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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2016 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): Saqib (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all of the FL criteria and so has great potential to become a Featured List. it is one of the most important lists in the scope of WikiProject Pakistan. It has good lead and prose and is referenced as per the referencing guidelines. Saqib (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dharmadhyaksha

Good to see a different type of list being nominated here. But this needs a lot of work and raises many a basic doubts.

• So this is a list of MNAs as on 1 June 2013, the oath-taking day or has it been updated for current statues also. Means have some people vacated their seats for any reason; maybe removed/resigned from party, or death, or anything such?
• Not understanding how the sections are arranged? Why aren;t they alphabetic? Use full form of FATA in section names.
• If notes column of most entries is empty then get rid of it.
• Some guys have Dr. behind their name which could be skipped.
• One woman has Mrs. behind here name which can be dropped.
• If you are using only one ref for whole table then it need not be in each row.
• Lead is quite week and needs more info.
• What do you mean by "70 reserved seats for women and religious minorities". Are they not elected? If not then how are they selected?
• "..marked the historic constitutional transition of power from one democratically-elected government to next for the first time in the history of Pakistan". So what was happening before that should be mentioned.

More comments might come... §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Dharmadhyaksha: Thank you for reviewing the list. Please find answers to your question below,

• This is a list of MNAs as on 3 August, 2016. MNA's who were elected during 2013 general elections and have left their seats are not mentioned in the list. I just replaced them with new ones. I don't know where to mention those MNA's, maybe in the notes?
• Sections are now arranged in alphabetical order.
• Notes column could be removed but if we can use them for mentioning MNA's who left since.
• Titles Dr. and Mrs. have been removed.
• References removed from each row.
• I will work on lead section.
• The 70 seats reserved for women and religious minorities are allocated to the political parties according to their proportional representation.

Anything else? --Saqib (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Update: Point # 1 has been resolved. Former members are now added to list under List_of_members_of_the_14th_National_Assembly_of_Pakistan#Membership_changes. --Saqib (talk) 11:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support – I'm now comfortable that this list meets FL standards. Good work. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Source review pass, I'm not going to bother writing the specifics. Promoting. --PresN 21:26, 21 September 2016 (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) 00:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Josephine Butler is a fascinating and important character in the history of women's rights. A tireless and forceful feminist and social reformer, she campaigned for women's suffrage, the right to better education, the end of coverture in British law, the end of child prostitution and against the human trafficking of young women and children into European prostitution. Her biggest victory was against the Contagious Diseases Acts, a discriminatory law that enforced medical examination on any woman accused of being a prostitute (without any evidence being needed); she described the examination as surgical or steel rape. This is a new list (Butler's biography is at PR at the moment); any and all constructive comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Cassianto

• There is a lot of use of the word "biographer/biography" in the last para of the lede. Everything else looks great. Cassianto 15:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
• Cheers Cass: tweaked a few of them out - how does it look now? - Gavin (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support − looks fine, good work. Cassianto 21:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Montanabw

• File:Josephine Elizabeth Butler (née Grey) by George Frederic Watts.jpg has a tag that it's under the National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute. My understanding is that they also uploaded a number of lower-resolution images that are not subject to this dispute. Perhaps this image can be replaced.

• Given SNUGGUMS's comment about too many, I've removed it altogether. - Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• All other images appear to be fine.
• Citations check out
• Mathers does not appear to be used in the footnotes, except in a double footnote at 3 -- are both sources required there to verify the material?

• Two parts to the sentence, with a source for each part. – Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• I do note that paragraph one of the lead has the first several sentences sourced to two sources placed at the second-to-last sentence. Is it possible to parse out which parts of that paragraph are attributable to which source, or are they so intertwined in each sentence that this is not possible?

• I could possibly break out some of the parts into separate bits, but we'd be left with "five words six words ten words words seven words five words", which would jar a little. The 'big picture' leads of peoples lives are great in articles (where the refs are in the body), but to break them down into chunks in a list means either too many duplicated refs, or combining them at the end of a para. - Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• • It's a Catch-22, for sure... I've done it both ways. Where they really are merged, I can live with your decision there; beats "Allsortsof stuff from one source and Allsortsofstuff from the other source." Montanabw 07:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• Not sure I care for the quote box sandwiched in with the images running along the side of the charts; it may be more suitable for the lead section, either under the main image or left-justified a bit below. That or put it at the top or bottom. As it sits, it appears out of context, as different width screens place it in varying proximity with the entries on the list.

• I've moved the quote into the caption; at least it'll ensure any less-than-welcome attention from my stalkers about the use of a QB. (Although I'm sure they'll find something else to complain about....) - Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• I use quote boxes all the time, not an issue for me. Montanabw 07:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

All for now. Montanabw 22:09, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Montana. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 08:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Montanabw 07:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I now support following the improvements made. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

• That's great: many thanks indeed. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Support Lovely looking list, which certainly looks to meet all of the criteria.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Comments - since I'm persona not grata, or will be by Christmas, I feel duty bound to spend some of my final days antagonising the outgoing FLC delegate with as many nit-picky comments as I can muster in the few moments I have between changing nappies (not mine, you understand). SO, stand by for a right old rollocking.

• You link "feminism" but not "women's rights". I would put them on a par so perhaps both or neither.
• " The death of her daughter Eva..." presumably since this pushed her on to campaigning, her death had something to do with the movements she advocated, could you expand in a sentence or two for context?
• "surgical or steel rape" should that be in quote marks?
• Again, a linky thing, if you feel inclined to link prostitute, I would urge you to consider linking monograph, the latter being far less common in my life than the former.
• "thought was probably" thought or actually wrote?
• "Over a period of 40 years Butler wrote 90 books and pamphlets, " we had this conversation at DYK. I think this needs to be softened, e.g. at least 40 years, more than 90...?
• "Butler wrote a biography of her husband George after his death." would suggest (pictured) after George.
• "Bust of Butler in 1865, aged 36, by Alexander Munro" she was born in 1828, so where's the ref for her being "aged 36" and not "aged 37"?
• How can year of first publication for a monthly publication be "1898–1900"? Surely it's just 1898?

