not clear on what the medal is given for. Is it an assistance award or an award to the designer of the vehicles? Erick (talk) 21:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Magiciandude:, brilliant. I've done a quick search on this and it's already revealed that I'm missing some information and winners, so I'll do a thorough trawl, update the prose relating to the substance of the medal, add entries where relevant, and then get back to you. Much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Magiciandude:, I've expanded a little on this, and found a missing entry, added it to the key, added icons to the relevant years etc. I think that's about it, what do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Yep, that makes the recognition of the medal a lot more sense now. I now proudly support this list for FL. Great job! If you have time, would you mind commenting on my FLC for List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States? Erick (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support — Nothing else from me so I am more than happy to lend my support. MWright96 (talk) 08:15, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• Support - can't see any issues..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

Info box -

• There's a great photo of the trophy at this page (2nd pic). Can we?

  We can and went and already did... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Uses different template for website than you used for Laureus set. Either are OK?

  Yep. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Prose

• "The Segrave Trophy is awarded to the British national..." - is confusing as 2 Aussies and 2 Kiwis in list, needs a note somewhere? RAC's main trophy page ie ref 1, doesn't mention 'British'. I see in article history it had British citizen then subject then national. Ref 3, ie trophy history, says Lady Segrave's wish was to "...celebrate and encourage British nationals".

  Certainly a number of RS state that it's British nationals, and in the early days, those Aussies and Kiwis were at least British "subjects" so that's why they were eligible. I'll dig around for some more notes. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• "...in the short-lived World Rally Championship Ladies Cup. The award has been presented ..." - perhaps use 'Segrave Trophy' instead of 'The award' as the last award mentioned was the Ladies Cup.

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Peter du Cane - red link per Peter Du Cane?

  Yes, linked. Will look at creating stub in due course. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  STUBTASTIC. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Good job - now needs caps on du needed in prose JennyOz (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Peter du Cane recevied..." - received

  Whoops, fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Mark Wilkinson received the medal in 2001 for his assistance to trophy winner Tim..." - swap "for his assistance" to 'as co-pilot'? ref here

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ellinson - spello, should be Ellison. (Is okay at 2001 in table)

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• "... trophy winner Tim Ellinson and Lady Moss,..." - needs Oxford comma after Elli(n)son?

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

starting on table now... JennyOz (talk) 06:49, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

JennyOz ok, coolio, thanks. Just the "British national" thing to resolve from that list I think? Look forward to your table comments. Cheers, as always, for your generous support of my efforts with your diligent reviews. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Jenny, I found what I was looking for with relation to the Aus/British national piece: have a look at Charles Kingsford Smith where he's introduced as an Australian but the infobox calls him a British subject. I have plenty of sources to back up the requirement for being a British national to receive the Segrave Trophy but my understanding of the complexities of citizenship laws from the 1930s around the United Kingdom and its glorious Empire is limited. Do you have a suggestion for the way ahead? I could always ditch the nationality column but I actually thought it interesting that the early winners weren't actually from this green and pleasant land.... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

No fear! Don't even think about removing the Nationality column:) Yep, I understand re "subjects" until 1940s (both Aust and NZ). I'd actually looked at Smithy's article to check if there was mention of the Trophy. There could be more but I don't remember ever seeing another Aust bio with "British subject" in its infobox for nationality/citizenship. I see an IP added it on 3 Aug 2011. (Maybe later I'll ask at our noticeboard re Kingsford Smith but not important for here.)

What I couldn't understand was Bruce McLaren receiving Segrave in 1969. But now I see, after reading fuller citation here which includes "...and thus upholding British prestige before the world." and per Can-Am link, it's the team that's British even though drivers rightly recognised as New Zealanders.

My suggestion would be a simple note below table something along the lines of: "At the time of winning, the Australians Kingsford Smith and Hinkler, and New Zealander Batten, were also considered British subjects. New Zealander McLaren's award was after NZ's Citizenship Act of 1948 but he was recognised as his McLaren Team was British-based."? JennyOz (talk) 16:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

• Talking of Bruce McLaren, his ref (30 stuff.co.nz) says that McLaren's fellow Kiwis, his chief mechanic Cary Taylor and Denny Hulme, were both given the Segrave medal alongside Bruce's trophy 1969. See text above and below the photo of... the medal. RAC have missed adding it to their site.

Will get back to table hopefully tomorrow, JennyOz (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

JennyOz hi Jenny, thanks again, I think I've addressed your latest comments (including getting the right link for Du Cane!!), delighted to hear more from you. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi again, all above is great thanks. Not sure you're going to be 'delighted' now though:) It's taken a bit longer than i anticipated to finish looking at the table as i kept coming up against conflicts of info - not your doing but errors in refs and, as we saw for 1969 medals, the RAC site itself has info missing. I just hope you can understand my notes.

Table

• 1930 Smith - ref 7 aust dict biography doesn't mention trophy, need to use a separate one here this should do. (You know where to grab the already formatted WP cite from Trove pages? Click on the circle i (information) icon at top left of left hand pane then scroll to bottom.)
• 1936 Batten - ref 16 has same url as Eyston (ref 15), should be /1136708
• 1949 and 1950 - this confirms not awarded (just in case wondering if RAC has right.)
• 1968 Wallis - his obit ref 30 incorrectly says 1969 (is correct for 1985). use the rac past winners here?
• 1978 Cunningham - his ref also mentions year of presentation instead of award
• 1990 - red link cap L on ladies
• 2013 Surtees - should be 2012. The motorsportmag ref is March 2013 but seems that was written a week after the actual presentation (not year on actual award). RAC has Surtees at 2012 and here and here have 2012 too.
• 2014 McNish - should be 2013. The motorsportmag ref is June 14 but talks of 2013 his last year, and his article supports the 3 wins in 2013. And this.
• 2014 re Medal - should be 2013. The ref 8 media release is dated April 2014 so, like in most previous years, it is announced/presented in first half of year for the previous year's trophy? There's this and this shows McNish with the trophy and his non-Brits with their medals. That one is dated April 2014 so presentation for 2013. (I don't know if these are RS or not.)

