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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 09:58, 29 April 2015 [1].

List of awards and nominations received by Parineeti Chopra[edit]

Nominator(s): —Prashant 15:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because within four years of her screen debut, Parineeti Chopra has emerged as one of the best actresses in Hindi cinema. Film critics and media publications ranks her as the best actress of her generation. It has been extensively researched and I feel that it meets the FL-criteria.—Prashant 15:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pavanjandhyala[edit]

Support. Well written, well sourced and has neutral point of view. However, i encountered a few minor issues in this particular list which i am listing below and i expect the nominator to either rectify them or give an explanation regarding them here if required.

• In the lead, the word "garnered" can be replaced with either "earned", "received" or "won".

Replaced.—Prashant 17:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikilink The Times of India, Rediff.com, The Hollywood Reporter, SET India, NYU Press and India Today in reference 3, 19, 22, 38, 41 and 44 respectively. People's Choice Awards India is wikilinked for the second time in reference 24.
• It should be "The Indian Express" in references 28 and 29.

Wikilinked all the required publisher names. I was actually aware of these unlinked publication names, but it got out of my mind.—Prashant 17:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. What about SET India and NYU Press?

Done.—Prashant 04:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Chopra has received xxx award from xxx nominations" is a statement found in every section where i believe "received" should be replaced with "won". If she got one award, there it can be written as "Chopra has won an award from..."

Well, I had previously used similar statement in the Priyanka Chopra's list of awards and nominations, but reviewers suggested me to change to the current one. According to them, "won one" sounds the same and "won an" is no different. Now, I hope your doubts are clear.—Prashant 17:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. That's all from me. Good job overall. Best of luck Prashant! Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support after a few tweaks and C/Es. One more thing, don't repeat the refs in the lead per WP:LEAD. -- FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 09:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this information regarding repeatation of refrences in the lead. I wasn't aware of this.—Prashant 06:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — looks good, Prashant. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 10:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash[edit]

There do not seem to be many issues, but if there are any, I'll solve them myself. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good, keep it up. This article has my support. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It looks great. --Carioca (talk) 21:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A little late, but it looks like it is ready for FLC (though I may comment if I find one). So it's a support from me

--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another nice work. Nicely written and well organised. Support From me. Daan0001 (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the Doctor[edit]

• "In 2015, Chopra was honoured by the Gr8! Women Awards for her contribution to Hindi cinema." -not sure why this is notable. Doesn't seem to have an article. Could you start the article?♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is present in other FLs too. I will create that article later as I'm busy with my exams.—Prashant 15:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "The National Film Awards is the most prestigious film award ceremony in India. Established in 1954, it is administered by the International Film Festival of India and the Indian government's Directorate of Film Festivals. The awards are presented by the President of India. Due to their national scale, they are considered to be the equivalent of the Academy Awards.[20] Chopra has received one award." - I think " Due to their national scale, they are considered to be the equivalent of the Academy Awards." belongs further up. I'd reword section as "The National Film Awards is the most prestigious film award ceremony in India, considered to be the equivalent of the Academy Awards. Established in 1954, it is administered by the International Film Festival of India and the Indian government's Directorate of Film Festivals. The awards are presented by the President of India. Chopra has received one award."

Re-worded.—Prashant 15:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks in very good shape and a worthy candidate. May need to be constantly updated though given that she's at the beginning of her career still.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will do that. Thanks!—Prashant 15:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Worthy of promotion in my opinion. Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• No need to repeat her first name in the image caption.
• Please fix all WP:DASH violations.
• "nominations, including her first nomination" repetitive.

Otherwise good stuff. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—Prashant 13:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 09:56, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 07:22, 25 April 2015 [2].

List of scheduled monuments in West Somerset[edit]

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 21:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The is the sixth (and penultimate) list of Scheduled monuments in Somerset. It follows the format of the previous lists but is considerably larger, particularly in the number of bowl barrows, cairns, stone rows and standing stones. All entries are referenced and images have been provided where suitably licenced pictures are available. Any comments appreciated. — Rod ^talk 21:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments from Harrias ^talk

• Again there is a mix of metric (imperial) and imperial (metric) for units, which I think would benefit from one consistent format.

• Thanks for spotting these. I have flipped a few so they should all be metric (imperial) but if you spot any more please shout.— Rod ^talk 22:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I know you favour keeping the EH titles, but "Alderman's Barrow at N of Almsworthy Common" doesn't make grammatical sense to me?

• I have take out the "at" but should still be searchable under the EH title.— Rod ^talk 22:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I know there isn't really any logical way to split this down, but this list seems to be bordering on being too long for me. Harrias ^talk 21:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As you know I have already spilt Somerset into 7 lists and can't see how to split it further. There is one more to come which is slightly longer than this one.— Rod ^talk 22:07, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of comments from Keith D

• There appears to be a problem with the linkage to note a.

• Hopefully fixed.— Rod ^talk 22:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• With the split of English Heritage in April may be a good idea to change over the URLs and name to the Historic England site which is already live. Suggest using ((NHLE)) for the references to pick up the new web site and name as this future proofs against any further changes as it keeps all instances of web site in one place.

• I will look at this tomorrow, however as all the links still work I may be able to do a global find & replace English Heritage to Historic England, rather than having to reformat hundreds of refs.— Rod ^talk 22:17, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Publisher updated.— Rod ^talk 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keith D (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. Hopefully link to note "a" & publisher updated.— Rod ^talk 17:32, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This page maintains the high standard of its predecessors. It is formidably referenced, clear, doubtless comprehensive, and meets all the FL criteria, in my view. (Speaking of "view", the table fits less well on one of my screens than on my other two, but with a hundred-and-one different varieties of screen in use these days, I suppose that is inevitable, and is certainly not something that influences my support.) Tim riley talk 10:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noswall59 A few points, more may follow:

• Firstly, I am happy that this is comprehensive ;)
• The notes ought to be consistent or split into a separate subsection - the first one is "a", but the others are "note x".