And that is all. May you always have a pot to piss in. My utmost regards to your sterling work and your good humour and your magnificent assistance in helping me create 157 good articles in just a few days over one year, more good work in two days than most "Wikipedians" put into their entire "career" here. Don't be a stranger. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

• Cheers TRM: all tweaked and re-worked per your suggestions. Thanks also for your very kind words: much appreciated. Cheers - Gavin (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• No worries. I hereby support the candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Not much I could do on the source review, but passing. So, sadly, promoting this list. Don't go, SchroCat! --PresN 21:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks PresN – it's been great working with you, but the enjoyment has been ground out of me over time, I'm afraid. I'm leaving while I'm just about still ahead of the trolls and stalkers! Cheers – Gavin (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2016 (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) 00:30, 22 September 2016 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): Charles Turing (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Instituted by Government of Kerala, the J. C. Daniel Award is the highest honour in Malayalam cinema. I hope this prestigious award will find a spot in the Featured Lists of English Knowledge (XXG). Looking for some constructive suggestions. Charles Turing (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• "is the highest award in Malayalam cinema." says who?
  • It is a Kerala government award. Changed to "Kerala's highest award in Malayalam cinema".--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• Was it not awarded in 2015? If not, then this should be explained. If so, then the article needs updating.
  • 2015 award is yet to announce.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 2015 award has announced, updated.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• "hosted the award. " prefer citations in numerical order.
  • Done.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• For the 2003 award, I don't really know what " due to some technical corrections" means.
  • Source says "The award should have been given for 2003, but was being updated to 2004 as part of a technical correction and would carry a cash prize of Rs. 1 lakh and a citation,".--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Can you find any other sources to expand on what this "technical correction" really was? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Puzzle solved. The technical correction was updating the prize money. The source does not mention about the prize hike. Additional source added for that. Thanks Rambling Man. I actually missed that point.--Charles Turing (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
• No images at all for this?
  • Unfortunately not.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • An image added.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
• In table No Award -> No award
  • Done.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing major really, just a few comments and queries. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Also worth checking that every recipient in the list links to this article, if, after all, it is the highest award they are likely to obtain... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Sorry for the late reply. It was not a delay. I just saw your comment now.--Charles Turing (talk) 09:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment; don't link India; MoS discourages to link well-known cities and countries. FrB.TG (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Unlinked.--Charles Turing (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support, The Rambling Man left zilch for me to pick up on. A comprehensive list with a well-written prose and reliale sources. Great work! FrB.TG (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the support FrB.TG.--Charles Turing (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support Ditto, I've read through the prose and couldn't spot and issues. This list is comprehensive, well written, and the sources all check out. Well done! JAGUAR  10:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Jaguar I appreciate it. Charles Turing (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support Nothing to fault here. You could possibly consider adding Alt text for the image, though the caption does much the same job in this case anyway. Harrias 09:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Source Review

• Formatting: You don't need "staff reporter" or "correspondent" or any of that- the author fields are for specific, named people
• Spotchecks: pass
• Completeness: pass

Only issue is the minor formatting problem; I've just gone ahead an done it myself so that this nomination can pass. --PresN 21:22, 21 September 2016 (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) 00:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): dannymusiceditor 22:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've been working on this a good bit and made massive expansions to the lead, and otherwise think that the article is well formed, helpful, and adherent to the FL criteria, for the most part. I will need this to be an FL if I wish for the studio albums to be a good topic. Evanescence is an icon in 2000s alternative metal (or generally "Modern Rock", for those reviewers who are uninformed) and I've taken it upon myself to improve their articles as best I can.

This is my first FL candidate, and I'm not entirely sure if it's perfect. I had my first GAN fail too, so I can only learn from experience. If anything is currently amiss, it'll be fixed within the next few days. I know there are two things that I will fix:

Dead links will be done in a strafing run tomorrow, and the chart positions for Going Under and Lithium should be changed to reflect Bubbling Under per WP:USCHARTS. (now resolved) Otherwise, I want to get more comment because I'm sure it's pretty close. dannymusiceditor 22:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• Quick drive-by comment to remind me to come back later: the ref for the UK chart in the singles table only covers top 75 positions, and therefore the number 174 position for "Lost in Paradise" is unsourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Resolved with a citebundle. dannymusiceditor 17:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

• "In early 2003, the band released the Mystary EP, and released their debut full-length album Fallen in March." Wouldn't this be better as: "In early 2003, the band released the Mystary EP, with their debut full-length album Fallen following in March." to avoid the use of "released" twice in the same sentence?
• Under the Promotional singles section, both "Imaginary" and "Missing" need citations (you can cite the liner notes)
• For the Other appearances table, change the text style from center to left.
• Also, remove the entries for "Bring Me to Life" and "My Immortal" from the Other appearances table. Per WP:DISCOGSTYLE: "What should not be included ... previously-released material used on soundtracks, trailers, commercials, or any other compilation releases." Yeepsi (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

All resolved, thanks for your comments! dannymusiceditor 17:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Yeepsi (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• "Very few copies of these copies were made" - need better wording here

How did I not notice that? Something I missed during expansion. dannymusiceditor 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• ""Bring Me to Life" and "My Immortal" managed to peak in the top ten" - why not just "peaked in the top ten"?

Done. dannymusiceditor 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• You refer to their first album having sold so many copies, and the second so many units. Are these the same thing?

Done. Actually, I should've fixed that a bit ago. I learned on Tuesday they are not the same. dannymusiceditor 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• "managed to attain chart success" - again, don't see the need for "managed to"

Done with this and a few other instances it appeared. dannymusiceditor 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Other appearances table is unsourced

Done. dannymusiceditor 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Don't see the need for the "type" column in the videos table, no other such articles have this

Done. dannymusiceditor 01:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Hope this helps, ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: All done. dannymusiceditor 01:23, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support - the demo album and EP tables are unsourced, but I'm guessing they are covered by refs in the lead........... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll put references next to those too. --DME's phone, 9:39 EST

Conducting it since one has been requested at the top of WP:FLC

• You're very inconsistent as to when you're linking the publisher in refs; usually you do it on the earliest instance, but sometimes you either overlink or never link (Billboard, MTV News, ). You should be consistent.

