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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Ursula K. Le Guin bibliography[edit]

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of works by Ursula Le Guin, an author whose fiction I have done considerable work on. I am confident that it is comprehensive, and uses the best sources available. This is, however, my first foray into FLC; I'm sure there are formatting and style points I could use help with, and I would appreciate patience in this respect. I look forward to hearing your feedback. Vanamonde (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I think it should be in tables, a la Roald Dahl bibliography or Winston Churchill as writer? (Both of them are more modern FL's) Yours wouold need more columns, but those two are, IMO, good models of tables to look at. Courcelles (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Courcelles: I'm willing to give it a shot. The question to be decided, should we use a table, is the number of columns/amount of complexity in a table versus the number of tables overall. I'm not keen on reformatting it many times, so here is how the Earthsea section would look, if I tried to make the entire fiction section a table. Is this what you're looking for? How could it be improved? When we're happy with formatting for this one, I'll apply that format to the rest of the entries. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Courcelles: Since you've been active, I just want to make sure you've seen this. If the table formatting here is okay, I'll apply it through the page; otherwise, let's try to find a better option. Vanamonde (talk) 09:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• SOrry, just plum missed this on my watchlist and in a flood of pings. I'd move "sources" to the end and rename it something like "footnotes" to distinguish it form "sources" or "references" in a literary sense as to sources or references in the works... Courcelles (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Courcelles: No worries. I've tried out your suggestions; how does it look here? I'm honestly still a bit concerned that the table overall is aesthetically not pleasing, but if that's convention I'm willing to roll with it. Vanamonde (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Not particularly aesthetically pleasing, but it brings in sortability. IMO, we should wait for another reviewer to chime in. Courcelles (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. As I said, I'm a FL newbie, so I'm willing to set aside my formatting preferences. Vanamonde (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would be better formatted as a series of sortable tables as well. Sorry, I know that makes extra work... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: I'm quite willing to put in the work, but I'd rather not do it multiple times; so, what do you think of the formatting of the Earthsea section [here? If we can come to a consensus on that, I'll implement it through the article. Cheers, Vanamonde (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yep, looks good to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles and The Rambling Man: Apologies for a second ping, just a quick reminder...Vanamonde (talk) 05:40, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One last niggle, the tables need row and column spans to satisfy MOS:ACCESS. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial for examples. Courcelles (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Do you mean that all entries for a certain year should be have a single "year" entry, as in the example? I'm uncertain if that's going to work well here; first, because we have month of publication for some entries and not others; second, because the vast majority of sources sort Le Guin's works as I had done in the non-table version of this list; as in, first by series/setting, then by format, and only then by chronology. I'm willing to be persuaded though. Vanamonde (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not what I mkeant at all, what I meant is much simpler, see my two edits; I did the first three for you as explanation. Courcelles (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Ah I see. Is this to make the entire row sort together? Syntax isn't my strong suite...done, I think. Vanamonde (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks right, it's actually for screen readers that we use the row scopes, nothing to do with sorting. Courcelles (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 12:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I'm satisfied this meets the FL criteria. 18:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

  Cheers, Courcelles. Vanamonde (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, although given that she was American should the reference to an upcoming publication in "autumn 2018" not read "fall 2018"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've changed it to read "late 2018", which is accurate but neutral vis-a-vis ENGVAR. Vanamonde (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I haven't reviewed at FLC before, so let me know if I ask for something that's not part of the criteria.

• Any reason why you don't include omnibus editions such as Earthsea? You include short story collections, which similarly include work that has been published before.

  The trouble I had with this list is that there's just so many variants of Le Guin's work, and I didn't want to be reduced to listing every edition, because several of the more popular stories have been published in too many omnibuses (omnibi?), and I don't see that our readers are served by listing them all. The definition I've come up with at the moment is "all collections that include material not previously published in book form" (as the lead says). I'm happy to discuss this if you don't like it;

  That seems reasonable to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There's nothing actually wrong with saying "New York City" in the "publisher" column, but it's not the usual style, which would just be "New York".

  I remember a series of edits made a while back via bot/script which changed all the "New York"s in the "location" field to "New York City"; so I've stuck with that since.

  OK -- I don't like it myself, since standard bibliographic sources don't do it, but that's just personal preference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What criteria are you using to determine which non-fiction to include? For example, you are omitting introductory matter such as the introduction to The Left Hand of Darkness which first appeared in the 1976 Ace edition.

  Since she's written a large quantity of non-fiction in a variety of publications, at the moment only things mentioned in commentary about her writing. Again, there's an edition issue here; very many of her books have been reissued, and I'm quite certain a number of them have introductions that are new. The TLHOD one is just the best known.

  Limiting it to just items mentioned in commentary about her writing (and I see I should have paid attention to your definition in the lead) is tricky because you can't be sure you're comprehensive on that basis. I won't oppose on that basis, since I'm a newcomer to FLC, but to verify comprehensiveness you might consider looking at the reviews of her non-fiction listed at the ISFDB. For example, The Wave in the Mind was reviewed by Gary K. Wolfe in the June 2004 Locus; does that count as critical commentary? (You can see reviews listed in the ISFDB at the bottom of the title entry for each book.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, fair enough. That said, she's written 50+ essays outside collections, as far as I'm aware, and many of these are not really essays (They're letters to the editor and such). They're also in marginal publications. I think even attempting a full list is impractical. How would you suggest doing this?