• Thanks - I'm not sure how to solve that one - Notes 1,2 & 3 are autogenerated by Template:EH listed building header whereas "note a" is specific to this list explaining the discrepancy in the numbers of items (which you helped me sort out.)— Rod ^talk 15:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I've fixed this - it was a case of adding <ref group="note">... instead of the note template. Thanks, —Noswall59 (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Like I say, more will follow, —Noswall59 (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

OK but I feel I should let you, any others willing to make comments, and the FLC deleagtes know I will be away from 3-13 April and will not have any access to respond to any comments. I will deal with them (as best I can) as soon as I return.— Rod ^talk 15:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've now been back for a few days and would welcome any further comments.— Rod ^talk 17:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rod, apologies for not getting back to you on this - I've been busy this week and it slipped my mind. I've read through the lead and I can't fault the prose. I can also vouch for its comprehensiveness, but I do not have the resources around me or local expertise to check every entry in the list for accuracy, although, as usual, I imagine there are no major issues. As such I am willing to support on prose. And, as Tim suggests below, it is a shame more counties don't have people like you, prepared to write up so much about their local history. I hope you enjoyed your break, regards, —Noswall59 (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Support – I could have sworn I'd added my support already (getting aged and forgetful), and hasten to do so now. This is a worthy companion to its predecessors, and fully meets the FL criteria. Other counties may well sigh in vain for their own Rodw to write up their monuments so well. Tim riley talk 18:32, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but I think you have already supported (2 April) so I don't think it can be counted twice.— Rod ^talk 18:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh! I really am getting senile. So sorry! Still (and note my surname) remember the old Irish maxim, "Vote early, vote often". Apologies both to Rod and to the FL coordinators (who know me well enough to treat me very kindly). Tim riley talk 18:42, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~ sigh.... ~ ;-) - SchroCat (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support I don't think I've previously supported it though. Good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 02:13, 22 April 2015 [3].

List of women's international cricket hat-tricks[edit]

Nominator(s): Harrias ^talk 21:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another cricket list! This one is based upon the already featured and subtly different List of Test cricket hat-tricks and List of One Day International cricket hat-tricks. As always, all thoughts, comments and otherwise are welcome!

Note: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tied Twenty20 Internationals/archive1 is still open, but all the comments made there have been resolved, and it has received significant support. Harrias ^talk 21:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "dismissing three different batsmen" isn't accurate, is it? He can dismiss batsmen A and B with the last two balls of one match, then dismiss A with the first ball of the next match he plays. Wouldn't that be a hat-trick? The three main tables should be in different second-level sections.—indopug (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Indopug: Good points both, sorted. Harrias ^talk 18:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You have used fixed width columns, that will not be helpful to users with smaller screens. And why do you need bullet points for the dismissed batsmen? They just look like unnecessary clutter to me. Gatoclass (talk) 17:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fixed widths are so that the columns in all three tables line up, something that people have requested at previous FLCs. If the screen is smaller, they automatically get smaller, rather than force a scroll, so I don't think it should be a problem. The bullet points are simply from convention; they are in both the the lists mentioned above, but also in all of the five-wicket haul lists, such as List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Dale Steyn. That said, I have no particular objection to removing them, but it should probably follow that all of the other similarly formatted lists should follow suit. Harrias ^talk 12:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Good work —Vensatry _(ping) 16:44, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Just out of curiosity, were any of the hat-tricks taken over consecutive overs, or where they all within a single over?
  • I'm not sure; I'll have a look, might be worth adding as a note do you think? Harrias ^talk 14:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not that important, but it is of interest (to me, at least!) The Rambling Man (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Had a look, and found that three of them (one from each format) was split across two overs (in one case, the 10th and 20th overs of a T20). I've added a bit in the table, but I don't know if it is worth mentioning at all in the lead? Harrias ^talk 14:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I don't think a lead mention is entirely necessary, but thanks for digging up the facts, which turned out to be quite interesting! I now support this candidate. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now my concerns have been addressed, good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I really can't find a single thing wrong with this. I'm impressed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:40, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 02:13, 22 April 2015 [4].

Premio Lo Nuestro 2014[edit]

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have been researching the Lo Nuestro Awards history and I think this list meets the criteria. This list is based on several FLs, mostly the 84th Academy Awards and Premio Lo Nuestro 2013. I will be watching closely this nomination, to follow your comments. Thank you. Javier Espinoza (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support A very well-written list based on prose. Although the table is formatted properly, the empty space seems quite annoying to me and I do know that you have categorized. Can something be done to it? --FrankBoy _(Buzz) 21:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. Javier Espinoza (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support All issues have seems to have been resolved. Great work! Erick (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments: Per WP:COLLAPSE, there's no need to hide the presenters and performers since they are an integral part of the broadcast. Also, the winners and nominees should look like the ones at the Oscars (see 86th Academy Awards for example) due accessibility issues.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for your comments Birdienest81, your work for the Academy Awards inspired me to arrange the list this way. Thanks again. Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 14:33, 17 April 2015 [5].

List of works by H. Rider Haggard[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

H. Rider Haggard was a prolific and high-profile English writer, probably best known for his Allan Quatermain series of stories. He wrote much, much more besides, and his output included 56 novels, 3 short-story collections and nearly 100 letters to The Times. He was also an expert on land management and agricultural reform and wrote several non-fictional books on the subject, which added to his works on South Africa and the Zulus, about which he was knowledgeable following his time in the country.

This is a fresh bibliography, made partly from a limited one on the main Rider Haggard article, but greatly expanded and now brought into line with MOS requirements, and fully sourced throughout. All comments are welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 07:40, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Tim riley

• I can't find a letter from Rider Haggard about Dr Barnardo's Homes in The Times of 16 November 1907. Tim riley talk 14:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's because it's not a letter! My source has that on page 5 there is a report on remarks he made on the subject. - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – my only query being answered. This is an impeccable piece of work, and plainly meets FL criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 15:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Tim - your thoughts and your edits - are as appreciated as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The Rambling Man (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• " In 1911 he also served on the Royal Commission examining coastal erosion. He was also " -rep of he and also.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep - good spot. I've tweaked the section a little, which gets rid of the duplication. - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support An excellent list, I recognize a few film titles in there which were based on those books, I wasn't aware of some of them!♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - You know, just reading the lead I didn't get the impression that Allan Quatermain was a series, nor did I realize that he wrote short stories. This should probably be made a bit more explicit in the lead. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A couple of tweaks made, which should cover it - let me know if you think it needs any more, or should be done differently. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 13:20, 17 April 2015 [6].