Done. Didn't know overlinking in the references was a thing. dannymusiceditor 20:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Some formatting: MTV News needs no italics. Billboard.com should read Billboard and Allmusic should read AllMusic. australian-charts.com → ARIA Charts

Done. The ARIA one would actually be Hung Medien, that URL just randomly got jammed in there. I assume everything MTV is excluded from italics, then? dannymusiceditor 20:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't see anything done. MTV News is still in italics, it's still Billboard.com. Publishers should be linked on first instance but I don't see that in ref 3, 4, 10. FrB.TG (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

My bad. I wrote this before I saved this. I lost power at some point last night, so I never saved it. Apologies. '^^ dannymusiceditor 21:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Completeness: check.
• For the music videos, convert the external links to references.

Should there be a publisher? If so, how would it be written? Also, should I add the date it was published to YouTube in the date parameter? I've never had to cite YouTube. dannymusiceditor 20:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

It shouldn't be very difficult: <ref>{{cite AV media|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YxaaGgTQYM|title=Evanescence - Bring Me To Life|accessdate=September 9, 2016|publisher=Evanscene}}</ref>

• Spot-checked the YouTube sources (all of them come straight from the horse's mouth) and ref 1-10. Ref 1 says that the band has sold "close to 25 million" whereas the article says "more than 25 million". Is Rockonthenet a credible source?

To be clear, is there anything wrong with the YouTube sources? I don't know if "straight from the horse's mouth" is a good thing or not, I've never heard that phrase. (If emphasis is necessary, yes, really.) dannymusiceditor 20:19, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment RockOnTheNet definitely isn't reliable and should be replaced wherever used Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

There are no issues with the YouTube sources, but other ones need to be resolved. FrB.TG (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I can confirm that this one is now resolved. dannymusiceditor 03:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

• No dead links. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: I believe I have completed your requests. Did I miss anything this time? The person that was previously involved with everything Evanescence (see their page here) did it the long way and defined all the references at the bottom (I hate when I have to dig through all those!). So it's very possible I missed some. But I did my best to fix them and will correct any further mistakes immediately. dannymusiceditor 00:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

This is unrelated to references, but all the tables need to meet MOS:DTT, not a few. FrB.TG (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It's still unclear to me what you'd like to happen. I've no idea what's wrong with the tables, I compared them to In Flames discography, Slipknot discography, Disturbed discography and Paramore discography and I see nothing missing (though, admittedly, the Disturbed one does have other problems). dannymusiceditor 20:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what or how they are, you should be consistent with the !scope="row" in tables. – FrB.TG (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so now I see what you're trying to get me to fix. But I still don't know how to fix that. Which part is it that you're even referring to? Are they within the same subsection, or are you speaking about something otherwise? I'm still confused. Remember, this is my first FLC. '^^ dannymusiceditor 01:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Should have been more clear. You see how there's "Title" first before "Year" in the singles section and there's a slide gray shade in entries under "Title". That's what you get by applying !scope="row" to them before writing the titles. See, for instance, Taylor Swift discography; it has that in every table and is consistent with them. You should be too. FrB.TG (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You mean make the promos and officials' years consistent? I do notice that is different now. I can fix that ASAP, but I'm busy with life right now. I have to limit my Wiki time. dannymusiceditor 00:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I took the liberty of making the asked changes myself (based on other FL-class discographies) since I feel like I wasn't being clear enough. One can always revert my edits if disagreed with. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support - I have made some major edits in the process, but I don't think they are major enough to affect my support. Good luck. – FrB.TG (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for my density when it comes to list formatting. Thanks for the help and support! dannymusiceditor 01:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That's no problem. I like to help new users at FLC since WP formatting can be a giant pain in the ass. Given that it's your very first, you did just fine. FrB.TG (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2016 (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) 21:03, 18 September 2016 (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) 00:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all required criteria. I would love any questions or comments. Thanks. Carbrera (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I now support since things are looking better Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This is the only comment that I have for the article. Other than that, I support this and believe it is ready to become a featured list. Make sure to update this when Stefani makes future releases as I have noticed a few articles similar to this fall behind. Aoba47 (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I fixed all of your concerns @Aoba47:. Thanks as always. Carbrera (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course. I am very impressed by the work put into this article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support – Did some script assisted fixes, and other than that no qualms at all. —IB 13:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support — Large comprehensive list, without any flaws I can find. Chrishonduras (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
• Support Everything looks great. Just add a note or a key to explain what "TBA" stands for and why it has a blue background.--Cheetah (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Crzycheetah: I took your suggestion. Thanks for the feedback! Carbrera (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC).

• Support this candidate. TheKaphox (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Mymis: I addressed both issues. Thanks for your comments. Carbrera (talk) 20:52, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Very good, you have my support; great work! Mymis (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support The list is well-written, has a table that is easy to read, and the above issues have been addressed. Good job! Erick (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Delegate note to reviewers: (pinging @Chrishonduras, TheKaphox, and Magiciandude: specifically so they see it) - This list is pretty solid, from a brief glance. That said, bare reviews like "Looks great, support!" are generally discounted by delegates because they give the impression that the reviewer did not read the list in detail, and it actually hurts the nomination because it leads more in-depth reviewers to avoid the nomination because the count is high. I'm not saying that you didn't review properly- like I said, there aren't any glaring errors in this list. But we have had issues at FLC before specifically with discography lists with large numbers of supports for lists that later reviewers find major issues with, so when I saw that this nomination has 8 supports- double the next highest nom- I wanted to make sure that everyone understands that reviews need to be substantive, not just a vote. --PresN 16:32, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Conducting it since one has been requested at the top of WP:FLC:

• Formatting: since you are linking publishers only on earliest instance, you should de-link Billboard from ref 26 and any other/s I have missed.
• Spot-check: ref 1-5, and a few others here and there. No issues.
• Completeness: check.
• No dead links.

Impressive work. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thanks! Fixed the issue above! Carbrera (talk) 02:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Perfect! FrB.TG (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2016 (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) 21:11, 11 September 2016 (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) 00:31, 12 September 2016 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): —IB 12:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think this is a complete list of all the awards and the nominations received by the 1996 American musical film, Evita, based on the original musical and directed by Alan Parker. Please feel free to go through the article and let me know if you have any concern else if its free to be promoted as a featured list. Please note that this is my first nomination so I apologize before hand if I have made any mistakes —IB 12:11, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I now support; everything looks good. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:51, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you :) —IB 08:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Source review

• Ref formatting consistent.
• Spotcheck - did so on about 10 sources and found source 7 to be unnecessary as it supports nothing.
• This reveals no sign of copyvio, though it does score high on the IMDb source but they are all the titles of the categories.
• No dead links.