  I think it depends on the purpose of the bibliography. If the goal is to make sure every single thing she wrote is listed, then the ISFDB is the model. I don't think that's necessary here. If the goal is to list all her fiction, and all her non-fiction that is of critical interest, then perhaps review commentary can be excluded. I don't quite see how you can ensure comprehensiveness without reading all the relevant critical commentary, though; I know you've read a lot about Le Guin, but can you say you've really done that? I don't know how the FLC requirement for comprehensiveness is interpreted, so I'm not sure how much this matters to this nomination -- for example, is it OK if you miss something out because you haven't read, e.g., Barbara Bucknall's or Joe De Bolt's books on Le Guin? More entries can be added later, after all, once someone reads those books. Or is that not acceptable to FLC? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mike Christie: You're right in saying that while I've read a lot about Le Guin, I can't claim to have read all the commentary (I doubt there's anyone who can; it's extensive, and being added to constantly). I've thought about this some more, and I think it's fine to leave it as a partial list. It seems clear that a comprehensive list is not only difficult, but impossible, because Le Guin wrote such a lot in publications that ranged from scholarly journals to private publications which never went on sale. I've skimmed some other FLs, and it seems that partial lists are not uncommon. I'm going to ask SchroCat for a second opinion, as the person who brought Winston Churchill as writer to FL status: that list only includes collected speeches, presumably for a similar reason. SchroCat, thoughts? Vanamonde (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You might consider giving alternate titles, such as A Very Long Way From Anywhere Else, in the Notes column.

  Done, I think; I'll keep an eye out for others.

• You give 1977 as the date for Nebula Award Stories 11; Lloyd Currey's Science Fiction and Fantasy Authors: A Bibliography of First Printings of Their Fiction gives the year as 1976; the first edition is actually the UK hardcover from Victor Gollancz. I can give you the full biblio details for Currey if you want to cite it; it's the most authoritative work on sf and fantasy first printings, but unfortunately it only covers up to about 1978.

  Yes please!

  The cite is: ((Cite book|title=Science Fiction and Fantasy Authors: A Bibliography of First Printings of Their Fiction and Selected Nonfiction|last=Currey|first=L.W.|publisher=G.K. Hall & Co.|year=1979|isbn=0-8161-8242-6|location=Boston, Massachusetts|pages=)); the title page gives the author as "L.W. Currey, with the editorial assistance of David G. Hartwell" -- not sure how you might represent that. I think I might just ignore it. The Le Guin biblio is on pp. 304-306. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  (edit conflict) Actually, the SFE entry does list the 1976 publication, and it's already used as a reference. But if it contains information about illustrators, that might be useful. Would you mind taking a look? The illustration information on the early Hainish works is fuzzy.

  Sorry, there's nothing about the illustrators in Currey. What specifically are you looking for re the Hainish books? Are you looking for the cover artists? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  No I'm not keen on cover artists; every book has one, after all, yet they're rarely notable and rarely findable. The issue is that I have seen both ISFDB and other sources occasionally refer to cover artists as illustrators, and I do want to list illustrators. No worries if there's nothing in there.

• The essay collection Dreams Must Explain Themselves appeared in book form in 1975 from Algol Press, prior to the edition you list.

  Done. It wasn't actually the same collection; it's primarily fiction, with a couple of essays thrown in. I've added it, in the fiction section, as it seems most appropriate there.

• Have you cross-checked with the ISFDB bibliography for completeness? Looking through their list of short stories, for example, I see one titled Dragon of Pendor which you don't list; I don't have this so can't tell if it's an excerpt from one of the Earthsea books, as it appears from the title it might be. I think you're also missing Direction of the Road, one of my favourite Le Guin stories, as another example. The ISFDB includes things such as excerpts from other works, which I don't think you need to include. You could also check the ISFDB for illustrator information; for example, the Capra Press Buffalo Gals was illustrated by Margaret Chodos-Irvine.

  I found no evidence that "The Dragon from Pendor" was anything other than a reprint of Chapter 5 of Wizard. I'll look into the rest.

• ISFDB gives November 1970 as the publication date for Quark/1, and I have a print reference to back it up if you need it (Mike Ashley's Gateways to Forever).

I think the layout and organization look good. I've listed a couple of fixes above, but my main concern would be comprehensiveness, based on a quick comparison to the ISFDB finding one or two apparent omissions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Here's one problem with ISFDB. They're often right, but occasionally wrong, and would not qualify as an WP:RS. Thus often the only way to verify obscure details from ISFDB is to check the original work, which is difficult, to say the least. I'll give this my best shot (I had done a sweep of ISFDB, but clearly it wasn't thorough enough) but I might end up pinging you to ask about original versions quite often. Thanks for the review. Vanamonde (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked about the ISFDB at RSN in the past; see here, for example. I think it's reliable for what it does list, though if it omits something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The quote at that discussion from SFE3 seems to me a strong endorsement from a trusted source. My use of the ISFDB has made it through FAC at least once or twice, so I think you'd be OK using it to fill gaps. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:07, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more points on another look:

• No date on the magazine issue for "April in Paris" or for "Legends for a New Land"

  Fixed in one case; there really doesn't seem to be a more specific date for "Legends for a New Land".

• Suggest giving publisher and location for the cited anthologies such as Again, Dangerous Visions.
• You're inconsistent about ending the notes with a full stop.

  Now fixed.

• You're not consistent about using locations with the publishers in the footnotes and sources; they're not required but they should be consistent if you're going to use them.