List of awards and nominations received by Laurence Olivier[edit]

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laurence Olivier was a superlative actor who was—alongside Ralph Richardson and John Gielgud—one of the finest of his generation. He was a huge presence on the stage, in film and in theatrical management – and he was active in radio and on television too. For all his endeavours awards and laurels were heaped upon him This list has had a major makeover recently, in line with the Olivier article itself (which is now FA-rated), and his career history (now FL-rated). All thoughts and comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – To declare a peripheral interest, I was co-nom with SchroCat of the FA biography of Olivier, but this upgrade is purely SchroCat's work, and I feel I can in all propriety comment. The page meets all the FL criteria, in my view. (Incidentally, what a huge haul of gongs! It brings it home what an impact Olivier had.) Tim riley talk 10:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Tim - Very much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support a very nice piece of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks RM, your thoughts are, as always, much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support An excellent list, most resourceful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support No other issues that I can see. Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 09:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for your comments - all now much improved. - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Excellent list. --Carioca (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for taking the time to look through this. - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Excellent work on the list. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 13:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 13:20, 17 April 2015 [9].

List of accolades received by Argo (2012 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 04:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC), Cowlibob (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria and it deserves to be listed to FLs. Thanks. Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 04:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — ḞɾɑṇḵɃōẙ _(Buzz) 09:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Everything looks ready for FL promotion.

--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support after a round of copy-edits. The lead looks good now. --Krimuk|90 (talk) 09:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 12:14, 14 April 2015 [10].

List of public art in the City of Westminster[edit]

Nominator(s): Ham II (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this list's previous submission for FLC it has been completely reformatted in order to be machine-readable. Due to the number of templates being invoked by the new format, the sections on Hyde Park, Kensington Gardens, Paddington and St Marylebone have been split off into standalone lists. The scope of this list may now be narrower, but that's quite consistent with the Westminster volumes in the Public Sculpture of Britain and Buildings of England series, which cover the area of the smaller, pre-1965 City of Westminster (despite their 21st-century publication dates). I look forward eagerly to your comments! Ham II (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice list: many sources, many images, good structure.--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexmar983: Thank you! Ham II (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pigsonthewing

• Delighted to see this proposal, and happy to support it. Please note, though that ((Coord)) should not use |name=, when contained in ((Public art row)). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing:  Fixed. Thanks for the support! Ham II (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "the five works that follow" doesn't sit well, in a sortable table. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Rephrased: This and the five works that follow → This is one of several works (There are more than the six in this list.) Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Jackyd101

• A phenomenal and fascinating list and an astonishing body of work. I have no vote at the moment, although I will once I've actually read through it all, but I do have a question and a two comments - apologies if these have been answered earlier, but I am curious.--Jackyd101 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 1) Why is there a tiny box between grade and Notes?

@Jackyd101: This is a problem with ((Public art row)); I'll ask for it to be fixed at the template's talk page.

@Jackyd101:  Fixed. (Thanks, Frietjes!) Ham II (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 2) I find the "Title / subject" column a little hard to follow - sometimes the link is to the art work, sometimes to the person it depicts. Sometimes it's in italics, sometimes its not. I originally thought that the italics indicated the artwork and normal text the subject, but this is inconsistent (James Cook / Florence Nightingale for example) so I'm not clear on why the italics are there. A simple solution would be to do what you've done with "Memorial to William Ewart Gladstone" right at the top and put "Statue of so and so" in this box, linking the whole thing when the link is to the artwork and the person only when its to the person.

If it's an individual's name, normal text indicates a link to the person, but if the name's in italics it's a link to the artwork. Otherwise, normal usage of italics is followed: italic for the titles of artworks and normal for anything else. "Statue of" would probably be helpful for any future transfer to Wikidata but would lose the functionality of ((Sortname))‍—‌unless some super-duper ((Statue of)), ((Bust of)) and ((Memorial to)) templates were to be created to get around this...

I think I understand better - works of art like statues are in italics but memorials are not? Still doesn't explain James Cook though. Two potential solutions are to either just put "statue", " memorial" etc after the name, or to use the ((hs|Foo)) template to make them sortable. I can't deny that it bugs me that the links are inconsistent - not only are you not sure what kind of link you are clicking on, but it means that some links that should be there aren't: for example, there is a statue of James II in Trafalgar Square but as far as I can see there is no link to the man himself on this page.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, found a link to him, but its in a different section further down the page and I had to search for it, so I think my point stands.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer something like Statue of James II? James Cook was a mistake and now links, as it should, to Statue of Captain James Cook, The Mall. Ham II (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that yes. If you don't think its a good idea I'm open to discussing it though. I think on a list like this people want to known where they are going when they click on a link, and will expect to be able to access the articles on the artwork and the subject (assuming they exist) from the entry in the list.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done @Jackyd101: It's taken all day but I did it! Ham II (talk) 15:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I was looking for and I think it looks a lot better. Sorry to be a pain in the arse!--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 3) This no doubt violates some FLC criteria and if so I'll withdraw it, but there are names cropping up in the list I would expect to be linked, but which aren't (Rodin for example). This is presumably because they've been linked earlier, except that lists aren't usually meant to be read sequentially and the sort function renders the sequence temporary anyway.

This is one that came up in the last FLC review, and I spent the best part of a day before this review removing duplicate links. Rodin is linked in his first mention in the text but that's not in the entry for the only sculpture by him (The Burghers of Calais). I could change this so that being mentioned in the "artist" field becomes in effect the "first" appearance of a name; as you've said, the sequential order is temporary (whereas the left-to-right order is permanent). I've done the same with the "subject" field, treating links there as the "first" appearance as that's where you'd expect to find them. Ham II (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it - I'd certainly prefer overlinking than underlinking in a list, but I've experienced this sort of things before where one person says something, you spend the whole day fixing it and then someone else tells you to undo it, and I'm not going to be that guy. It is a little irritating though - just had to use the search tool to find the link to Jacob Epstein.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 4) Is there a reason the statues at the entrance to Australia House on Aldwych are missing from this list?--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the ones on the building? These would count as architectural sculpture. Or the statue of Gladstone? JMiall₰ 23:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, makes sense.