Support - I made some tweaks, removed some unnecessary information and have provided a source review above with a question about a source. Other than that, it's a good list by an experienced editor. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you FrB. The reference 7 I added to support the fact that ACE has listed the url for Ref 8 in their website. —IB 08:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Support – However, there seems to be a script issue involved the "currentyear" in brackets in the lead's second paragraph. I would fix it myself but I'm afraid I don't necessarily see the problem. Carbrera (talk) 02:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you Carbrera, but can you let me know what is the issue? Because I could not see any physical error in the article? —IB 08:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Gotcha! —IB 08:05, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose It's a very nice list, unfortunately it completely fails 3b of the criteria. This table can reasonably be included as part of this section. There is no WP:PAGESIZE problems that I can see. Even worse is that this list is larger than the original article. So, the table should be transferred to the main article's appropriate section. --Cheetah (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @Crzycheetah:, once the original article is expanded for GA, which it will be eventually, the list will be too large to be included there. This is a conscious decision to split the list of the article before such problem arises, and has been done for countless award articles for films. I would suggest you peruse of these kind of lists. —IB 10:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • @FLC director and delegates: Asking the FLC delegates for their comment on this also along with other reviewers who had already commented. @SNUGGUMS:, @FrB.TG:, @Carbrera: and @Cowlibob:. —IB 10:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • First, let's not get ahead of ourselves, the main article currently is far from being a GA. Expecting that someday the main article will be improved violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. Second, there are many FAs that have the awards list on their main articles, examples: Changeling (film), The Mummy (1999 film), Pride & Prejudice (2005 film), Prometheus (2012 film) and so on.--Cheetah (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
      • The examples you gave are all classic CONTENTFORK violation if the award list would have been separate. Not this one. —IB 18:18, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
        • What difference do you see? Anyway, this is borderline and I am going to lean on the consensus.--Cheetah (talk) 01:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
• On balance I would say that there is no 3b violation here: there is more tabulated information here than I would comfortably expect to see in an article. To ensure there are no problems in future, I'd remove the list on the Evita (1996 film) page and replace it with a prose paragraph or two with the general points and one or two of the key awards. Others may see it differently, of course... - Gavin (talk) 10:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I was just thinking of doing that Schrocat haha, and you commented here. Anyways, I believe the prose in the main article is better than the list like how I replaced with this edit. —IB 10:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
    • Definitely no violation of FL criteria. Using prose in main article was also a good choice. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Changing the list to prose on the main article definitely helped this list avoid violating WP:CONTENTFORK.--Cheetah (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2016 (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) 21:05, 11 September 2016 (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) 00:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): Mymis (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating it for featured list because I do believe that it passes the FL criteria. The article includes a list of various awards and nominations received by popular American television sitcom Parks and Recreation that aired on NBC. Mymis (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

• Be consistent with whether you use the Oxford comma.
• ”The Online Film & Television Association Award honors the achievements in film and television.” “The Peabody Award recognizes the excellence in various platforms of the media.” Lose the definite articles and maybe be more specific, especially on the first one.
• The show is described by the award association as: “ Parks and Recreation has crafted…” doesn't make sense as a sentence.
• Parks and Recreation has five nominations: three times…” are we talking nominations or times nominated? --JFH (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe I fixed the issues. Do you have any further comments? Thanks! Mymis (talk)

Looks good, I support. I reviewed the images and they appear to be appropriately lisenced (btw I find the pic of Poehler at the Peabody Awards in shorts hilarious). The sources look fine on the face of it. Awards associations might be considered primary sources but these are not controversial claims. --JFH (talk) 18:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Support – nothing problematic stands out, satisfies the criteria on style and comprehensiveness. Lemonade51 (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Support Good list. Cowlibob (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Support – The article is well-rounded and well-referenced. Carbrera (talk) 03:46, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support with a couple of issues
  • The sitcom was nominated for, and won, a variety of different awards, including fifteen Primetime Emmy Award nominations - "and won" should be removed or just be reworded differently
  • When you mentioned Paul Rudd in the lead, I think you should mention how he relates to the series

--Cheetah (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I dealt with the issues, thank you for your support! Mymis (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Source Review

• Formatting: Passed; do note that if you have an archive on a citation where the url is still live, if you put "|deadurl=no" it will change from "archive link. Archived from the original" to "original link. Archived from the original", so that the first link is to the (faster loading) live site.
• Spotchecks: checked refs 8, 28, 43, 64, 65, 66; refs 64-66 do not mention parks and rec at all. They do not show anything about the nominations at all, actually, and 65 is about Scandal winning a different category all together.
• Completeness: Pass.

The TV guide references need to be fixed before this can pass. --PresN 16:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at my article. I dealt with the reference formatting. Not sure about the TV Guide awards, I think I transferred them from the main article when created the award article; the current refs only have winners listed, not the nominees, however, I cannot find appropriate refs now, only IMDb which probably are not very reliable tho. I probably have to remove the award from the article. Mymis (talk) 10:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, if no sources note the nominees, then it's not that notable of an award. Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 01:20, 8 September 2016 (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) 00:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Bridge of Spies was a highlight of 2015 particularly for Mark Rylance's portrayal of a KGB spy. It received many awards and nominations which are listed here. As always look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 12:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

You have my support. I have an open FLC as well, it'd be great if you take a look. Great work; good luck! Mymis (talk) 17:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Krimuk90

• "..release of the captured American pilot.... for the convicted KGB spy".
• "..particular praise for Rylance's portrayal of Abel". We know that Rylance portrayed Abel from the first paragraph, so that part of the sentence is unnecessary.
• I have corrected the incorrect use of commas. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

@Krimuk90: Thanks for the review. Have made the fixes. Cowlibob (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Support --Krimuk|90 (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Support Nice piece of work. - Gavin (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Source Review

• Formatting: Pass, though note if you put "|deadurl=no" in an archived citation, it flips the links so that the first link is to the live page instead of the archive.
• Spotchecks: checked refs 4, 18, 34, 42; all pass
• Compleness: Pass

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:16, 6 September 2016 (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) 00:32, 5 September 2016 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Raymond Chandler was an excellent author who struggled initially with writing in the 'hard-boiled' style for which he is best known. This list has been re-written with new material added, and all constructive,comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Support. Only two, very minor comments, both to do with the lead section:

• "British-American" – I see from the main Chandler article that he took British nationality in 1907. If that means that he was hitherto an American citizen, I think perhaps British-American would be better switched round to American-British, though the point is not of great importance.
• For the Williams quote in the final sentence of the introduction, I think the prose would flow more smoothly if you moved the opening quotation marks three words to the right, beginning the direct quote with "a touchstone..".