  Done in all but two cases, one where it's unknown (World Cat doesn't know, the book doesn't say) and another which is an ebook.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:40, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to say I'm watching this; it looks like you're still adding material so let me know when you're done and I'll go through again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: My apologies for the delay, real life intruded a little. I think I've got all the legitimate fiction from the ISFDB list: and damn was there a lot that was completely ignored everywhere else. So thanks for bringing that to my attention. I have had to ignore several entries: there have been many many excerpts published, and then there's stuff like this which I just cannot track down anywhere outside ISFDB. There's also the matter of this, an infomercial (in Nature! I had no idea they did that sort of thing...) and I'm uncertain whether to include it. I'm sure there's more cleanup to be done, but perhaps you can take a look in the meantime? Vanamonde (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 this looks like it's stabilised a little, is that correct? If so, I'll give it one more look. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Actually, I'm afraid that's because I've run into a lot of RL work. There's still some additions to make. I hope to get to this soon. Feel free to leave comments, though. Vanamonde (talk) 05:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: sorry for the delay. There's still some cleanup to be done, but I think what needs to be added has been. Perhaps you could take another look. Vanamonde (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taking another look:

• I don't see any obvious omissions now. I agree that this can be ignored for now -- though if you ask at WP:RX I'd lay odds someone will find a copy, or you can leave a message at the talk page of the ISFDB user who verified it, asking for a photo of the contents page. Interestingly, it looks as though that's the only publication of that particular piece, so there's no English version. But with so little information it's OK to omit it for now. Re the infomercial: yes, I'd include it as fiction. It's not the only one they've done -- Ted Chiang had an excellent piece in Nature in 2005, and judging by this there may be many more (the ISFDB only indexes items relevant to sf and fantasy, so many of those may be fiction).

  Fair enough. Added.

• You can add the date (August 1994) to the sort order for "Another Story OR A Fisherman of the Inland Sea". The title of the original publication was just "Another Story"; any reason why you list it that way?

  Added. A lot of the bibliographies use the latter title; I missed the fact that the first publication used a different one.

• Similarly Quark/1 can be sorted as November 1970.

  This I'm not so sure about: I've not listed month of publication for any books (because most of them don't have any) and it seems strange to do it just for one...

Other than that this looks good, and I'll support once those minor fixes are done. Thanks for your diligence on this! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: I've responded to everything, I think; thanks for a detailed review! Vanamonde (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think you could call LADeDeDa fiction; it's structured as an infomercial, but we don't mark e.g. epistolary stories as such in bibliographies, so I think there's no need here. OK on Quark/1, though it's an anthology series and in some respects was a magazine, so I think you could go either way. Anyway, this is definitely worthy of promotion now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! @The Rambling Man: Don't mean to be a bother, but just you left now, I think, and I'm already feeling guilty over how long this has been open. Vanamonde (talk) 09:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Vanamonde, one more note -- it might look better if you had a natural default sort on the tables. I know they're sortable, but a chronological sort is probably the most natural, though you could go with alphabetical, I suppose. Just a thought. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Happy to hear more feedback; but there is an order at the moment, though it may not be readily apparent. Within the fiction, it's sorted by series/setting, then format, then chronology; which might be a bit strange, but it is how most RS do it. Even ISFDB sorts it this way, more or less. Vanamonde (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:40, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @PresN: Since this has been open for a long time, and Giants2008 and TRM have both commented here, I wonder if you could assess this for promotion. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on vacation this week, so it might take me a bit. --PresN 04:15, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, promoting. --PresN 02:52, 30 July 2018 (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.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2018 (UTC) [2].[reply]

List of songs recorded by Kylie Minogue[edit]

Nominator(s): Damian Vo (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this for featured list because it meets the criteria for a featured list. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Damian Vo (talk) 16:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Minogue's image alt text is missing period.
• The Telegraph in ref 17 should be linked to The Telegraph.

  Not this one. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, sorry my bad. I fixed it. Damian Vo (talk) 09:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually the source is from The Daily Telegraph. Damian Vo (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Impossible Princess (1997) saw the singer adopted a more --> "Impossible Princess (1997) saw the singer adopt a more.."

Yashthepunisher (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I resolved everything you mentioned above. Damian Vo (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Damian Vo (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

• The image caption for the Kylie Minogue image does not require punctuation as it is not a complete sentence (excellent choice of image by the way).

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have two comments for this sentence (who also written and produced Enjoy Yourself (1989), Rhythm of Love (1990), and Let's Get to It (1991).). I believe that “written” should “wrote” in this context. I would also clarify in the prose that these are Minogue’s subsequent studio albums. I was a little confused when reading this and had to click on the links to see what this list was referring to.

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part (described as "a sophisticated, stylish dance record",), I would clarify in the prose who is doing the describing here. Was it music critics, fans, Minogue, someone from Minogue’s team, etc.?

Added. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This portion (featured production and songwriting from Sia and Pharrell Williams.) requires a citation.

Added source. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part (which heavily influenced by countryand dance music), it should be “was heavily influenced by”.

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For this part (She went on to recorded), it should be “to record”.

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not certain about the use of the word “performed” in this sentence (In 1988, she performed "Especially for You" and the B-side "All I Wanna Do Is Make You Mine" with Jason Donovan.) as it could be misread that she just performed this song rather than recorded it. I would say something like (In 1988, she worked with Jason Donovan on the single “Especially for You” and the B-side “All I Wanna Do Is Make You Mine”.)

Done. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would link “B-side” as there may be people out there that do not know what it means.

Done. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would use “side projects” rather than “side-projects” as I do not believe the hyphen is necessary.

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would revise this sentence (Kiss Me Once's title track and "Sexercize" were written by Sia) to (Sia wrote Kiss Me Once's title track and "Sexercize".) to avoid the use of the passive voice.

Fixed. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with this list. It is very informative, and it makes me want to work on a music-related list. I will support this for promotion once my comments are addressed. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my current FAC. Either way, I hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far! Aoba47 (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's it! Thank you for your kind words, I really do appreciate it. Damian Vo (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Great work with this! I support this for promotion. Makes me want to listen to some Kylie Minogue music lol. Have a wonderful rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Damian Vo (talk) 08:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice list.--Lirim | Talk 02:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Thank you. Damian Vo (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support this nomination. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Damian Vo (talk) 06:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review –

• What makes Idolator (ref 107) a reliable source for an FL? The article we have on it says it's a blog that was created by Gawker Media. Neither of those facts are encouraging me to say it's reliable. The rest of the references appear reliable enough.