@Jackyd101: The two sculptural groups on either side of the entrance are in this list. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 5) I'm nearly ready to support, but I do have a question: does Bansky's sadly destroyed "One Nation Under CCTV" count as public art? --Jackyd101 (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it used to be in this list but is now in List of public art formerly in London. JMiall₰ 17:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jackyd101 and JMiall: Yes, that's right. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make it clear in the lead that this is only "current public art in the city of Westminster" then? You'll also need to remove the statue of Sir Walter Raleigh as under these terms it shouldn't be on this list. Once that's done I think I'm happy to support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. @Jackyd101: The idea was that artworks moved out of the borough but within London would be included, whilst those which were no longer in London would be in List of public art in the City of Westminster, but I now think that's too arcane. Ham II (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 6) Actually I do have one other point and you're not going to like it. After some consideration I've decided not to make my support conditional on this, but I do think you should seriously consider it. This article has a lot of embedded co-ordinates, but none have the |name= parameter listed. This means that when someone looks at the wiki markup on a map, the link is titled "List of public art in the City of Westminster", when it should be titled with the name of the artwork the co-ordinates link to. This would actually be of considerable practical value to this article's wider functionality as a guide to public art.--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen that someone above asked you to remove this so I've struck my recommendation. Does the template automatically do this name function? If not, then why remove it? --Jackyd101 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that's the reason, but as ((GeoGroup)) doesn't work for Google Maps any more I can't tell. It's a question to ask at the template talk for ((Public art row)). Ham II (talk) 08:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodw

An impressive list - I was playing a little game with myself about how many I had seen. I note the double line before notes and wikilinking in sortable lists have been highlighted above, but a few other comments:

• Lead

• It says there are more than "400 public artworks..." do we know how many (and therefore is this a complete list)?

@Rodw: I don't think a complete survey has ever been done (not since 1910, anyway), and recently there have been new additions every year so any figures would quickly go out of date. I got 400+ by adding together all the works covered in this category [correction: not the architectural sculpture list], all of which used to be covered by this list. Forking off two of the Royal Parks and the places which used not to be in Westminster was necessary as the templates wouldn't all show on one page. The tricky areas to find information about are Paddington and St Marylebone, but as those now have separate lists I'm pretty confident that nothing major has been left out of this list.

• Which of the Royal Parks of London are included (and should they be listed and named)?

All of Green Park, Hyde Park and St James's Park and parts of Kensington Gardens and Regent's Park are in the City of Westminster. (Only Green Park and St James's Park are covered in this list, though) I've listed the parks but dropped the bit about Charing Cross being the official centre as the sentence was getting too long. (It's still in the lede image caption.)

OK Hyde Park was a dab so I changed to Hyde Park, London.— Rod ^talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't know Charing Cross was the official centre of London - is there a reference for this claim?

Yes, in the relevant section: "Charing Cross was declared the official centre of London in 1831^[47]"

• Aldwych / Strand

• Should "Saxon" be wikilinked, and do you mean Saxons or Anglo-Saxons?

The source simply says "Saxons", but Pevsner has "Anglo-Saxons". I've linked to Anglo-Saxon London.

• Is Edmond J. Safra Edmond Safra

Aha!

• I know what LSE stands for but other readers might not, so could be written in full or wikilinked - I know this is done in the intro to the sub section but not on the entry for Mosaic or Eagle

All mentions in the |location= field now have "London School of Economics"

• Windsor Sculpture Park could be wikilinked - as above

Is the first wikilink to the Windsor Sculpture Park (in the section lede) enough?

Personally when I do sortable lists I wikilink once in each row, and I have asked for clarification of this - but never got a definitive answer.— Rod ^talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's basically what I had before I spent a day removing the "overlinking". Do you have a link to the conversation you had? This sorely needs clarification.

@Rodw: I've decided to wikilink Windsor Sculpture Park. If you could find the discussion, though, it would be interesting to see how it went. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the discussion. I would suggest putting a new message on the FLC talk page about this for wider discussion.— Rod ^talk 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw: Will do. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it worth (somewhere) explaining or linking Grade I, Grade II to listed building?

Restored an earlier phrasing in the lede: "the most significant being the Grade I-listed Cenotaph in Whitehall".

• Should "painted stone flags" link to Flagstone or are they Flags?

They're flags, which unlike the ones on the Cenotaph are carved from stone and painted. I've called them "fictive" to clarify things.

• Again I know what RAF means in this context but worth a link for clarity (see RAF (disambiguation))

Is this necessary given that "Royal Air Force" is in the same sentence as the only appearance of "RAF"?

• Are Queen Mother, Cologne and Dresden worth wikilinks?

Queen Mother is linked further down but as my choices of where to link are confusing everybody I'll link it here too. Also linked the other two.

• Three Fates has a reference but nothing in Notes.

The reference only gives the basic information in the preceding columns.

I would add something into the notes section.— Rod ^talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a problem as if anyone's done the legwork to find more information it's going probably Philip Ward-Jackson writing for the Public Sculpture of Britain‍—‌the source cited. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would still advocate adding something.— Rod ^talk 18:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I've gone for simply "Part of the Odette bequest". 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Some of the Artist/designer & Architect/other entries have references and some do not.

Usually the references in |notes= cover the whole entry; where there are refs in |artist= and |architect= that's because they only cover those what's in that particular field and the refs in |notes= don't have the information.

Looking at ((Public art row)) it says "Please keep all comments, annotations and references in the |notes= field." I'm not familiar with this template so I'm not sure why this instruction is there, but it looks strange to me to have references in those columns for some & not others.— Rod ^talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer a string of footnotes at the end of |notes=, including for information not in the Notes field? Only asking, not being confrontational. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would prefer all the references which relate to that row in one place (but I can't quote any guidelines or anything for this).— Rod ^talk 17:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw: Moved all refs in ((Public art row)) to |notes=. Ham II (talk) 09:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Bayswater

• I'm now a bit confused is this in the City of Westminster or in Paddington?

It's now in Westminster as Paddington merged into it in 1965.