That's all I can find to throw in. Clear, well laid out, thoroughly sourced and referenced, and doubtless comprehensive. Happy to support promotion. Tim riley talk 15:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim. Your suggestions happily adopted. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• Looks fine. A few minor comments.
• Why no pictures? There is the photo in the article on him and a (small) commons category on him.

• The pic on the article is a non-free one, so we can't use it. The two images on Commons are of a house and blue plaque, which doesn't really illuminate readers. I'll have a look at Double Indemnity images, but we're moving away from the books a bit with those. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I think that a bit more on his early background would be helpful, particularly his travels. For example "Born in Chicago, Illinois, he was educated at Dulwich College from 1900." seems a non-sequitur.

• Yep, I'll add a little more to clarify. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• How does this look now? - SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Is it worth commenting on the change in his output - poems and essays up to 1912 but almost none thereafter?

• I didn't come across any explanation for it, but I'll dig through the sources again to see if there is something interesting in there we can use. - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• How does this look now? - SchroCat (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I am uneasy about having writings by and about him in the same section. I would suggest splitting the first section in two.

• Is this in the Miscellany section? All the works there are by him, even if edited by others. The Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe work does contain more of other people's work than Chandler's, but there is an original work in there. Are there any in particular that you feel would be best removed? - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I meant "Publications in periodicals and newspapers". Some of the interviews such as "Raymond Chandler Talks of James Bond" and "A Confession by Raymond Chandler" sound as if they were written by a journalist who interviewed Chandler. If he was interviewing someone else, this should be made clear. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Ah, OK. All those interviews are listed in the main source, so I'm a little uncomfortable excluding them (it feels like we're applying too much editorial judgement if we exclude). What I've done to clarify the matter is to state that RC was interviewd by a journalist, which should at least clear up the matter in people's minds. These interviews should be mostly RC's words, even if interspersed with any background provided by the journo. Does this sound OK? - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Well on that point I disagree. I cannot see that it is exercising too much editorial judgment to arrange material differently. I think it would be better to have a separate section for (say) "Interviews with Chandler". The comments quoted would have been chosen by the writer, and might have quoted him inaccurately or misleadingly. Of course as you are now making this clear in the notes it is a minor point. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• OK - I've split the interviews out into a second table in that section. Does that work OK? - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• No change needed, but is there any evidence that he knew Wodehouse? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure they did, but I do hope so. Odd though it may seem, there are some similarities between theirphrasing from time to time! - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Dudley. I'll work on some extra text to add to the background. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks again Dudley Miles. I've addressed your points again, and added new material. Please let me know your thoughts. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Support. A fine article. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks again Dudley Miles. As per the above, I've split the interviews out into a second table in that section, which should be better. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Review by PresN

• I... have nothing. That's a complete first, for me; I guess you've gotten these bibliographies down cold now. Support, and as I did a source review in an attempt to find something to complain about, also Source Review passed. --PresN 19:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• LOL! Many thanks PresN – much appreciated. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 20:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support I just want you to make the following three edits please:
  1. "I'll Be Waiting" was published in October (not December).
  2. "The Bronze Door" was published in the Unknown (magazine).
  3. Link San Diego Evening Tribune to The San Diego Union-Tribune to avoid that glaring red link.

--Cheetah (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Many thanks Crzycheetah! All now sorted. The Tribune wasn't a red link when I wrote this, and I see the page was deleted for what I always think is the weakest of reasons: it was created by a blocked user. Your suggested link works admirably tho. Many thanks indeed. Cheers – Gavin (talk) 07:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, even though I supported this, since someone else has also supported, SchroCat can't promote his own list, and no one else is available, I'm going to close this as promoted. --PresN 03:42, 4 September 2016 (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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): JFH (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Vermigli was a lesser-known Reformation theologian whose influence was widespread thanks to his nomadic career. This list includes all his known published works. I've also nominated Vermigli's biographical article for FA. JFH (talk) 18:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment by 3family

The list is very well supported by sources, and well formatted. The problem I have with this list is the massive lead attached to it. If the list itself were quite long and extensive, then the lead would be fine, as it would be summarizing a large amount of listed content. But the list itself isn't very large, and so the lead is far, far too long. Would it be possible to work much of the prose into the list sections (e.g., move the content about his minor works and letters into the relevant section)?.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. I'm also nominating a featured list candidate, List of awards and nominations received by Lecrae, which I would like feedback on. I know that this might be out of your comfort zone, though it just occurred to me that Lecrae is Reformed and thus might be of interest. Thanks regardless, --3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I agree, let me know what you think of it now. --JFH (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

That looks a lot better now! I'm Supporting this article's promotion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

• Comments

• Images should use alt text for screen-reader access
• It may be a holdover from reworking the lead, but some of the section prose is very light on links that might be useful; this isn't necessary but linking things like the biblical books or the names of people like Calvin or Luther.
• A follow-up to this, names like Martin Luther should be given in full on their first post-lead mention, then taken back to surnames thereafter.
• Kirksville, MO should read Missouri in full
• Is there a given source for the short Latin titles used? The ellipses seem an unusual styling so I'm assuming there's a set standard being used here, can we provide a reference for it (a note like your existing note a, appended at the column header for the short titles)?

• I used the short titles from the Donnelly and Kingdon bibliography, a reference for which is provided after each title. I don't have the bibliography in front of me, and I can't recall if any explanation for abbreviation is given. Often what's being cut is Vermigli's name and title. For example in the Judges commentary title "D. Petri Martyris Vermilii Florentini, professoris divinarum literarum in schola Tigurina" --JFH (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

• That's fine, but a note explaining that the source is also where the title comes from would be useful. As it is the source just looks like it's used to cite the existence of the work, and that would be fine if the field was just "Title"; but when you use "Short title" it makes it clear that this is an adjustment of the original and it's worth showing who made that adjustment. GRAPPLE 00:04, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I added a note. --JFH (talk) 01:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Otherwise this seems fine to me, a thorough look at the subject and with plenty of context to it; the list tables themselves are adequately handled as well. GRAPPLE 13:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I've addressed all these. --JFH (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Works for me. I'm happy to support this nomination. GRAPPLE 18:43, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Review by PresN

Recusing myself as a delegate.