I replaced it with a source from iTunes Store. Damian Vo (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Only formatting issue I see is in ref 41, where the title needs an en dash for the year range.

Fixed! Damian Vo (talk) 08:03, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The link-checker tool shows no problems. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the couple of issues fixed, I'd say this source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Damian Vo (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 02:52, 30 July 2018 (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.

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 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2018 (UTC) [3].[reply]

List of England Test cricket records[edit]

Nominator(s): – Ianblair23 (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After the successful promotion of List of Australia Test cricket records, I have given the same treatment to the list of Test records for the old enemy, England. As always I forward to your feedback on this nomination. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 14:07, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the Most consecutive career matches section, Cook broke the record when he played in the second Test against Pakistan. Please update. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:40, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joseph, thanks very much for your comment. This has been updated as well as all of the other records now that the second Test against Pakistan has concluded. If there is anything else please let me know. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joseph, the list has updated as per the TRM's and Jenny's comments below. Please let me know if you have any further comments. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz

Hi Ian, firstly thanks for the massive work compiling these lists. I've made a few small changes for you to please check. I have been through every one of the 154 references, comments and suggested tweaks follow. There are also a number of questions to help me appreciate some of the aspects of cricket/refs that I don't quite understand. Sorry for the length:) but your clarifications will aid my support and also any future reviews.

Lede

• wlink to Full Member isn't jumping to intended section - needs lowercase m here or cap M on target section header?

• Fixed – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Since then they have played 999 matches..." - not really 'since' first Test match, that'd make 1,000 altogether. Maybe 'since then they have played another 998' or 'including that match they have played 999'?

• Reworded – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The most prolific wicket-taker for - wlink isn't going to intended section, capital D needed

• Fixed – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The most prolific wicket-taker - maybe add bowler to differentiate wicket-keeper wicket-takers?

• Fixed – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Key

• Opponent - only the first table uses Opponent, thereafter it is Opposition

• Great pick up! Fixed – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General comment - eg "is in third with" should be "is in third place" or "is third" or "ranks third" ie if using "in", "place" is also needed.

Noted – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Team records

• Greatest loss margins (by 10 wickets) - should Victories column be Losses?

• Another great pick up! Fixed – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "England's narrowest win by runs was against Australia in the second Test of the 2005 Ashes series at Edgbaston. Set 282 runs for victory in the final innings, Australia were bowled all out for 279 to give victory to the hosts by two runs.[53]" - ref 53 wrong one here? should be 51?

• Fixed – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "This was the equal third-narrowest win in Test cricket" - was the second narrowest win?

• Fixed. This and the point above was a carry over from the Australian list which I must of missed. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Individual records, Batting

• Highest individual score -"Matthew Hayden of Australia set the highest Test score with 380" - add where when who? (Lara's has)

• Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Most double centuries - Alastair Cook total runs 12099 - update to 12145 per other tables

• Updated – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Most double centuries - maybe blurb could say 'four England players have achieved double centuries" (just so it doesn't look like a 5th has been missed?)

• This ref only shows those players who have scored three double centuries. I have added the seven English players have scored two double centuries which are all placed equal fifth. Unfortunately, Statsguru doesn't show overall career figures with double centuries (only centuries). I can isolate them out with this ref but this only shows the span and runs from those innings where the double centuries were scored. So I have added a separate column citing their ESPNcricinfo profile pages for their career span and runs. If and when Root goes on to score his third double century all of this can be reverted. In the meantime I will email ESPNcricinfo requesting Statsguru to be modified. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Caption "Wally Hammond has scored the most double centuries for England with seven and holds the record for the most runs scored in a series with 905 runs during the 1928–29 Ashes series.[87][88]" reads as if the most runs in a series is overall. Insert 'for England' after 'in a series'

• Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Most runs in a series "Alastair Cook's 766 runs scored during the 2010–11 Ashes series ranks in 13th" - 14th?

• Corrected – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Individual records, Bowling Most career wickets

• Ref 93 confirms Muralitharan taking Warne's record achieving 709 but not being now on 800. Add ref 94 again?

• Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "second only to Australia's Glenn McGrath with 563 as the fast bowler with the most Test wickets" - I can't see where ref/s talk of Anderson and McGrath being fast bowlers this and this do

• It is shown in this ref "Type of bowler (by style) pace bowler" – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Worst figures in a match - why Salisbury and Tate not equal 2nd rank - are overs taken into consideration?

• Yes, overs are the differentiator in this case. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Best figures in a match, blurb I'd refine "and the runs conceded in two innings." to "over both innings"

• Agree, reworded. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wicket-keeping records

• Most career dismissals "ball has touched the striker's bat or glove holding the bat" - ref 124 why doesn't Law 33 mention glove? (same Law used as ref at Fielding records, Most career catches)

• Ah yes, this is covered in Law 5 which states that the hand or the glove holding the bat shall be regarded as the ball striking or touching the bat. I have this added this ref to both sections. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:58, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Individual records, Fielding records

• next to the wicket-keeper, on the off side of the field - off side linking to article called leg side on side?

• Linked to Off side – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Most slip fielders are top order batsmen - my curiosity - why? can't see that in ref 135

• Added additional ref – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Worst figures in a match - Tahir's worst figures, not 2006 was 2012 Adelaide South African cricket team in Australia in 2012–13#2nd Test. "48 years prior" becomes 54.

• Corrected – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Worst figures in an innings, "The worst figures by an Englishman is 0/169 that came off the bowling of Tich Freeman in his final Test appearance" ref 114 only confirms date last Test? Needs scorecard also for figures? (even though ref'ed in table).

• Ref added – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Also re Tich, worst figures 'is' or 'are'?