So if it is in Westmintsre shouldn't it be included here rather than making the reader go off to another list? Does the same apply to Fitzrovia, Hyde Park, Lisson Grove, Maida Vale, Marylebone etc and for some eg Knightsbridge partial are included in this - I am confused and I'm a reasonably regular visitor to London - I suspect readers who have never visited may be more so - does this decision about inclusion and exclusion criteria need to be explained somewhere?— Rod ^talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - would it be possible to get a map drawn showing the areas referred to in the list and use this as the lead image to enable readers to get some understanding of the areas, boundaries etc? The folks at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Map workshop are very good for advice and help in this sort of thing.— Rod ^talk 11:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Will request this at the Graphics Lab. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw: I've created my own map using Paint at File:Public art in the City of Westminster map.png, which is now in the article lede. Is this of high enough quality for a Featured List? Or should I still ask at the Graphics Lab? Ham II (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive much better than my graphics skills. It says the areas covered by yellow are in this list - which leads me to come back to another comment about if the areas in red, blue, green etc are in the City of Westminster then they should be in this list. An alternative (and radical) approach, if there are too many for one list, would be to have one article with a brief overview of the art in each area & then seperate lists for each of the areas (similar to Scheduled monuments in Somerset or Grade I listed buildings in Somerset & 7 sub lists). This would also get over the issue of having columns different widths in different sections of this list.— Rod ^talk 17:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw: I'm open to List of public art in the City of Westminster being a set of links to the six subpages, basically like List of public art in London, but with a lede section. The rest of the content of this article would be at List of public art in Westminster (currently a redirect). It's a bit of a cheat as the "Westminster" in the article would not be the same as Westminster, but as I said right at the beginning of this review the relevant volume of The Public Sculpture of Britain, on "historic Westminster", does something similar. This would mean that I wouldn't have to re-draw the map, but I'm afraid the sections within lists (and so the difference in column widths) would have to stay. What do you think? Ham II (talk) 19:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of each of the lists for different areas eg one list for Aldwych / Strand, one for Belgravia etc (with one table in each list) in the same way there is one for List of public art in Hyde Park, London, which I think of as in "Westminster" but I don't understand the semantics/policy/history of different versions of "Westminster" you are referring to above.— Rod ^talk 20:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw: I'm open to this as a long-term future direction for the list to take, but if I'm honest it's too much work to take on now; there are 31 other London boroughs which need attention and there is already at least one vote in support of the list in its current form. I can see this list being broken up into another ten subdivisions in the distant future, one of which would be "Kensington"‍—‌meaning that List of public art in Kensington and Chelsea would also have to be broken up for that subdivision to be meaningful. Before doing this I'd like to wait for the second volume of Public Sculpture of Historic Westminster, on architectural sculpture, to come out, so that architectural sculpture can be included in the new sub-lists instead of being segregated in its own list as it is now.

As regards "Westminster", the two books cited in the first here treat it as, basically, the City of Westminster before the merger in 1965. Pevsner, p. xvi: "Westminster‍—‌that is, the area that was merged in 1965 with the boroughs of Paddington and Marylebone into the present, expanded City of Westminster..."; Public Sculpture of Historic Westminster Vol. 1, p. v: "The City of Westminster extends north into St John's Wood and west into Kensington... for reasons of space this volume can only cover the historic south-eastern core of Westminster" (i.e. a smaller area than in both Pevsner and this article.) As you can see, in both of these the full-scale "City of Westminster" is contrasted with a smaller "Westminster" which is, however, bigger than the true "historic Westminster" (i.e. the subject of our article Westminster) with the Abbey, Parliament, etc. What I was proposing in the last post was something similar to that: List of public art in Westminster being essentially the list currently under review, while List of public art in the City of Westminster, standing between List of public art in London above it and List of public art in Westminster below, would help navigation by listing the districts (e.g. Bayswater, Regent's Park, Soho...) covered in each of the six sub-lists.

Sorry for the long-winded reply, but this is nothing if not complicated! Ham II (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Belgravia

• Memorial to Richard Grosvenor, 2nd Marquess of Westminster - you have a ? for architect/other - this source has mosaics by Antonio Salviati

Thanks! Is it Antonio Salviati or his firm Salviati? I'll assume the latter. Is the source also implying that John Douglas was the architect? I also once saw Thomas Henry Wyatt as the architect for this somewhere, but I'll never remember where.

• General

• Why are the column widths different in each of the sub lists?

This is because of ((Public art row)), and might not be fixable as it has lots of parameters which can be opted in and out of.

My guess (but I'm not a template expert) would be that ((Public art header)) enables the column width to be set automatically assuming it will only be used once in each article. I would find out if the column widths can be set as a percentage of screen width & then make them all the same. Also the template may have Owner/administrator as a compulsory column and even though there is no content still includes it therefore giving the double line.— Rod ^talk 11:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Pigsonthewing to look into this; I can't see anything in the documentation. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to set the width in the template, this can either be hard coded in the template, which will do it for every article that uses the template, or by a parameter for each column on a per-table basis, which will create extra work and potential for error. For these reasons, I'd prefer not to do it, unless it's causing a major problem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If these sort of comments are useful I will come back and do some more.— Rod ^talk 20:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, keep 'em coming! Ham II (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Belgravia (con't)

• Was it laid out with "with a high concentration of embassies and diplomatic buildings" in 1820 as this is what the lead implies or did the embassies etc come later?

I've rewritten this section's lede to address this point and the next one down but one. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Hercules - you have (erected) after the date, but this is not included for other statues etc.

 Removed

• Statue of Robert Grosvenor, 1st Marquess of Westminster is described as "developer of Belgravia", but in the section lead Cubitt and Cundy are credited.

See above. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Charing Cross / Trafalgar Square

• Hubert Le Sueur could be wikilinked

@Rodw: You mean in the lede?  Done.

• Trafalgar Square, is desceribed as "one of London’s most famous public spaces" I think that is probably true but "most famous" is always controversial.

Would this page from london.gov.uk be an acceptable ref? It calls Trafalgar Square "London’s most famous square". It does seem worth stressing the fame for this of all things.