• The paragraphs in the lead are quite short, and may work better merged into 2 paragraphs. Additionally, p1 ends with "He lectured on the Bible", while p2 starts with "Vermigli was primarily a professor of the Bible", causing repetition and linking on the second instance of Bible. Additionally, the lead talks about his posthumous works, and then goes backwards to talk about earlier works, some sentences get a bit choppy, and there's some ambiguous pronouns. I think the lead would be better reworked as (links removed):

Peter Martyr Vermigli (8 September 1499 – 12 November 1562) was a Reformed theologian of the Reformation period. Born in Florence, he fled Italy to avoid the Roman Inquisition in 1542. He lectured in Strasbourg, Zürich and at the University of Oxford. Vermigli was primarily a professor of the Bible, especially the Old Testament. His lectures on I Corinthians, Romans, Judges, Kings, Genesis, and Lamentations were turned into commentaries.

Beginning in 1549, Vermigli became involved in controversy regarding the Eucharist. He published his disputation with Catholics at Oxford University over this issue along with a tract on the subject. He later wrote treatises against Catholics as well as Lutherans. After Vermigli's death, Robert Masson collected the doctrinal passages scattered throughout his commentaries into a systematic theology called the Loci Communes, which became Vermigli's most well-known work.

• "Major theological and philosophical works" does not link Eucharist.
• Is there any way to link the items in the Peter Martyr Library to the original works with an "Original work(s)" column? Or are too many of them a hodgepodge of different publications and letters grouped by theme?

--PresN 20:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Source Review

• Formatting: I've never seen a sources section done like that, with indentations and longdashes to blank out repeated authors of works. Huh. Not sure I like the dashes, though presumably it's not something you invented. Anyways: "McLelland 2009a" has wandered off to between Hobbs and Kirby, which makes McLelland 2009b look like Lim 2009b... which is the downside of this dash thing. Speaking of dashes, the last book, Zuidema 2008, needs one.
• Spotchecks: Since all of the sources are locked in purchase-needed books... I'm going to take your word for it.
• Completeness: Nothing seems obviously missing.

--PresN 20:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much PresN. I added some notes only where the original work wasn't obvious in the PML list. The indentation thing in the sources was Ham II's doing, but I actually kind of like it. Ham II also made this change to Peter Martyr Vermigli before it was promoted to FA. --JFH (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

PresN, using the dash for repeated authors is something I've used in papers before. It's in the 16th edition Chicago Manual of Style (see sample paper.)--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Now Support, and Source Review passed --PresN 16:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Mymis

Some observations:

• Not sure about such introduction, I see that it was split into sections throughout the list which is fine, however, it still needs to summarize the article. For instance, nothing from sections "Minor works" and "Peter Martyr Library" is mentioned in intro.
• "exchanging news about the conditions in England" -> what kind of "the" conditions? I'd assume you meant church stuff, however, later in the sentence you say "theological matters as well".
• "adding to it considerably" -> adding what?
• In the notes section, you list how many letters he exchanged, with some numbers spelled out and some written in numbers. I'd say it would look better if you choose one way.
• In the ref list, it's not consistent where you use pp and p.

Mymis (talk) 16:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Mymis, I think I've addressed all these.--JFH (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Great. You have my support. Good luck! Mymis (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2016 (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. – Gavin (talk) 08:45, 1 September 2016 (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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:34, 2 September 2016 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): Dharmadhyaksha (talk · contribs) and Vivvt (talk · contribs)

I am nominating this for featured list because with some inputs from you this can easily become a featured content. It is inline with the past FLs of Padma Bhushan of past decades; the 1950s and the 1960s.
Note: Vivvt & i independently have one open FL nom each. But both those noms have received supports and have no pending open points. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 17:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Mediran

• It looks good, but I observed that the lengthy second paragraph seems a repetition. It also appears in the other FLs you provided. Don't you think it's better if it were cut out and placed somewhere else (e.g. its main article) since this list, after all, is only about the awards given out in the 1980s? Take a look at the 68th Academy Awards for example. It doesn't include the history of the Oscars because it's already in some umbrella article but it has all the information about the Oscars of 1996. I don't know. What's your say?
  • I think its okay to mention only about the brief history and medal specification. Some of other do follow the same pattern (Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients: 1940–1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945)
• "registered in The Gazette of India, a publication used for official government notices and released weekly by the Department of Publication, Ministry of Urban Development". Is the "Ministry of Urban Development" another name for the "Department of Publication"? This should be clarified for "backgroundless" readers (like me).

  • Done

• Fix the dimensions of Hosur Narasimhaiah's image so that it's uniform with other images.

  • Replaced

• Fix the quote in the refs per MOS:SINGLE ("Enclose quotations inside quotations with single quotation marks").

  • Done

• Since you provided archive links, use the parameter deadurl. Set it to yes if the orig link is dead or to no if not.

  • Done

• In the notes, "Indicates a citizen of United States". There should be a "the" between "of" and "United". The same with "United Kingdom".

  • Done

• "In a career spanning over sixty years, the 1983 recipient filmmaker Richard Attenborough is best known for his eight Academy Award winning film Gandhi (1983) and is considered as 'one of Britain's best-known actors and directors'." Could use a hyphen there: "eight-Academy Award-winning film" or "eight Academy Award-winning film". "The 1983 recipient" suggests that Attenborough is the only awardee of 1983.

  • Done

• "(CCMB), who". The comma is unnecessary.

  • Done

• Remove "then-" in "then-President Zail Singh".

  • Removed

I'll add more. — Mediran  07:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mediran: I have fixed most of your comments. Please let us know if you have more. - Vivvt (Talk) 16:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing some of the minor errors I observed. I did minor changes to the list, and here's more

• "returned it in 2015 in protest of the Dadri incident". What incident?

  • Done

• The colon in "The order of precedence is: Bharat Ratna..." is unnecessary.

  • Done

• "Non-citizen recipients" to "Foreign recipients"?

  • Done

• In the refs
  • Should be "ESPN Cricinfo".