• Changed to are – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Should Englishman be England player? (this is similar I s'pose to TRM's concern?)

• Reworded – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other records

• Most consecutive career matches - Knott and Botham =3 should be =2?

• Corrected – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Youngest players - rank 4 - Clem Hill should be Ben Hollioake?

• Corrected – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Youngest players - ref 144 (I can't access CricketArchive) but the archived version is for youngest Aust'n players?

• Archive-url corrected – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership records, Highest partnerships by wicket

• English batsmen hold three Test wicket partnerships records, all set within the last ten years. - 'last ten years' will age, reword? all set since 2010 or similar?

• Reworded – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Umpiring records

• Most matches umpired - Aleem Dar from Pakistan who has stood in 117 Test matches - his page now updated to 119. Need to insert 'as of' for someone still active?
• Most matches umpired - lots now changed per ref 154, Gould now has 67 so 3 x mentions of Dickie Bird need updates.
• Kettleborough now 52 equal to Llong.

• Entire section updated – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Flags to check

• Greatest win margins (by 10 wickets) - table, South Africa flag
• Bowling, Worst figures in an innings - table, South Africa flag
• Bowling, Worst figures in a match - table, South Africa flag

• All three flags corrected – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daggers

• Broad needs dagger at Other records, most career matches?

• Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Bell gets no dagger as not likely to get selected again?

• He is not current playing Test cricket so no dagger, however he still playing county cricket and is still hungry to play for England again – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Haseeb Hameed - no longer Test player?

• Not currently playing Tests, so yes no dagger – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Adil Rashid - hasn't played a Test since 2016 but has a dagger

• Dagger removed – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misc Ref bits

• Ref 1 - Nicholson, Matthew (2007). Sport and the media, better url p26 here?

• Fixed ref – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 23 Ireland’s Test cricket debut, Fox - needs date of pubn May 11, 2018

• Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 37 Cameron R J (Year Book Australia) - add authorlink to Roy Cameron (statistician)

• Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 73 Brownell, Frederick Gordon - authorlink

• Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 90 Williamson, Martin glossary - can't see where the date 17 April 2007 comes from

• Removed – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 109 Pervez book, gbooks says publisher Universities Press, is that same as Orient Blackswan

• It is actually published by Sangam Books, updated both refs

• Ref 135 Selvey, Mike - authorlink

• Added – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That'll do for now. I may have some further questions. Thanks again, JennyOz (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenny, thank you so much for your thorough review, truly a herculean effort! I have addressed each of your comments above. Please let me know if you any further concerns. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:37, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Ian, I have been through and checked each of your changes. All spot on. One only minor comment...

• Where you mention Cook "has scored over 12,000 Test runs, the only England player to do so." and "the only England batsman who has scored more than 10,000 runs in Test " - he's actually only one to have scored more than 8,900 though I don't know if it's worth tweaking.

• In both cases I am linking to List of players who have scored 10,000 or more runs in Test cricket, so I am happy with the status quo. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am very happy to now add my support. Thanks for your attention to my queries. I've learnt lots! Maaarrrvellous:) Regards, JennyOz (talk) 07:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jenny, very much appreciated. I hope you learned one or two things about the old enemy :) Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now all the changes have been made. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Giants and PresN, I would appreciate if one of you could run your eye over this now that TRM has given his support. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2018 (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) 22:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC) [4].[reply]

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and it is in the same format as FLs such as Suffolk and Northamptonshire. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments I think this is the seventh such list I've reviewed, and each time I find fewer things to correct. Some minor changes include:

• ground flora can be linked once to Groundcover

• Linked all as I understand this should be done in sortable lists. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• wording from: "The cliffs have fossiliferous rocks dating to the Cretaceous between 99 and 86 million years ago, and they are historically " to "... 99 and 86 million years ago that are historically..."

• I was not happy with my wording and I have revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• careful with Latin species names, the genus should be capitalized and the whole word italicized, see: limax tenellus, grilis pannonicus, Volucella inanis, crossocerus cetratus, crossocerus styrius, crossocerus distinguendus, stratiomys potamida, erioptera limbata, agonopterix putridella, cratoneuron filicinum, Homo Heidelbergensis (only first is capitalized)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "has three nationally rare plants" or "There are five rare invertebrates, including three bee species"... when giving specific small numbers (such as 3), I think it's best to list. If it's too many then it's ok to omit. Your call here.

• Done first but not the second as NE only specifies some of them. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• no need to capitalize last glacial period

• Done. (I am doubtful as it is the name for a period but I see the article on it does not capitalize.) Dudley Miles (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• link Equisetes lyellii

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mattximus (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and great work on this project as a whole! Mattximus (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I just wish the main image wasn't so low-res/grainy, but otherwise the list looks great. Courcelles (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks. I am away on holiday but will look at the image issue when I can. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Image replaced. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:40, 16 July 2018 (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.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC) [5].[reply]

List of Presidents of the Bharatiya Janata Party[edit]

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC) & Vanamonde [reply]