I see "one of the city’s most vibrant open spaces" on that page but not "one of London’s most famous public spaces". Fame is very subjective.— Rod ^talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant quotation is "London’s most famous square", at the end of the page. I've added the ref now so please let me know if you object. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nelson’s Column could be wikilinked

Again, in the lede? If so,  Done.

• I can't work out if the description of the plinths quite matches Trafalgar Square#The plinths?

I think so...

• I have been discouraged from using q.v. and similar codes.

Should the relevant text (e.g. "statue of Edward Jenner") link to the anchor then, or is it best to keep links to sections within articles to a minimum?

I don't quite understand.— Rod ^talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all q.v.s; they're more trouble than they're worth. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Kensington Gardens could be wikilinked

 Done

• Nelson's Column - is "unidealised" a word and what does it mean? Portland stone could be wikilinked

"Not regarded or represented as better than in reality; true to life" (oxforddictionaries.com). I've wikilinked "Portland stone" for the first of its five mentions, in the Belgravia section, but not afterwards.

Perhaps "true to life" then.— Rod ^talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased to the following: "Nelson is shown without an eyepatch, but his portrayal in this statue is not idealised by the standards of the time." I don't think this is asking too much of the reader; "idealised" is quite a common term in art history. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Edith Cavell Memorial - presumably Queen Alexandra is Alexandra of Denmark but a link would help

 Added. Again, the link was already further down the page, but I've added another here.

Yep I believe 1st mention (outside the lead) should always be wikilinked (and as I said I would link once per row in sortable lists).— Rod ^talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Beatty Memorial Fountain again nothing in notes

 Added more.

• Andrew Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope not an issue but I'm intrigued by "The bust contains a half-pint bottle of Guinness"

It was Franta Belsky's trademark; I think he did the same for the statue of Earl Mountbatten.

• Platform murals - I don't understand "Gentleman" in this context - is it David Gentleman?

Yes; isn't that clear enough? Ham II (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More when I get some time.— Rod ^talk 12:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will look again at the other subsections later, but many of the issues I see are similar to those listed above.

• References and Bibliography

• Shouldn't all (recent) books have isbn numbers?

@Rodw:  Added for the ones in the Bibliography; will follow up with the others.

 Done all the remaining ones. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Where NHLE data sheets are used sometimes English Heritage is given as the author (eg 64, 102, 112, 182, 290, 322, 364, 367 ) and sometimes it has EH as the publisher (eg 26) this should be consistent (I always treat EH as the publisher)

16 was the only one that didn't use ((English Heritage List entry)), so it's now been changed.

All of these now don't have a publisher.— Rod ^talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather keep the consistency and convenience that comes with using the template, so this would have to be raised at ((English Heritage List entry)). However, this usage is consistent with treating Westminster City Council as the corporate author for other refs‍—‌which for ones using ((Harvnb)) is a technical necessity. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw: The recent switchover from English Heritage to Historic England (which is officially to be launched tomorrow, but the change is already in effect online) has confirmed for me that it was best to stick to this template, as the change has been made automatically for every instance of the template. There has been (rather fragmented) discussion on the template talk about putting "English Heritage" (now Historic England) as the corporate author and the current appearance of the template (except for the recent name change) seems to be the result of consensus there.

• 15 What makes London details a reliable source (self generated & uploaded content)

The only other source I can find for this is Geograph. Can anyone with access to JSTOR or similar help?

• 27 What makes Slide Share a reliable source (self generated & uploaded content)

Changed to a PDF published by the Grosvenor Group; the SlideShare page was the only available source at the time.

• 31 - is a redirect & I can't see the claim supported

 Fixed. Retrieved from the Internet Archive.

• 48 ? a book could be moved to bibliography

I've only put books which are used more than once in the bibliography. Should they all go there?

That is how I would do it, but I don't know if there is a specific guideline to follow.— Rod ^talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All books but one now moved to the bibliography; Glinert 2012 (ref 168) doesn't have page numbers, so I'll get this from my local library. That one wasn't added by me! Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw:  Done the last one. Ham II (talk) 12:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 49 possible doi error

 Removed the DOI.

• 157 has URL showing - format issue

 Fixed

• 261 needs a publisher

 Fixed

• 290 includes the NHLE ref number in the title - the others don't

I don't see this; as far as I can tell they all have the number.

• 339 ? a book therefore should it be in bibliography

See 48 above.

 Done. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Some conservation area audits by Westminster City Council are in bibliography but others are in the reference list.

Again, the same reason as 48 above. Perhaps conservation area audits could be a separate section of the bibliography as they're webpages, not books? The ones in the Bibliography are needed there as page numbers are cited.

Personally I would put them all into bibliography. I guess this is personal choice however consistency is generally good.— Rod ^talk 21:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done‍—‌given conservation area audits their own section. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just realised that a PDF from Westminster City Council, "Guidance for the Erection of New Monuments", has always been in the Bibliography section, so I've decided to merge the conservation area audits back into the main bibliography. Ham II (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these are helpful— Rod ^talk 16:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for going through this. I've run out of time for tonight, so sorry for not getting to the older questions. I've also got a very busy week ahead so the replies might be thinner on the ground till Friday. Ham II (talk) 20:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking much better than when I last looked at it and I have struck some of my comments. A couple more:

• Ref 86 shows on my screen as "Template:Ward-Jackson" without a page number - I think sfn or similar is missing

@Rodw:  Fixed.

• Ref 87 "Bardley & Pevsner 2003" doesn't link to the bibliography details properly (not sure why)

 Fixed. Ham II (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have put a lot of work into this list.— Rod ^talk 20:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JMiall

I reviewed this previously and was basically happy with it. Since then it has improved although sadly got shorter as well. I didn't ask that all duplicate links be removed - I only objected to the same thing being linked many times in a row.

@JMiall: Sorry for my outburst about "overlinking" earlier on. It really hasn't been clear what best practice is for this.

Anyway, a bit of random sample fact checking between this list and the linked articles on dates that don't match:

• Duke of York Column

1832–4 goes from the completion of the column to the erection of the statue. It seems as if the design was ready by 1829 (Ward-Jackson 2011, p. 387), so I suppose that is the start date. Changed to 1829–34.

• Shaftesbury Memorial Fountain

1885 here was the date when the commission started. The unveiling date was 1893. Changed to 1885–93 here and at Shaftesbury Memorial Fountain.