    • Done

  • The publisher of The Hindu should also be specified in other refs.
    • The Hindu is a newspaper and mentioned as |newspaper=The Hindu. Per Template:Cite news, "Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work (for example, The New York Times Co. publishes The New York Times newspaper, so there is no reason to name the publisher)."
      • Got me there. I thought the word inside the parentheses in Ref 9 is the publisher.

@Mediran: I have fixed the above comments as well. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

The list now looks better, but I'm still not sure about paragraph 3. I think it still needs to be worked on. You could copy-edit it yourself or tap our editors at the WP:GOCE. — Mediran  08:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I've made edits myself, but I have not much time to do more. I wish this will get through. Cheers — Mediran  08:32, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Tentative support (for now). Don't see changes, but I am hoping it will be fixed soon. My concern is the wording of the third paragraph. What's the change in government? What was it before? Maybe this can be told in a better, more understandable way. — Mediran  15:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mediran: I have made the changes. Please see if that's alright with you. - Vivvt (Talk) 03:48, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add {{nbsp}} between the day and the month in dates (e.g. 25{{nbsp}}January). — Mediran  06:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mediran: Done. Please check now. - Vivvt (Talk) 06:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

(In all) dates. There are other dates that are not yet fixed. Please link whatever are necessary in this: The recommendations are received from all the state and the union territory governments, with the Ministries of the Government of India, the Bharat Ratna and the Padma Vibhushan awardees, the Institutes of Excellence, the Ministers, the Chief Ministers and the Governors of States, and the Members of Parliament including private individuals. Also, specify when is the Republic Day; maybe you can write it like "Republic Day (DAY MONTH)". — Mediran  07:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Done now. Please check. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Nvvchar

I support the nomination as it is well drafted. However, I have the following observations for action as you deem fit.Nvvchar. 14:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• In the second sentence 'it is given for" could be changed to "conferred on"

  • Done

• In "The conferral of the award is not considered official without its publication in the journal", "journal" may need be made specific

  • Done

• In the sentence, "After being inaugurated Prime Minister" could be changed to "After assuming office Prime Minister"

  • Done

• In the fourth paragraph "art" could be changed to "The Arts" as its is awarded to many disciplines of arts

  • Done

• In "None of the conferments .... have been revoked or restored", the word "restored" may be superfluous. This sentence also needs to be cross checked with the last sentence which says "Pushpa Mittra Bhargava,.... returned it in 2015".
  • Removed the word "restored". As far as Bhargava is concerned, he returned the award himself and government has not revoked it. So his conferral is still valid.

@Nvvchar: I have fixed your comments. Please let us know if you have more. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Redtigerxyz's Comments

• File:Veena S Balachandar 1950.jpg: Questionable copyright as may not be 50 years since death of photographer. Same problem with Hebbar img.

--Redtigerxyz 05:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Have removed both images. Will take them to DR on commons soon. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 06:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• File:Nikhil Banerjee.jpg as well as File:Gopinath Mohanty 01.jpg are uploaded by single-purpose accounts; they have uplaoded only 1-3 pics of the subject and have no other established activity. It may be better to use other pics with well-established sources. --Redtigerxyz 16:14, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @Redtigerxyz: Replaced these two images with Mrinal Sen. Please let us know if you see more issues. - Vivvt (Talk) 07:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Added two more images of Mitra & Sakurauchi. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 08:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment - the lead reads fine, but I have issue with its length. It's long with over four paragraphs; try pruning it a bit. FrB.TG (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Prose follows similar text as that of past 3 FLs with each being between 4-5kB of readable prose size. Any pruning or shortening will make this one odd in the set. Any more comments? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Review by PresN

Recusing myself as a delegate. --PresN 17:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• I don't understand why there isn't a navbox at the bottom linking the whole Padma Bhushan series together...

The Template:PadmaBhushanAwardRecipients 1980–89 currently used at the bottom has whole PB series at the very end. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• I also don't like how each year is its own table, instead of one big sortable table with a year column, but since the prior 3 FLs did it that way it would be a major change.

I think we had discussed this somewhere... let me see. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It was first noted at the 1954–59 FLC by one of the reviewers. But as the list has only 94 entries, so I did not prefer to go with the suggestion. The similar suggestion came again with Padma Vibhushan award recipients FLC. This time it was 294 entries so I merged them all together. Looks like we may have to make the changes for all the lists. I will do it at the end of this FLC, irrespective of its success or failure. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. --PresN 20:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• The lead length is fine, though it is a bit on the long side; if you wanted to make it shorter, then for example I don't think it's absolutely required to repeat the exact description of the medal in all of these lists, instead of just in the parent Padma Bhushan article.

As this is a repeat comment maybe we can have some WP:Consensus on this. Pinging co-nominator @Vivvt:. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not sure what to do here. I thought of following the same pattern as of Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross recipients where the text is repeated across the FLs (1940–1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945) - Vivvt (Talk) 04:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It's fine to keep it as it is, I just mentioned it if you want to make the lead(s) shorter. --PresN 20:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• "pink riband" - why "riband" and not "ribbon"? The award isn't old enough to warrant the archaic variant

A riband is a ribbon especially when used as a decoration/award. Isn't that right? Am ok with using either. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like you're correct, I've just never seen the word before. --PresN 20:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• "The recommendations are received from all the state and the union territory governments, with the Ministries of the Government of India, the Bharat Ratna and the Padma Vibhushan awardees, the Institutes of Excellence, the Ministers, the Chief Ministers and the Governors of States, and the Members of Parliament including private individuals." - "from all governments, with including private individuals"? That reads oddly. Would be better as "The recommendations are received from all the state and the union territory governments, as well as from Ministries of the Government of India, Bharat Ratna and Padma Vibhushan awardees, the Institutes of Excellence, Ministers, Chief Ministers and Governors of States, Members of Parliament, and private individuals."

Done.

• "this was subsequently modified for the January 1955 statute" - "in" the statute

Done.

Support. --PresN 20:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Source Review

• Formatting: Pass, though having a "subref" on refs 17 and 22 from a different site is strange.