This is my 10th tryst with FLC and my first attempt on a politics related list. As always, hope to receive constructive criticism. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yash, thanks for bringing this here. As the page creator, and the major contributor to the Bharatiya Janata Party page, I do wish you had asked for my comments before bringing this here: I'd have been willing to co-nominate, had you asked. Also, given that the first two paragraphs of the lead are basically copied from the main party page, you are required to provide attribution in the edit summary: see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
  The first part of the lead is okay, but you've taken two paragraphs from the four-paragraph BJP lead, which makes it very choppy. I'll try to work on this tomorrow. I also think the summary of the contents of the list could be a bit more detailed; we should cover the fact that Rajnath Singh had multiple terms, for instance. Finally, the image licensing needs a check; I'm particularly uncertain about the licensing of the election symbol, because the copyright certainly does not belong to the person who uploaded the image. Vanamonde (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93 My apologies. I wasn't aware of the fact that you are the creator of this list. I have added you as a co-nominator. Also, I will rephrase the sentences that have been taken from the parent article. And should we remove the election symbol then? Yashthepunisher (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the image. Let's wait for some other comments here, and if nobody can help clear it up we can ask Nikkimaria or some other image-licensing expert. I'll try to do some more work on the prose in a little while. Vanamonde (talk) 04:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That image is no good, I've nominated it for deletion on Commons (And came *this close* to just speedily deleting it myself). Courcelles (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: I wonder if you'd do us the favor of checking the other images here. I'm a bit uncertain about a couple, particularly those from Narendra Modi's flickr account (those list NM as the author, but he's in most of the photos). Vanamonde (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As those are derivative works of already deleted images, I've speedily deleted them. Courcelles (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Much appreciated: do the others look okay? Vanamonde (talk) 18:23, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Just an FYI to anyone watching this: after some thought, I think the table could use prose for each entry, and I will work on adding this. Suggestions are welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 17:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Done, FTR. Vanamonde (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Links should not be bolded as per MOS:BOLDAVOID.

  Reworded. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The image is obviously copyrighted so please replace it.

  I've removed it; any replacement will have the same copyright problem. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You can link Prime Minister of India.

  Done Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A term like Hindu nationalism is too wide to be associated with the BJP. I think that the Hindutva is more appropriate (as BJP is not a far-right party like the Shiv Sena, and officially they call Hindutva as their ideology).

  True. The Hindu nationalism article is far too general to describe the BJP's ideology in any case. Link piped, as "Hindutva" is a technical term not widely understood, and is used virtually synonymously with Hindu Nationalism with respect to recent events by most reliable sources. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You can add some blank space for those Presidents who don't have a pic on Commons. (have a look at List of chief ministers from the Bharatiya Janata Party)

  Done. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• File:Venkaiah Naidu 2 (cropped).jpg is a better pic for the VP.

  Done. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to add some more technical details about the post of BJP President: such that a single term consists of 3 years and one cannot have more than 2 consecutive terms. Use the BJP constitution as the source.

  Added details. Vanamonde (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Add the table caption. Bharatiya29 14:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what you mean. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bharatiya29: I have addressed all your comments save the last, which I do not understand: please have another look. Vanamonde (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It is worth mentioning that Naidu went on to become the first VP from the BJP.

  He wasn't, though. Bhairon Singh Shekhawat was elected Vice-President in 2002, and had been a BJP member since the party's founding. Vanamonde (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Forgot about Shekhawat, my bad.

• The allegations that were made against Gadkari turned out to be false; this fact should be mentioned to maintain an NPOV. Bharatiya29 08:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bharatiya29: Do you have a source for that? I'm struggling to find one. It's particularly tricky given that he wasn't, as far as I'm aware, ever tried in court, so he couldn't have been acquitted; he was just forced to resign because of the controversy, whether justified or not. Vanamonde (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Gadkari was cleared by the IT dept. Bharatiya29 14:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bharatiya29: I'm aware that Gadkari, unlike Laxman, was never convicted of anything (or even tried) so I'm amenable to mentioning that. But this source is really hot air, because the only substance it is based on is a statement saying "there is no enquiry/investigation presently pending". That's quite meaningless; and we would be verging on OR if we used it. Yashthepunisher Can you help find a better source here? Vanamonde (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this matter is too vague to be included in the article. The current version seems okay to me. Yashthepunisher (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Bharatiya29 08:13, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Commments by Sagavaj

• Reference 8 looks incomplete and it links to further reading section. I don't know much on how to cite a book or publication but is that allowed? Reference 4 and 8 are pointing to same thing.

  Both the references are different pages taken from the same book. That is how we cite books. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In reference 7, BBC News must be italicized.

  Done. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In reference 6, there is no access date.

  Accessdates are not mandatory. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  But they are helpful...so I've added this one. Vanamonde (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Prose looks fine but you didn't mention what is the normal term for the party president. Is he elected annually? Mention it if there's something like that.

  Added. Vanamonde (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion : Can you make either align the table to center or may be as suggested earlier in this discussion, fill it with some prose? It looks like table seems to be in a corner when the article is opened.

  Done, FTR. Vanamonde (talk) 12:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other than those, it looks good to me. Sagavaj (talk) 20:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Good work. Happy to support this nomination. Sagavaj (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 09:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

• "As of 2018, it is the country's largest political party in terms of representation in the national parliament and state assemblies, and it is the world's largest party in terms of primary membership." This is dubious on several counts. 1. You say 2018 but the source is 2015. 2. A newspaper report of claims by party officials is not a reliable source. 3. I assume that primary membership means personal as opposed to through affiliated organisations, but the source makes no such distinction. 4. The article on the Chinese Communist Party gives a membership of 89,450,000, higher than that claimed for the BJP.

  Dudley Miles Thanks for your comments. This point is a bit complicated. 1) Yes, the source is from 2015, so I'll have to fix that. 2) While it's true that the source for this is likely to be the party itself, there is a source which makes the claim in it's own voice. 3) I've used "primary membership" simply because that's what most sources say. 4) The article on the communist party actually also says that the BJP is larger (in the body of the article) but more importantly, the BJP claimed to have hit 110 million a few months later [6]. Where does that leave us? I would be okay with attributing the claim to the party: "The party states that ... which would make it..." Personally, I think it's a meaningless statistic; you need to go through an application process which rejects more than it accepts to be a CPC member, but the BJP is actually soliciting members. So I'm not opposed to dumping that fact altogether, but I suspect that would lead to disagreement. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2018 UTC)

  Addendum: I've made the change to attributing the claim to the party, but I'm not too happy with the wording, as we're not being completely faithful to the source. Further suggestions are welcome. Vanamonde (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• They got 170 million votes in 2014 and claim a membership of 110 million. That does not seem credible. I would state it as a claim by the party and leave out world's largest party, which is very dubious as you say. I am not clear why you think the wording is not faithful to the source. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm fine with that, and I've made the change. I was not too happy about saying "which would make it the world's largest" when the sources were saying "is the world's largest", but that's moot now. Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• A few words explaining Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Ram Janmabhoomi movement would be helpful for non-expert readers.