RAC past winners is therefore incorrect by missing 2013s altogether?

I think not awarded 2014. McGuinness 2015 is correct (announced March 2016). Not awarded 2016.

• Some poss photos I came across while checking dates. Use or ignore, no problem.

1938 - at gardner 1, 2, 3, 4

1946 - geoffrey de havilland 1, 2

1948 - john derry 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

• Could possibly add a sentence to prose on design and designer Gilbert Bayes? Bits per here and here and here and here.

Refs

• Refs 4 and 10 (RAC Past Winners) - are same url.
• Ref 26 and 29 David Trenayne - (same book), spello Tremayne and authorlink
• Ref 34 Taylor Simon - authorlink Simon Taylor (journalist)

That's it I reckon. JennyOz (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

JennyOz, thanks again! I have no problem at all with you providing these comments, there's little point in us claiming that this list could be featured standard if it's simply not, so thanks for you diligence and patience. I have a few things to attend to but will hopefully address these before I go to bed (we've just had a dumpload of snow and, as you expect from the Brits, we can't handle it, so making arrangements for work, kids etc!) The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

JennyOz I think I've done the majority there. The images I'd be delighted to upload but what licensing arrangement would they have, is there a PD-AUS kind of thing? If you could help me with that I'd be happy to try to upload them suitably. I guess one thing you'd question would be formatting of Trove refs, since I started using those you recommended, so they're not actually internally consistent any longer. I'll go back and resolve those now, just in case. Seems a shame that Trove won't get a link there... Cheers again. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

That's now done, all Trove links use the recommended cite format, minus a few MOS issues they haven't worked out yet. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

And I've uploaded three images based on your suggestions with (hopefully) appropriate PD-AUS licensing. Thanks so much for the suggestions. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Ha! Was just about to suggest that licence. I have no experience with images but saw some similar time period, taken from Trove, over in commons using that. Fantastic. Finally checked the citations column today. Here are my last comments...

• 1903 Smithy's citation - move full stop inside the quote marks
• 1934 Waller - Speeds all converted, how about km distance at "For his 4,000-mile flight..."
• 1937 Clouston - "For his flight with[Betty Kirby-Green in..." swap bracket for a space

That's me done! JennyOz (talk) 09:31, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

JennyOz final tweaks made, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Wonderful work. Another polished trophy for the cabinet! Hope you're coping with the snow. It's a lovely summer over here, perfect for playing cric... (whoops, sorry I forgot), perfect for barbecues. Very happy to sign support. JennyOz (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Giants2008, PresN, this now has six unqualified supports, no outstanding issues, could one of you do the honours if you're happy with sourcing (although Jenny usually goes through them all anyway). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Will get here shortly; I've been MIA for a few weeks so I'm going to try to do a bug sweep of source reviews today, starting from the bottom of the FLC list. --PresN 15:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Ok, source review passed, promoting. --PresN 16:18, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
• 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.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I had nominated this list over a year ago, but it had to be closed due to lack of comments. Now it's all new and updated, and hopefully gets more attention. Cheers, Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• These links should be fixed.

Hey, this doesn't show me any issues. Could you tell me which links need fixing? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

The green ones that are redirects. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I've archived the refs. So that should be okay now. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Fullstop missing from the alt texts.
• I'm a bit skeptical on the usage of the word 'portrayed' in the article, unless its about a real life character that she played.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time out to review this, Yashthepunisher. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support Great work! Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Yash. I really appreciate it. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment from BeatlesLedTV

• The film and stages tables' ref column are titled "Ref(s)" even though these 2 tables only have 1 ref per film. Simply title it "Ref." and leave the television one as is.

That's all I got. Very well-written. My comment is very minor I'll support it now. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 03:27, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, BeatlesLedTV. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Ssven2

• "and she made her film debut as the love interest of the teenage lead" — name of the teenage lead or is it the dog? Do specify.
• "a drama about star-crossed gay lovers, which became a critical and commercial success, and gained Williams a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress." — Maybe rephrase it as "a drama about star-crossed gay lovers, which became a critical and commercial success; Williams a nomination for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress."

@Krimuk2.0: Thats about it from me. Good job on the list.  — Ssven2 13:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ssven2: all done. Thanks for the comments. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: Support. Keep up the good work, Krimuk.  — Ssven2 09:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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) 18:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): Damian Vo (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

A list on music videos, films and commercials directed by Mark Romanek, based on other featured lists. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Damian Vo (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• "At the same ceremony, three other music videos by the director were also nominated," - if the nominations were not for him, I wouldn't mention it here.

Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• They are considered to be two of the most expensive music videos ever made - I would cut the consider part. They either are the most expensive music videos or not.

I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• costing $7 million and $5 million respectively - comma before respectively.

Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• The former work also gained 11 nominations - "Scream" not the former

I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• gained 11 nominations at the 1995 MTV Video Music Awards - if any of those nominations were for the director himself, I would mention it.

Removed. Damian Vo (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I did not suggest removing this sentence. I suggested adding the nomination/s (if any) for Romanek himself at the ceremony. FrB.TG (talk) 14:48, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It was his only video nominated. I added a reference about his second MTV nomination. Damian Vo (talk) 16:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• I would de-link comedy-drama as well as psychological thriller.

Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• And also romantic drama.

Done. Damian Vo (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• Rowspans are generally discouraged in filmographies as they hinder accessibility.

I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

• I see some inconsistencies in references which I will get to later.

Nice work. Sorry that this hasn't attracted any interest so far. I hope that you also consider reviewing Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates/Beyoncé videography/archive1. FrB.TG (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

That's alright. Please take your time, there's no need to hurry. Damian Vo (talk) 08:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Here are some more:

• I still see the usage of rowspan in the tables. They are frowned upon in filmographies as they hinder accessibility.

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• References: CBS does not need italics.

Removed the italics. Damian Vo (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 2: Billboard should be wiki-linked here.

Done. Damian Vo (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 6: What makes this a high quality, reliable source?

I replaced it with an article from Forbes. Damian Vo (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 7: Wiki-link pls.

Done. Damian Vo (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ref 25: Same issue as above.

Done. Damian Vo (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• From here you should be consistent, wiki-linking every publisher on its first instance. – FrB.TG (talk) 09:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support on prose. --FrB.TG (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Damian Vo (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from BeatlesLedTV

• Makes the notes column in first table unsortable.
• Center the year column in the "Commercials" table.
• Fix disambiguation link for Andrew Davis in the first table under "Filmography".

That's all I got. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I resolved everything you mention above. Damian Vo (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. My comments have been resolved. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so so much for your support. Damian Vo (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. Damian Vo (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Source review passed - made a small formatting tweak ("format=" is specifically for website formats, and gives an error if you don't have a "url="), but good other than that. Promoting. --PresN 16:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and is in the same format as FLCs such as Northamptonshire and Suffolk. I trust that this list will also be found to be of FLC standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Nope I got nothing else for you. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many thanks. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Rodw

Another nice list and comments from previous FLC nominations have been taken into account. Just a couple of minor questions:

• In the description of Clipsham Old Quarry and Pickworth Great Wood we have "Bajocian Middle and Upper Jurassic". I would have said " Middle Bajocian and Upper Jurassic"

• Upper is an error and I have deleted it.

• In Eye Brook Reservoir would it be worth wikilinking wigeon, teal, mallard and pochard?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• In Shacklewell Hollow would it be worth wikilinking Alder for those not familiar with the species?

• I am doubtful. Alder is about the genus and the source does not specify the species. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Is Anglicans online (Ref 1) the best source for the fact Rutland is a ceremonial county?

• It is the only one I could find. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• How about this BBC story or this book (intro page)?— Rod 16:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• They are both OK but what makes them better than Anglicans online, which seems marginally closer to being an official source? Dudley Miles (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• I suppose I'm thinking "user generated" for Anglicans online - but I could be wrong. Something like the London Gazette or a county council publication would be ideal.— Rod 17:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• It is published by the Society of Archbishop Justus, so maybe I should have shown it as the publisher and Anglicans online as the website. Would that be better? I could not find an official source, a common problem as official sources often do not bother to spell out 'obvious' basic details. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:33, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Yep adding the publisher would work for me.— Rod 20:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Can we provide a ref for Seaton Meadows being designated "Plantlife" (is this a designation or is this who owns/manages it - might be better in description).

• It is the manager and I have added the ref omitted in error. I think it is better to keep it in this column with the other managers. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

As usual - minor quibbles.— Rod 09:29, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Many Thanks for your review. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for tweaks. I can now Support this list as meeting the criteria.— Rod 21:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
• BeatlesLedTV and Rodw do you have any further comments? Dudley Miles (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 16:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): — InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a fantastic and interesting list and one of the best on the Wiki. I believe that it meets all the criteria for a featured list, and the content of the article generally only changes in response to additional launches (as expected). — InsertCleverPhraseHere 03:36, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think the accessibility concerns are all taken care of now- capping them. I did have one last unrelated thought- It's a little odd having the title as "Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy", especially as there were only 5 Falcon 1 launches. I get why- the Falcon Heavy was originally the Falcon 9 Heavy, but have you considered merging them all together into one "List of SpaceX Falcon launches"? If you don't want to go that route, I think that it would be helpful to mention in the lead where you have "The Falcon Heavy is derived from the Falcon 9." that it used to be named the Falcon 9 Heavy. --PresN 20:34, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

We had multiple discussions about which rockets to include. F1+F9+FH together, all three separate, or the way it is now? We concluded that the current way is the most reasonable. F1 is a completely different rocket, while F9 and FH share most of their hardware. I don't know if mentioning historic names helps in the article. --mfb (talk) 21:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

We have discussed adding the falcon 1 and concluded that it wasn't appropriate. I will try to work into the lede that the falcon heavy is essentially a falcon 9 with two extra falcon 9 first stages as extra side boosters. As a pertinent example, the upcoming falcon heavy flight scheduled in a couple months uses two previously flown falcon 9 first stages as side boosters. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 13:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@PresN, I have modified the bit on the Falcon Heavy in the lede to make it clear to readers that the Falcon Heavy central rocket core is just a strengthened Falcon 9 (using similar wording to that used in the Falcon Heavy lede). This should address this issue satisfactorily without needing historical names. As an additional note, we have decided against making a sortable table for the list of launches (see talk page). The use of small text in the table has been culled slightly so far, and is still being discussed for the landing column. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. Also, note that, uh, everything that is covered by note B needs to get sourced or dropped. --PresN 01:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done Sourced or removed if no source could be found. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 11:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@PresN We also decided on a change to the formatting of the 'Landing outcome' column which still uses small text, but makes the use of the small text more appropriate and less 'random'. So that is done as well. Never mind, still some discussion to be had. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 12:15, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@PresN We are now pretty much done with the 'landing outcome' column as well, though the consensus on what style to pick took a while only minor changes from the current version are likely (or none at all). Is there anything else that is a concern? — InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• It seems like all the of the issues raised have been resolved. Is there anything else that needs addressing or can we move forward with this one? — InsertCleverPhraseHere 23:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Insertcleverphrasehere: FLCs require substantive reviews ending in supports from multiple editors before they can be promoted, I'm afraid (and a source review). Since I've been pretty involved in this one, I'll give it a full review soon. --PresN 01:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry about that. I haven't been through this process before. Just not seen much happening for a while and was wondering. Thanks for your help. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 09:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