• Boadicea and Her Daughters (although it explains why)

Dates now corrected at Boadicea and Her Daughters (formerly 1902–3; now 1856–83 (executed); June 1902 (erected)), with citation. That is now consistent with this article.

• Buxton Memorial Fountain – only mentions 1865

Completion date (February 1866) now mentioned at Buxton Memorial Fountain, so that supports the date here (1865–6).

• The Burghers of Calais

1895 date here was incorrect; changed to 1884–9 (cited and consistent with The Burghers of Calais).

which means there are probably more to find. A bit of clarity on what date it is in the date column might be useful. JMiall₰ 21:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In general I think the dates should go from conception to completion, where those dates are known.

Also I don't think the lead image is very good. I can see why a photo of that statue is being used but I'd prefer a better image of something else, or a map (as mentioned above). JMiall₰ 21:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of replacing the lead image with, hopefully, a better depiction of the same statue. Prioryman (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@JMiall and Prioryman: That is an improvement overall. Although the previous pic was better composed and didn't have the long side of the plinth in shadow, this has more striking colours. Ham II (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alien (sculpture)

I've just across Alien (sculpture) and wondered why it isn't included in the list - although initially temporary it seems to have become more permanent.— Rod ^talk 18:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has only been given planning permission to be there until next month. Westminster planning portal don't seem to have any applications to extend again, and they are running out of time, so I'd assume that it really will be going soon. JMiall₰ 19:09, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport

This is a prodigious article, of which Wikipedia can be proud. There's nothing to match it anywhere else that I can find online.

@Tim riley: Thanks for saying such nice things!

A few queries:

• Passim: I notice you refer throughout to "Queen Elizabeth II" but just to "George V", and I wonder why use the title for one monarch but not the other.

Changed to Elizabeth II. I'm not used to seeing a phrase like "Unveiled by Elizabeth II" without the word "Queen"; it implies a bit of historical distance, and that was my rationale for using that style. However, it looks fine without the "Queen".

• Memorial to Andrew Young: is it compliant with the MoS to reproduce the inscription in all capitals? Is there an understanding that MOS:ALLCAPS doesn't apply to inscriptions? The same question applies to other incidences of all-caps later on the page, except to the Greek on the Garrick memorial.

I would hope that accurate transcription isn't seen as being an "unnecessary" use of capitals! This doesn't appear to have been raised before so I have mentioned it at WT:MOSCAPS.

• Salutation: Should "abstracted" be "abstract"? "Passersby" should be hyphenated, according to the Oxford English Dictionary.

Changed to abstract and passers-by.

• William Gilson Humphry Memorial Drinking Fountain: is there a suitable article to which to link "mash spout"?

I can't find one; sorry.

• Leaves: I have wikified the curly apostrophe here and elsewhere. I saw a pair of curly double quotes elsewhere, too, which please check for.

 Removed the one other instance of curly quotation marks.

• Canada memorial: "Inscribed bilingually in English and French" – tautological.

 Removed the tautology.

• Statue of William Edward Forster: " appropriately enough" – WP:EDITORIAL

 Removed.

• King’s Reach Memorial: not sure why a blue link to George V after several unlinked earlier mentions of him

 Removed the stray blue link.

• Savoy Hotel Centenary Memorial: earlier (Sullivan memorial) you refer to "a quotation from The Yeomen of the Guard" in contrast with the more detailed "lines from Gilbert and Sullivan's Savoy opera, Ruddigore" here. Might be as well to address this inconsistency.

Changed the Sullivan Memorial description: Inscribed with a quotation from Gilbert and Sullivan's comic opera The Yeomen of the Guard. The rationale for the Centenary Memorial description being as it is is that it needs the word "Savoy" to stress the connection between the quotation and the subject of the memorial.

• Statue of Winston Churchill: "Lady Clementine Spencer-Churchill" is an incorrect style. She was "Lady Spencer-Churchill" or "Clementine, Lady Spencer-Churchill", but not " Lady Clementine" – which would be the daughter of an earl or other senior peer.

 Fixed to Clementine, Lady Spencer Churchill.

That's all from me. – Tim riley talk 12:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Ham II (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to Support this very fine page for promotion to Featured status. It gave me enormous pleasure, taught me a lot, and meets all the FL criteria in my view. Bravo! Tim riley talk 11:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A very extensive and interesting list. Just one query. In the first item, what has Edmond J. Safra to do with Somerset House? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: He's listed here as a "Major Supporter" of Somerset House and the courtyard has been renamed the Edmond J. Safra Fountain Court after him. Thank you for the support! Ham II (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 12:14, 14 April 2015 [11].

List of Bermuda T20I cricketers[edit]

Nominator(s): Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 21:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets FL criteria. The list is formatted according to other Featured Lists of cricketers. The Bermuda ODI list is already a featured list, so for sake of completeness, I want to get this list to Featured Status as well. Since, Bermuda doesn't currently have Twenty20 International status, the information in this list is unlikely to significantly change for the foreseeable future. Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 21:58, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• I think prose is not as good to meet the FL standards for example the first sentence repeats the same thing (same for the last two sentences). There is no proper use of abbreviations and dashes etc. Take a look at what we have done in List of India Twenty20 International cricketers, List of Sri Lanka Twenty20 International cricketers and List of Pakistan Twenty20 International cricketers for different approaches. --Khadar Khani (talk) 16:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe your issues have been fixed. Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 00:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • These are all fixed. Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 06:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nice work. I've made a minor tweak to the article, but otherwise all good now. Any chance you could take a look at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of tied Twenty20 Internationals/archive1? Harrias ^talk 13:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – meets the criteria. --Khadar Khani (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • Everything's fixed. Thanks for your comments. Blackhole78 ^{talk | contrib} 06:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support now my concerns have been suitably addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - SchroCat (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Image needs an alt-text. Otherwise, a good list and has my Support —Vensatry _(ping) 11:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 09:30, 14 April 2015 [12].