  I've added something, but the Ram Janmabhoomi movement is difficult to encapsulate in a sentence, so please let me know if more detail is require. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "Ram Janmabhoomi movement, an agitation to build a temple" Saying a movement is an agitation sounds odd. I would change to "which was agitating". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• So changed. Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I am confused about the term 'Indian Union government'. Indian Union links to Dominion of India, but Union government links to Government of India. Does the word 'union' indicate that India has a federal system?

  Yes, India has a federal system, but the accepted term for the Indian government is "union government" (as opposed to "federal government" in the US). In retrospect, though, I think it's clear enough without that; so I've just removed the term. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• What are 'party subsidiaries'?

  party subsidiaries are things like it's women's wing, youth wing, farmer's wing, minority wing, etc, etc. There's a very large number; I've mentioned two in the lead to help explain the term. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "National and State councils" - another term which assumes the reader knows the BJP structure.

  I'm not sure what to do here. These are National-level and state-level councils, with members drawn from a variety of sources, and serving a variety of functions. I could remove the terms and just say "drawn from representative bodies within the party"; would that be better? Or would you prefer a longer description of these councils? Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I would just add "party" before "National" and that will make clear that they are BJP bodies. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah I see the problem now. Done. Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "RSS". Abbreviations should be shown first in brackets after the full name as Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

  Done. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You say the term is three years, but early presidents appear to have served five years.

  My understanding is that the first two leaders served two terms of three years each. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Advani " has been the longest serving president covering three terms". But he served two periods of five years and one of one year, which would mean more than three terms of three years. Maybe better to say "three separate periods". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In general, I think this article assumes too much knowledge of the BJP in readers. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm happy to hear more suggestions on how to make it accessible. Vanamonde (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it is much clearer now. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dudley Miles: I think I've got everything; let me know if there's anything else. Thanks for the review. Vanamonde (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Looks good now. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:08, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Cheers. Vanamonde (talk) 09:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by BeatlesLedTV

• Add alt text to pics

  Done

• Table needs scope rows

  Done. Vanamonde (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• You have individuals who have took office multiple times as their original number in parentheses. I find this odd but if other editors are fine with it then leave it.

  Agree. Removed.

• 'References' → 'Ref(s)'

  Done

• and reverted, before I saw this comment, but why use an abbreviation when the full form doesn't cost anything?

• Is there a pic you can put at the top? Such as the election symbol?

  Added one. An earlier one was deleted because of some copyvio issue.

• Instead of the 'took office' and 'left office' cols, couldn't you just use one 'term' or 'time in office' col, or something like that?

  Done

• Might wanna check these links out

  Fixed links. Yashthepunisher (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks good. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BeatlesLedTV Thank you for your comments. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Good with me. Great job to both of you! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Vanamonde (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 17:40, 16 July 2018 (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.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC) [7].[reply]

List of cities in Alaska[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing my project of standardizing all lists of municipalities in North America. Thanks to the reviews of many wikipedians, this will follow 18 successful nominations (such as: Montana, Alabama), and one other that is nearly complete the process making it #20 if successful. This one is on the larger side but I believe this article is a complete and comprehensive list of all cities in Alaska.

I have modeled this list off of other promoted lists so it should be of the same high standard. I've incorporated suggestions from past reviews to make this nomination go as smoothly as possible. I hope I caught them all, but I'm sure I missed a few. Thanks again for your input. Mattximus (talk) 00:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Another well done list. Reywas92^Talk 20:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Reywas92! Mattximus (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

• I do not believe that image caption for the main image needs punctuation as it is not a full sentence.  Done
• Should the phrase “Unorganized Borough” be capitalized? I apologize if this is obvious, but I was just wondering as “organized borough” is not capitalized.

• Yes, this is the weird thing. Unorganized Borough is actually the name of the unorganized borough. Creative, I know.

• I would link the phrase “census areas”.  Done

Great work with this list! It was very informative and an interesting read. I will support this once my relatively minor comments are addressed. Have a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! All comments addressed. It's hard to get reviewers in the summer time, so I appreciate you taking the time. Mattximus (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

• What is 'platting'?

• It's making maps, for zoning and things like that. It's actually silly to mention, so I just removed it.

• I would mention in the lead that Juneau is the capital.

• I do mention it twice, once in the image caption and once in the table, do you think it requires a third mention? I'm indifferent either way.

• A first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the review! Mattximus (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I would mention the capital in the lead, but it is not important. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:19, 16 July 2018 (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.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC) [8].[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Matthew McConaughey[edit]