@PresN and RexxS: The article has been stable for a while. Any chance for you to move the review forward or pass the buck to other volunteers? — JFG 15:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi JFG I wasn't aware that I was holding up the review. I thought that I was simply answering a question asked. If you want to know whether I think all accessibilty concerns have been met, I believe they have to the best of one's ability. I mean, it's never going to be perfect, but Insertcleverphrasehere has done a lot to improve the accessibility, and I certainly wouldn't suggest it should not be promoted on that score. Does that help? --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we are waiting on other reviewers to step forward. FLC is a bit backlogged at the moment, and although this article is in the 'older nominations' section, it is not even close to the bottom yet. The WIKI cup is on at the moment, so I suspect that might have something to do with the increased backlog. I also suspect that most reviewers are a bit reluctant to do a full source review on this article, as I am pretty sure that this one is one of the longer articles at FLC at the moment. It will come, but I suspect we will have to wait till it falls to the bottom of the list. Thats ok, there's no WP:DEADLINE. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 21:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure RexxS, I didn't mean we were waiting on you, no worries. Thanks for your help in sorting out the accessibility issues. — JFG 21:12, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments epic piece of work... some quick notes before a proper review.

• We don't start featured lists with "This is a list of..."
• I would move the image up to the start of the article.
• Consider collapsing the TOC down to just level one headings, All that whitespace is distracting.
• "and there have been a total of 41 launches" needs time-framing, i.e. As of September 2017...
• "39 missions were ..." don't start sentences with a number.
• occurred on June 4, 2010 and" took place, and comma after 2010.
• Lots of short, sometimes single-sentence paragraphs, looks untidy.
• Convert units consistently throughout (e.g. you have "9 meters" without a conversion).
• "October 7, 2012 at 8:35 PM EST. " comma after 2012 and see MOS:TIME for format of the time.
• "within 4 days after" within four days of
• "the 8th time" eighth.
• Use full years, not '12, '13 etc.
• "cubesat" should be "CubeSat".
• Why empty cells for some of the "payload mass" entries?
• Not convinced those flag icons are of use, particularly without the name of the country.
• Inline referencing appears to be very sporadic, e.g. why are "September 21, 2014, 05:52" and "2,216 kg (4,885 lb)" singled out for inline refs whereas those same entries aren't cited in the lines above ?
• Be consistent with date formats in the references.

More once we're making progress on this lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. Some initial replies:

• I rephrased the first sentence.
• Moving the image up would create even more whitespace. We could add another image there, however. Added another image now. --mfb (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
• I think the direct navigation to individual years is very useful, especially with the current (and increasing) length of the table.
• Added time (with date as the launch rate exceeds 1/month).
• 39: Rephrased.
• Used "took place". It is a separate sentence now.
• I don't see a nice way to reduce the number of short paragraphs without merging separate topics or adding less important information (to make the paragraph longer), but let's see what others say.
• Converted 9 m, 780 km and 6457 kg, I hope I got all. A few missions split up the payload into separate pieces in the text, adding conversions for every piece would make the description very cluttered.
• Added comma after 2012 and converted the time to 24 hour time, consistent with the rest of the article.
• 4->four done
• 8th->eighth done
• Full years: Fits for now, changed.
• cubesat->CubeSat done.
• The first two missions were demonstration missions, they didn't have a payload in the conventional sense (apart from a few kilograms of secondary satellites). For Dragon missions we quote the payload in the Dragon capsule, but these missions tested the capsule. Found a reference for the payload of the third mission and added it.
• Flags: I'll leave that to others.
• References: The references differ in their coverage, so different launches have different combinations of references. If a reference covers the whole table entry we don't repeat it in every column.
• Found 7 deviating date formats and changed them to "Month day, yyyy".

--mfb (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Do you have further suggestions for improvements? --mfb (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@PresN and The Rambling Man: Looks like all of the issues you pointed out have been resolved. What do we need to do to move forward with the review and hopefully reach Featured List status soon? — JFG 05:21, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

For this to reach FL, we'll need to see some reviewers supporting the list's promotion. There's been a good amount of reviewing so far, but no support. We can't simply assume that reviewers who do not declare their support meant to; in this case, it's likely that PresN and TRM were seeking to leave themselves the option of closing the FLC when the time comes (they'd have a conflict if they supported). You may neutrally ask regular FLC reviewers for input if you really want to get things moving; just don't ask anyone to support your list, as that would cross the line into full-on canvassing. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Actual review by PresN

• The lead is a bit choppy. I'd move the second sentence ("The versions of the rocket are...") to the start of the last paragraph, and then combine the remainder of the 1st paragraph with the 2nd paragraph. Also, start that moved sentence as "The rockets in the Falcon 9 family are..." instead.
• "The rocket experienced "a little bit of roll at liftoff" as Ken Bowersox from SpaceX put it." -> "Ken Bowersox, Vice President of SpaceX, described the launch as having "a little bit of roll at liftoff"."
• Additionally, you should describe what "roll" is in this context, as you mention it several times in this paragraph
• "a single Dragon C2+ mission, on condition that all Demo 2 milestones" - on the condition
• It might be helpful if you mention what launch # the "notable" missions are; you mention the 1st and 2nd, but stop afterward.
• There's some spots in the launch table that are missing citations, namely:

• end of launch 23
• end of launch 25
• end of launch 26 (also, every time you link the flight 26 article you mis-capitalize the F in flight)

• I like the "(more details above)" in launch 19; that should be present on the other "special" launches
• "when firm planning dates are in place, and reliably sourced" - reliably sourced is an internal WP thing, and should not be in prose- move it to a hidden comment if the point is to deter randos from adding details without a source
• "(every two months)" - I get what you mean by these tags, but I don't think there's much reason to call this out when you already list the launch months anyway
• There's a "" tag in April 2018
• "Q2, 2018", etc. - no comma on the quarters, you treat them like you do months
• Not doing a source review yet, but take a glance through yourself; off-hand I noticed that ref 167 is missing the publication date, 170 has the url spacelaunchreport.com as the work, rather than the actual site name (Space Launch Report), and 171 italicized NASA as a work instead of a publisher That was just a 10 second skim of a chunk in the middle; there's likely many more inconsistencies (especially with 300+ references!)

This list is pretty sharp, lets try to not let it linger any longer... --PresN 22:33, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

• implemented the first two points as suggested.
• added a sentence and a link about roll
• added "the"
• added the flight numbers to all notable missions
• took care of the citations for the mentioned flights. Capital F seems to be preferred for "Flight xx", I used that everywhere for displayed text now.
• Added "more details above" to more flights. I left out the flights mentioned in "First landings on drone ship" and "First launch and landing of a reused first stage" as these sections are about the boosters not about the primary missions, and "loss of Amos 6" because the linked main article is the better reference here. If someone prefers having these links, feel free to add them.
• removed "and reliably sourced"
• Every two months means launch delays will shift everything, but as we keep the list updated anyway... removed it.
• : The in-flight abort test schedule is a bit awkward. Originally the first uncrewed orbital test was planned for February and the abort test (with the same capsule) for two months later - April. Now the orbital test moved to April, therefore the abort test will move as well - but there is no source quoting an actual month, and "probably around June" doesn't fit well in any quarter either. I changed the date to 2018 and sorted it under June as most likely launch order.
• removed commas from quarters.
• Fixed the three references you mentioned for now, with 319 321 that will need more work. Reference 170 had the parameter "website", used "work" now.

tl;dr: Implemented all, apart from the source review and maybe some "more details above" no action items left. --mfb (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Support - lets get you an actual support here instead of just comments. Source review is typically the last thing done before a nomination is promoted, so I'll hold off until we get a couple more supports. --PresN 15:31, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

If it's worth anything, I'm happy to add my support, as the nominator has met all of the concerns I raised about accessibility and MOS:FLAG. I agree that a source review would be helpful – an immediate glance at ref #2, for example, shows that it's giving the publisher as "Space.com" (which is the website name), whereas I think the publisher is probably Purch. I won't quibble if I'm wrong about that, but I think |website=Space.com would still be better. --RexxS (talk) 19:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting the nomination! The references use a mixture of work=, publisher= and sometimes others (and sometimes none of them). I don't know what is preferable, I left that as it is for now and hope that someone else looks into this. Meanwhile I took care of dates: consistent format of Month dd, yyyy, checked sources without accessdate and added it (Twitter and Youtube sometimes don't have it but their links should be extremely stable), added date where applicable. --mfb (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Provisional support – One of the comments was still outstanding, but I decided to clean that bit up myself to move the process along. I didn't look at the sources much, but the rest of the list appears in fine shape to me. Assuming PresN signs off on the sourcing, this can be considered a full support. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok that is weird, I had definitely drafted a fix for the abbreviation at one point, I must have failed to save it for some reason. Thanks for resolving that. — Insertcleverphrasehere 20:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@PresN: What is the procedure for a source review? --mfb (talk) 00:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Basically just wait for someone to get to it; it's usually pretty fast but I do most of them and I've been busy for a few weeks. Given that you knew there were a lot of problems with the formatting, though, I'm a little annoyed that they've been left alone. Here we go!

• Good news first: I'm not seeing a lot of unreliable sources besides Gunter's Space Page, and spotchecks didn't show any problems. Can you explain how Gunter's Space Page is an RS?
• Bad news: the formatting here is all over the place. The main rule of formatting references is less to follow a standard and more to be consistent. Which this isn't. It's a bit of a mess. I'm going to list out here some general trends that this list is following, and then call out instances where it falls off of that:
  • This list generally links works in every reference, not just the first. (except when it just doesn't link at all)
    • E.g. it doesn't link Space.com in ref 2 but does in ref 9, or Popular Mechanics in ref 1, or The Verge in ref 3 but does in ref 182, etc.
  • This list does not use publishers- it says the website/magazine, but not the publishing company
    • Except ref 14 has a bunch of extra stuff not found anywhere else
    • it does mention the platform in refs 7 and 86 as if it was the work
    • ref 49 has a publisher
  • This list uses M-D-Y date formatting
    • You flip the date format in ref 193
  • This list does not italicize websites that are not also magazines
    • This is wildly inconsistent. Just making all instances of Space.com and SpaceNews non-italicized would help a lot, but every "website" should be fixed.
    • On the flip side, you don't italicize the magazine Astronomy Now in ref 32
  • Other:
    • For some reason ref 29 has NYT as a magazine?
    • As mentioned above, use the website name, not its url. Space.com is actually it's name (note the capital S), as is NASASpaceFlight.com (note the capital F), but forum.nasaspaceflight.com (ref 185) is not, floridatoday.com (ref 202) is not, www.spaceflightinsider.com (ref 220) is not, cnbc.com (ref 222) is not, etc. Do a ctrl-F for ".com".