List of awards and nominations received by Lana Del Rey[edit]

Nominator(s): Littlecarmen (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. I nominated it three months ago but the nomination didn't get enough comments/supports and was closed. I would be thankful for any comments and opinions! Thank you very much, Littlecarmen (talk) 12:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good work. --FrankBoy _CHITCHAT 15:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Littlecarmen (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support decent work. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much! Littlecarmen (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor comments - Just in the infobox, you swap from using ECHO to Echo, and reference 14 throws up a status error with Checklinks. Finally, the last para in the lead reads really weirdly, not entirely sure how you could fix it, maybe something like:

• In 2013, Del Rey won the Brit Award for International Female Solo Artist, as well as the ECHO Awards for Best International Female Artist Rock/Pop and Best International Newcomer. She also recorded the song "Young and Beautiful" for the soundtrack of the 2013 film adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby which won the Satellite Award for Best Original Song. In total, Del Rey has won 11 awards from 48 nominations.

It combines the awards she won as well as the sentences about Gatsby and sounds a lot less awkward in my opinion. Also I did change ECHO Award to ECHO Awards in my above example, not sure if that's the right grammar in this case though, but you are discussing two awards so I thought it best to plural.--Lightlowemon (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed issue in the infobox, replaced ref 14, and fixed the last paragraph. Thank you! Littlecarmen (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 09:27, 14 April 2015 [13].

List of awards and nominations received by Priyanka Chopra[edit]

Nominator(s): —Prashant 18:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have previously taken Priyanka Chopra's biography and filmography to FA and FL status respectively. She is one of the most popular and versatile actresses in Hindi cinema. After the premature nominations, I worked hard on it and I feel that it now meets the FL-criteria.—Prashant 18:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cowlibob[edit]

I'm feeling better so let's start anew.

• need ref for "twelve distinct roles", "serial killer", "autistic woman"
• I would remove the Surfer's Choice awards, I know they are sourced but is winning an internet poll really an award?

Removed.—Prashant 17:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Each award ceremony needs to have a reference proving who it is given by and for what. The most recent one of this type of list had that List of awards and nominations received by Vidya Balan.
• Suggestion for more recent picture of her at an awards ceremony, [[14]], [[15]], [[16]]. I'll leave it up to you to select. Cowlibob (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cited sources for her roles and changed her picture to a more recent one.—Prashant 21:08, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

• "In 2000, she participated in the Femina Miss India contest, where she finished second, winning the Femina Miss India World title." — How can she come second and win the title. Shouldn't the title go to the first place?

Added a note.—Prashant 06:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The sentences on 7 Khoon Maaf and Barfi! tend to get a bit repititive. Can you tweak one of them a bit?
• "Chopra has received several honours from film and fashion organisations." — Bro, I think you can tweak this a bit like "Chopra has been honoured by various organisations such as ..." (the dots signify some of the organisations' names.)

Tweaked all of them.—Prashant 06:12, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Thanks, Prashant!. That's all from me. Good luck! — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 06:47, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash29792[edit]

• Maintain consistency between "That same year" and "The same year".
• The same for "Bollywood", "Hindi cinema" and "Hindi film industry".
• "four each from Filmfare and IIFA Awards" - write "four Filmfare and IIFA awards each".
• Replace "essay" with something more standard like "portray" or "play".
• "received a second nomination for Best Supporting Actress" - received her second nomination.
• "winning the second consecutive Star Guild Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role" winning her second consecutive award.
• "for her twelve roles in the 2009 social comedy film What's Your Raashee?" - for playing twelve distinct roles.
• Fix the link to Barfi.
• "Chopra won a second Screen and a third Star Guild Awards for Best Actress for portraying Mary Kom in the eponymous biographical sports drama." - I don't know how, but this can be written better.
• Do we usually refer to a site with the ".com" extension? I think it is good to simply call it "Rediff".
• Please fix the column alignment in "Sabsey Favourite Kaun Awards".
• Wikilink Gaana.com.

That's it for now. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked and corrected all of them.—Prashant 17:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still some don't seem corrected; is the "year" column in Sabsey... deliberately aligned like that?

What is the exact problem with alignment?—Prashant 16:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't explain. Ask Ssven or Krimuk, they may know how to say. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.—Prashant 12:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "Chopra has won one award." - a single award.

Should I name the award in the case of one award win?—Prashant 16:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did it and saw the preview. It looked repetitive. I think it's fine to say "She has won one award". What do you think?—Prashant 04:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because "won" and "one" sound alike, I suggested rewording. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re-worded.—Prashant 12:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "They are presented by Filmfare magazine" - presented by the magazine Filmfare.
• "Chopra has won two awards from two nominations." - you mean she won both nominations? Write that way.
• Under "Global Indian Film and TV Honours", there is some mess. Correct that.
• "in the Hindi language]] cinema" - pathetic. Write "Hindi cinema", "the Hindi film industry" or simply Bollywood.
• "Chopra has won five awards from five nominations." - you mean she won all five nominations? Write that way.
• "cinematic achievements in the Hindi cinema." - Huh?
• "Chopra has received honours outside of her acting." - pathetic. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected all the above problems. Thanks! @Kailash29792:—Prashant 16:29, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Good work Prashant! Kailash29792 (talk) 05:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

• Support now this meets FL standards Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Daan0001[edit]

Support: Nicely written list. Much improved. My full support. Daan0001 (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 09:25, 14 April 2015 [17].

List of five-wicket hauls in Twenty20 International cricket[edit]

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(ping) 09:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A short list, but likely to grow in the coming years. I have another nomination open at the moment, which has got two supports and no outstanding concerns. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. —Vensatry _(ping) 09:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My only quibble is this half sentence: "The full members of the ICC including Australia, India, England and Zimbabwe are yet to have a player taking a five-wicket haul......". This doesn't make grammatical sense as it stands, better wording would be "Australia, India, England and Zimbabwe are the only full members of the ICC yet to have a player take a five-wicket haul....." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. Thanks for the comments —Vensatry _(ping) 09:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all my issues resolved, a good list. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great and well-sourced list. --Carioca (talk) 22:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. – SchroCat (talk) 09:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by SchroCat 09:27, 14 April 2015 [18].

83rd Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2011 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. The presenters and performers are cited with two links each containing a minute-by-minute log of the presenters and the awards they each gave out and the performers and songs. The St. Louis Post Dispatch links are working.Birdienest81 (talk) 07:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]