• @PresN: Is it mandatory to have same publisher for all the subrefs? Let me know so that I can make that change. I am unaware of it as of now. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Usually, for subrefs, you're combing multiple parts into a single ref- 4 sources about the sales numbers of a 4-part thing, for example, or a 2-part article by a source. Here, you're just... combining 2 refs because they're used in the same sentence. It's fine, it's just odd. --PresN 20:40, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

• Spotchecks: checked refs 5, 13, 20, 22 (online) - pass
• Completeness: pass

Source review passed. --PresN 17:43, 23 August 2016 (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. – Gavin (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2016 (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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I am renominating this for featured list. I came across this list while trying to save it from deletion at AfD some months back. The list was later nominated by Harrias for FL. Unfortunately, I guess due to his real life commitments, Harrias withdrew the nomination and could not work upon the changes recommended by editors like Cowlibob, Nergaal and NapHit during the first FL review. I've seen all suggestions and worked on all of them. You can see the first FL review here. I am replicating a few paragraphs from the first FL review below for the sake of reviewers. These paragraphs were the ones where reviewers had left their suggestions. My new comments are added after each of their suggestions in small letters within the first review. Thanks Xender Lourdes (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• "With McLaren, Senna won all three of his world championships..." I would change this to 'Senna won all three of his world championships with Mclaren...' (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))
• "In the subsequent three seasons with McLaren..." I feel like there should be a comma at the end here (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))
• ref 15 needs the author and date of publication (Done. Xender Lourdes (talk))

Cant' see much wrong otherwise. NapHit (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks NapHit . Xender Lourdes (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support Meets the criteria, good work. NapHit (talk) 08:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
• This list looks so much better that the just-promoted Schumacher one. Support. Nergaal (talk) 19:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support My only complaint from the first review has been sorted, looks good to go now. Joseph2302 21:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Source review

• The books for ref 2 and 3 are not specified (Done. Lourdes)
• What makes prostfan.com a reliable site? (Replaced with BBC and another source. Lourdes)
• Same with Speedcafe.com (This was pointed out in the first FL by another editor Cowlibob. I have already provided alternative reliable sources for the same. Lourdes)
• Same with F1 pulse (Per above, alternative sources provided already. Lourdes)
• Likewise Formula One Art and Genius (Per above, done. Lourdes)
• ref 5 needs the publication date and author adding (Cited inside the template. Lourdes)
• Checked a few refs and there doesn't appear to be any evidence of close paraphrasing

NapHit (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• • NapHit, thanks for giving your Support already. I have addressed all your queries above. Lourdes 04:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Review by PresN

Recusing myself from closing. Comments, all from the lead:

• "Over the next five years, the intense rivalry between Senna and Prost" - Prost has not been mentioned up to this point, nor any rivalry- you first mention him a few sentences later.
• "Senna won all three of his world championships with McLaren in 1988, 1990 and 1991, during six seasons." -> "Senna won all three of his world championships during his six seasons with McLaren, in 1988, 1990 and 1991."
• 'and the light very poor."' - period goes outside the quote, as you're not quoting a full sentence.
• "He won two races in each of his three years with Lotus, before moving to McLaren for the 1988 season." - no comma
• "That year, he secured his first Formula One world championship" -> "He secured his first Formula One world championship that year"
• "His eight victories that year was a new record for the most wins in a season, breaking the previous record of seven set by Jim Clark." - 'victories...was' is off; to avoid using "set" twice, try "His eight victories that year set a new record for the most wins in a season, breaking the previous record of seven by Jim Clark."
• "Subsequently, Senna managed" - drop the "Subsequently", as you used it in the prior sentence.
• "forty-one victories were for McLaren, and 32" - mixing number types; use "41" to be consistent with other uses
• "where he won six times during his career, including a record five consecutive times, between 1989 and 1993" - drop the comma before "between", unless you meant that all 6 wins were between 1989 and 1993

Not too many. --PresN 19:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks PresN. Will get on to this in a couple of days. Lourdes 06:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
• I added more rowspans for the const/engine cols, hope that isn't bad. --Golbez (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• I am also getting onto this on this weekend. Tried but couldn't find time last weekend. Thanks for chipping in. Lourdes 09:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

• • PresN, thank you for giving so much time to review. I have incorporated all your suggestions. The first suggestion regards Prost, I have handled by including a wikilink to Alain Prost and describing the line as follows: "Over the next five years, the intense rivalry between Senna and Alain Prost, a leading Formula One driver, came to the forefront, with particularly notable race incidents and collisions occurring between the two." Thanks again. Lourdes 01:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

• Support --PresN 14:38, 30 August 2016 (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. – Gavin (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
• Omg my first featured content!!!!!!! Thank you all (the reviewers and the editors) for helping me get this through (esp. Harrias who wrote the article). Lourdes 10:50, 1 September 2016 (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 SchroCat via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC) .

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because as I have worked hard on it recently and believe it is close to featured standard. As always, I look forward to your comments, and thank you in advance for those. Cheers NapHit (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• it is run by the International Tennis Federation (ITF), who describe it as the "World Cup of tennis." Unreferenced - does the ITF officially describe the Davis Cup and not the Fed Cup as the real deal?
  • Referenced and yes it is known as the World Cup of Tennis. NapHit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• "The first event in 1900 was between Great Britain and the United States" I think it is worth clarifying that only these two nations were invited to enter. (I know you do below.)
  • Amended NapHit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• "five singles and doubles matches" - four singles and one doubles would be more informative.
  • Changed. NapHit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• "The Davis Cup was founded in 1900 as the International Lawn Tennis Challenge." When did the name change?
  • Added NapHit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• "Australasia became the first nation outside of Britain and the United States to win the tournament in 1907" Australasia is not a nation. Maybe "Australasia (Australia and New Zealand) became the first victors outside of Britain and the United States when they won the tournament in 1907"
  • Changed NapHit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• "British Isles" Why not Great Britain?
  • Changed NapHit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
• The history section is far too detailed, stating what is repeated below. A summary of the highlights would be better.
  • I'm going to try and reduce this and mention more structural changes to the tournament, as some are missing at present. NapHit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Ok I've had a go at reducing the size of the history section and i've added more about the restructuring of the tournament @Dudley Miles:. NapHit (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• In the template I do not think that there should be a separate section for the 2016 World Group. A template should not be designed so that it becomes out of date each year. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The template is separate to the list, so I don't think that should affect this at all. NapHit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @Dudley Miles:, I should have addressed them all. I will tackle the history section in due course! NapHit (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:48, 14 August 2016 (UTC)