I'm going to take a stab at fixing some of these formatting issues this afternoon, since this has dragged on so long, but I'd like it if y'all did some too. --PresN 18:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

@PresN: Many thanks for the source review. I have no time to act upon your remarks now, but I can at least vouch for Gunter's Space Page as a reliable source, despite being self-published. Gunter Krebs maintains a very detailed database of spacecraft, rockets and launches, which is considered authoritative by Wikiproject Spaceflight and included in the generic references for spaceflight timelines at Template:TLS-R. — JFG 22:32, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Alright, did a bunch of formatting tweaks. One more potential non-RS: to discuss before it's done: "Launch Photography". --PresN 22:54, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Probably not a good answer, but Launch Photography is often first reporting changes and then other sites report the same. I believe people use the site's info to make journeys to view and photograph launches, but I am not sure if I can find any RS to indicate this. Maybe I could find some blog comments if this is needed. Also thank you for all the ref fixes, sorry we didn't get to these. crandles (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Looks like I missed a few dates. I searched for ".com|" and ".com ", just two instances left, and in both cases it is part of the name (Spaceflight101.com, Infoespacial.com). I moved more references away from website=, I hope that was right. In one case (National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service) I don't know how to handle that as we have a separate publisher put in. --mfb (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I've looked closer at what you're using Launch Photography to reference. Most of them are referencing the place/time of launch, and I'm willing to give it a pass on that- a timestamped photo is what you're really citing, even if it's on someone's personal website. You're also using it to cite 3 future dates (January 2018) which... they cannot be a reliable source for, because then you're really just citing Cooper's recitation of facts he got somewhere else. You'll need a different source for those 3 cites- I note that spaceflight now has the date for the one I checked, though not the time. --PresN 02:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed from future dates replacing all with spaceflight now. Lost a couple of times.crandles (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Allright, source review passed, promoting! --PresN 19:58, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 22:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

This list has been in the making for a long time. I originally had the list based on the RIAA certifications, but Billboard has come out with an actual bestselling Latin albums in the US of all-time last month (which can be found here and it thoroughly sourced in the list). The article was peer reviewed by A Thousand Doors, who made List of best-selling albums in the United Kingdom a FL and is the basis for this article, and Esprit15d who made significant improvements to the article as well. I look forward to your feedback, thanks! Erick (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Ah that makes sense. Everything looks good to me. I got no other comments or concerns. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Also, I've done some (hopefully uncontroversial) edits. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support No other comments from me. Excellent work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:57, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Title is albums, lead sentence is records... be precise.
• "recorded in Spanish" I would be explicit and say "in the Spanish language".
• "sold more than " vs " sold over" - be consistent, I'd stick with the former.
• "music departments at electronics and department stores" repeat of "department" is jarring.
• " awarded by the RIAA, who began awarding" ditto for "awarded/awarding".
• "Fijación Oral Vol. 1 " is missing a comma.
• "was certified 11×" in prose I'd prefer to see "eleven times"...
• "highest-certified album" I would think that should be "most-certified"?
• I think somewhere you need to state that this list encompasses only the top 25 best-selling albums. Some people might create a similar list based on 500k+ sales or minimum certifications, and I think what I'm seeing here is just the top 25 based on sales alone, right?
• Suddenly I'm seeing note which says "Since September 7, 1992", so this is best sales of the top 25 from the last 25 years. This isn't covered in the lead at all.
• Certification column doesn't sort correctly.
• Note also raises questions over number 25 in the chart, El Hijo del Pueblo which didn't chart at all (apparently) and was release 18 months before the inclusion date specified by the note. It asks questions that should be answered somewhere in the article.
• Sony Discos is linked to two different targets.

That's my lot. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your review TRM. I believe I have addressed most of the issues you brought up. Regarding the certifications, they are based on the numerical value of the certifications by the RIAA. As for El Hijo del Pueblo, the article where the list comes from does not address this and I've searched through Billboard's archives to see if maybe there's any article about it since its release in '91 and found nothing. I did add in the prose that Nielsen SoundScan began tracking sales in the US in '91 which is also the year El Hijo del Pueblo came out, although I understand that doesn't explain why Billboard added it to their list. I can only speculate that those are the sales of the album since September 1992, but that's it. Erick (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Certification col still isn't sorting properly... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Could you explain please? I am confused. Erick (talk) 13:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

It should sort from the lowest certification (Gold) to the highest (59x Plat), it currently does not. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: It's working on my end. If you're referring to El Hijo del Pueblo being first, it's because 2x Disco de platino was for 200,000 at the time it was certified (before December 2013 as mentioned at the footnote at the certification key) which is below standard Gold (500,000). Erick (talk) 13:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I get that (a note would be handy there too), but I get 6x and 8x Plat between Gold and Plat... ( ... 18, 20, 14, 15, 2, 3 ...) when sorted in ascending order... The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hang on. I get it now. Ignore me. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support my issues resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
• @Giants2008:, @PresN:, Any chance of a source review coming soon? Erick (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  Sources look fine to me on a spot check, this is good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks for the source review The Rambling Man! Much appreciated. :) Erick (talk) 13:14, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree with source review, promoting. --PresN 16:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 22:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC) .

Nominator(s):  — Ssven2 07:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

The Tree of Life is a 2011 drama film that shows the origins of the universe and life on Earth as well as the meaning of life through the eyes of a middle-aged architect. The film is notable for receiving several awards and nominations for its director, Terrence Malick, as well as its cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, and Jessica Chastain's performance. It is my eleventh attempt at an accolades FLC and my second attempt at a Hollywood film accolades list. Any constructive comments to improve this list are most welcome.  — Ssven2 07:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• Get rid of the first reference from the opening sentence, looks redundant.
• "..who also co-produced it," --> who is also the co-producer.
• Palm d'Or --> Palme d'Or
• Is the 'see also' section necessary here? If not please get rid of it.
• In refs 33, 42 and 76, you have mentioned the publishers name as HitFlix, but its actually Uproxx.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: It is actually HitFix BTW. The website was purchased by the Uproxx Media Group in 2016. The wikipedia article for HitFix is still here, so I linked it to that. I have resolved your other comments BTW.  — Ssven2 10:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support No issues now. All the best. Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Yashthepunisher: Thank you, Yash. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 10:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Krimuk2.0

I've made a couple of tweaks to the lead, and can now support on prose. Good job! :) --Krimuk2.0 (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@Krimuk2.0: Thank you, Krimuk. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 16:47, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

BeatlesLedTV

• Support – Everything looks good to me. All links are good as well as the table and lead. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

@BeatlesLedTV: Thank you, BeatlesLedTV. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 11:23, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Comments

• Might be worth mentioning the budget to compare with the film's performance at the box-office.

@FrB.TG: I have, Frank. Look again please. :-)  — Ssven2 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, not sure how I missed that.

• "its direction, screenplay, cinematography, editing, visual effects, music, and the performances of Pitt and Chastain" - something is not right here. The way I read it at the moment, it reads sth like, "its direction, its screenplay ... and its the performances". Maybe better as "its direction, screenplay ... and music, as well as the performances of Pitt and Chastain"?

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• "the film received three nominations—Best Picture, Best Director for Malick, and Best Cinematography for Lubezki—winning none" - the "winning none" part is unnecessary.

Done. As asked.  — Ssven2 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Subject to these nitpicks, the list looks almost ready to go. FrB.TG (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: I have hopefully resolved your comments, Frank. Do let me know if there is anything more. Thanks.  — Ssven2 17:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose. FrB.TG (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thank you, Frank. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 09:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support. No need for any additional comments on this – a nice list that meets all the criteria. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Thank you, SchroCat. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 15:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• For the third sentence in the lead’s first paragraph, I think you can start it off by saying “It” rather than the film’s full name. It just seems a little strange to say the full title of the film twice in three sentences when it is not absolutely necessary.
• Do you think that you should include Chastain’s character in the plot summary in the first paragraph, especially since you list her as one of the stars and later point out her performance as getting significant attention from award groups?
• For this part (its direction, screenplay, cinematography, editing, visual effects, and music, as well as the performances of Pitt and Chastain), you need another comma after “Chastain”.
• Do you think that you should include the director when you reference Fahrenheit 9/11, especially if the Palme d’Or is awarded to the director?
• In the Movieguide Awards portion of the table, there is a stray } following Jessica Chastain’s name for the “The Grace Award for Most Inspiring Performance in Movies in 2011” nomination.

Great work with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I have hopefully resolved your comments, Aoba. Do let me know if there is anything more. Thanks.  — Ssven2 06:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for addressing my comments. I support this. If possible, I would greatly appreciate it if you could look at my current FAC? Either way, have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you, Aoba. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 07:51, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Source review –

• All of the sources appear to be sufficiently reliable, and the link-checker shows no issues.
• Refs 23, 37, 65, 68, and 80 have improper all caps in their titles. Otherwise, the formatting looks fine.
• Spot-checks of refs 32, 66, and 84 show no verifiability issues. So, when the all caps are fixed, this can be considered a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

@Giants2008: I have resolved the caps hopefully (BTW, in Ref no. 80, FIPRESCI is an abbreviation, not a word, so I left it as "FIPRESCI" itself). Do let me know if there is anything more. Thanks.  — Ssven2 08:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Support on prose I didn't see any issues with the prose.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Thank you, Wehwalt. Your thoughts and comments are greatly appreciated.  — Ssven2 15:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 22:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Next up, the team list. This is a tiny bit different as pertinent images are few and far between so instead of embedding them sporadically within the list, they adopt a rather more tradional "alongside" positioning. As ever, my undying gratitude to anyone prepared to keep the Laureus ball rolling and I'll get to any and all matters as soon as I can. Yes, I have other FLCs but all have at least three supports, so it's all okay! The Rambling Man (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support – Everything looks good to me. I got no comments or concerns. Great job! Can't wait for the rest of the series. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Another fine job TRM. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• It seems random which refs are archived. I suggest archiving all.

  It probably is. Until such a time that someone can point me to a tool which archives all unarchived links in a single article, I'm going to decline the offer. I'm just using the tool on the History page which is called "fix dead links", it can also add archives (where available). If you know of a tool which can do mass archives, please let me know. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• I use the tool at , which I think Rodw pointed out to me and works for me, although he says it does not work with Historic England links. (It shows a 'missing token' error message, but you can ignore it.) Dudley Miles (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• As you have space on the right for photos, I would have more and fill the space.

• Yes, that's the one I use, it doesn't actually do the archiving, it just uses existing archived pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• On my screen, there is no available space whatsoever, I based it on a width where all the nominations were on indivdual lines, so try stretching your window until that happens, you should see little or no space below the Cubs image. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• All looks good apart from these nit picks. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Dudley Miles, thanks for your comments, I've responded above. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 16:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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.

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 Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 22:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): Harrias , The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Based off the similar Laureus World Sports Award for Sportswoman of the Year, which is well on its way to becoming a FL, this list honours those disabled athletes who have excelled. I have an open FLC, Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates/Ruth Lyttle Satter Prize in Mathematics/archive1, but that has three supports and no outstanding comments. Harrias 10:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support – I got no other comments or concerns. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 16:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• Support Great job Harrias and TRM. Look forward to seeing the rest of the series come to FLC. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

• I have no other issues I wish to bring up so I will give my unequivocal Support. Cheers. MWright96 (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Support Comments from JennyOz

Hi TRM and Harrias, here are my first comments/questions.

• Infobox, Awarded for - formats differ ie Sportswoman, Sportsman, Team, Breakthrough, Comeback, Sport for Good, and Spirit, all have quotes and ref but Disability, Action, and Lifetime do not.

• Prose, First sentence - "Paralympic sports" is piped to Disabled sports. Laureuas talks of "sport in the Paralympic programme" which I presume means a disabled athlete, competing in a sport which would not normally be an event type at summer or winter Paralympics, cannot be eligible to be nominated? If so, why do we pipe to Disabled sports which includes intellectual disabilities eg Special Olympics, Invictus Games and "unified sports" ie teams that include members with and without disabilities. Remove pipe and simply link to Paralympic sports?
• "The Laureus World Sports Academy then select the winner" - selects?
• "The first winner of the award was the Australian wheelchair racer, Louise Sauvage, who had won three medals, at the 2000 Sydney Paralympics" - not sure if the comma after "medals" is needed
• "In 2002, Esther Vergeer, a wheelchair tennis..." insert Dutch?
• Esther Vergeer - "... Vergeer won 470 matches in a row, collecting... " - her records were over career til she retired 2013 but this could read as if she'd achieved them before the 2002 award. Maybe insert "over her career" or "who went on to win" or "before retiring in 2013" or similar?
• "... Daniel Dias has the most wins, collecting the prize three times,... " - add "with a further three nominations" or similar?
• Dias "collecting the prize three times,..." - prize should be award?
• "...while Michael Teuber has been nominated..." - add 'German' and 'racing cyclist'?
• "...Michael Teuber has been nominated the most without winning, doing so on four occasions." - doing so should be 'being so'?
• "The 2004 winner, Earle Connor..." - add Canadian sprinter?
• Connor - ref 12 ("Earle Connor (Rescinded)") only says the award was rescinded (not also the nomination) this and this?
• "Swimmers have been the most successful at the awards, with 5 wins and 20 nominations," - I'm only seeing 4 and 18
• "... followed by athletics with 4 wins and 25 nominations." - I count 6 wins and 26 noms? (or if reduced for Connor, 5 and 25, and, if so, does prose sentence need a note?)

Am starting on tables now:) Regards, JennyOz (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

JennyOz hi Jenny, thanks for that, all addressed I hope. Look forward to the table review. Don't mention the cricket. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Part 2...

• infobox - is missing Laureus website

  Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Table key - "... was later rescindeded" - typo

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Main table - all winners, wlinks, flags, nationality, sport, sorting - all checked

  Cool, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• 2014 Marie Bochet - photo says it's of Petra Kozickova of Slovakia but maybe mislabelled?

  Yes, a Google image search substantiates it's not Petra (who looks like this) and is indeed Marie. I'll confirm with the uploader and suggest the file details are changed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Winners' sports

2002 Sauvage, 2005 Petitclerc, 2006 van Dyk - pipe their Athletics to Wheelchair racing?

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Nominations - possible pipes (is this correct to do in prep for future articles? If not, please ignore.)

Schwarzenbach, Teuber x 4, Otxoa , Kenny x 2, Storey x 2, Zanardi, Gautier, du Preez - pipe Cycling to Paralympic cycling?

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Petitclerc, Blauwet, Tähti, Fearnley x 2, Hunkeler, Weir x2, Hug x 2, McFadden - pipe to Athletics to Wheelchair racing?

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Girişmen - Paralympic archery

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Alan Fontelles /Fonteles / is listed on Laureus as Alan Oliveira. There was a RM consensus on talk page 2013 that it should be at Oliviera but was moved back Dec 2016. Should this Laureus page at least use Alan Oliveira which is what the ref uses?

  Yes, we'll use the Laureus ref as source here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

(Not sure why Laureus has Petushkov as Nordic skiing. In Sochi 2014 he won 3 gold in each of cross country and biathlon. Not our problem though.)

(Indeed... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC))

• Refs - all years' winners and nominations verified with working refs

ref 19 Andrew Baker telegraph piece date is 23 may

ref 43 teamusa, byline says International Paralympic Committee

Both done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Statistics

Key - swap "Indicates total(s) exclude those of individuals whose award(s) and/or nomination(s) were later rescinded" for the simpler "Indicates totals which exclude rescissions" per Comeback?

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• Statistics tables

Winners by nationality - OK

Nominations by nationality

RSA 1 - should be 2

GER 8 - 7

SUI 3 - 4

NZL 1 - 2

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Winners by sport

Swimming 5/20 - should be 4/18

Alpine skiing 3/5 - 3/6

Cycling 0/11 - 0/13

Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Multiples - all OK

Sorting - all seems OK

Template - matches list

That's me done. Thanks both, JennyOz (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

JennyOz Hi again Jenny, thanks once again, I thik I've addressed all the issues. Do late me know if there's anyting else I've overlooked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic. Happy to sign for support. JennyOz (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

• 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) 18:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)