Nominator(s): Jiten ^talk _contribs 13:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a list of awards and nominations received by actor Matthew McConaughey, well known for his role in the movies Dazed and Confused (1993), A Time to Kill (1996), Bernie (2011), Killer Joe (2011), Magic Mike (2012), The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), Dallas Buyers Club (2013), Interstellar (2014) and the TV series True Detective. I tried to make the list as comprehensive as I could and used the List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio as a base for the format. This is my first good/featured content nomination so I hope I haven't messed anything up. Questions and suggestions are most welcome. Thank you for your time and efforts. Jiten ^talk _contribs 13:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per my so-called comments on my talk. I have made several edits to the list i.e. copy-edits, formatting. I don't know if I am too involved to support it, but I think it meets the criteria. FrB.TG (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support after a read-through, this appears to meet the criteria. I added an "a" and a "the" in various places... Courcelles (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This kind of format is starting to get me down a little. The MASSIVE whitespace in the lead beside the basically pointless TOC is frankly awful and the multiple single-entry tables are pretty much useless. I'm unclear as to why we wouldn't use the "List of awards and nominations received by ... A MOVIE" template which puts all the wins, nominations etc into a single table. The movie award FLs don't feel the need to explain the reason behind each award, and simply link to them instead. I know the default response is "all the rest are like this" but I honestly can't remember one with the visual shortcomings that this one has. It's nothing personal at all, but I can't, in all sincerity, support this format. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Rambling Man: I agree that the whitespace is pointless and the awards with a single nomination/win just make the article lengthy. However, I find the introduction for each award quite informative. I'll gladly remove them if they seem unnecessary though (as I said, I'm a newbie when it comes to featured content). I'm not sure which template you are referring to. Can you provide an example? If the template makes the article more visually appealing, I'm all for it. I found that finding sources and making the list as exhaustive as possible was the hard bit. Switching the format shouldn't be too hard — just lots of copy-pasting stuff around. Jiten ^talk _contribs 17:30, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your understanding and open thinking! I guess I'm thinking along the lines of List of accolades received by Call Me by Your Name (film) for example, just to see if we can create a more aesthetically pleasing single table? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Rambling Man: Okay, so I've revamped the format along the lines of the list you recommended. How does this look? Pinging Courcelles and FrB.TG for their opinions on it as well. Jiten ^talk _contribs 23:05, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Jiten D sorry for the delay, I've been batting away some nuisance flies. I think your proposed new format looks spot on. Hopefully others will agree, and we can start a new dawn for individual accolade FLs! The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Rambling Man: No worries about the delay! I've left a note on the talk pages of the other two reviewers for their opinions on the new format. If there is agreement, I'll implement the changes to the article right away. Jiten ^talk _contribs 10:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The new format looks better to me. Courcelles (talk) 14:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man, I've made the changes to the article. Let me know if there are any other improvements that can be done. Jiten ^talk _contribs 09:22, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will do. I'm sorry I haven't got back to it, I've been super busy in real life and now I'm away on business but I'm hoping I can get to this review as soon as possible. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Great work! — Miss Sarita 15:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is a really great work and a definite improvement with the new format which is very much pleasing to the eye aesthetically I should say. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• I'd like to see McConaughy introduced before we start talking about his awards, so effectively something like switching the first and second paras around.
• Or at least put his acting career into some kind of perspective in the opening sentence (e.g. when he made his debut etc).

  I have a test lede here if you dont mind taking a look. Another option is to just drop the "...has received various awards and nominations, including an Academy Award..." part since a lot of the awards are covered in the other paras.

• Comments like " to critical acclaim. " really need inline references.

  Added ref.

• I think "5th place" to "9th place" should sort between "Runner-up" and "Nominated".

  I did a little bit of testing in my own time and it looks like the code |data-sort-value="<words>" doesnt work well with ((no|9th place)) for example. The only workaround I could find was to manually edit the cell and add the sort parameter along with it (which is what I did here). If you have a simpler method in mind, do let me know!

Otherwise I think it's a great piece of work and should set the new standard in actor accolade FLs. Well done. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, The Rambling Man. Let me know if you agree/disagree with the proposed lede and the other changes I made. Jiten ^talk _contribs 20:26, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: You good to go on this one? --PresN 01:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support good, no great work. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – The reliability of the references looks okay, but there are several issues I found. Most are minor, but at least one is significant.

• Refs 9–12 (all from PR Newswire) each show up as dead links on the link-checker tool. If they are dead, we'll need either archived versions or replacements. The rest of the web sources appear to be in working order.

  Archived all 4 links. Thanks for pointing it out!

• Access dates are missing from refs 47 and 48.

  Added access dates.

• The publisher of ref 37 (Horzu) should be italicized since that is a print publication.

  Done.

• Some of the HitFix refs have the publisher italicized and some don't. I'd imagine that one style should be used consistently throughout the article.

  Italicized in all refs.

Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review, Giants2008. I've made the necessary changes. Let me know if more needs to be done! :) Jiten ^talk _contribs 12:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With those fixes, I consider this source review a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 14 July 2018 (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. --PresN 17:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Best Male Action Sports Athlete ESPY Award[edit]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We had the Best Female Action Sports Athlete ESPY Award here two months ago, and now I present you with the equivalent for male action sports athletes. It is similar to most of the ESPY lists that have attained promotion to featured list status, and will endeavour to see all queries are dealt with as soon as possible. My other FLC has multiple supports and no outstanding issues so we're all good in that field. MWright96 (talk) 17:37, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great job MWright96. Would you mind reviewing my FLC Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of England Test cricket records/archive1. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Other than these couple of small points, the list looks good.

• Minor, but "the" is needed before "most successful sportspeople" in the second paragraph.
• Comma would be helpful after Mark McMorris' name. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Giants2008: Your suggestions have been taken into account and put into the article. MWright96 (talk) 05:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Everything looks to meet the criteria now. Nice work on the list. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • "He became the first freestyle BMX rider to be nominated for, and hence to win, an ESPY Award" - this makes it sound like as soon as he was nominated he was guaranteed to win. Suggest rewording to "He became the first freestyle BMX rider to be nominated for, and thus the first to win, an ESPY Award"
  • "The 2006 winner of the Best Male Action Sports Athlete ESPY Award was White" - it's been so long since White was previously mentioned that I think it might be worth re-stating his first name
  • Think that's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comments. All of what you suggested has been put into the list. MWright96 (talk) 08:12, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:19, 16 July 2018 (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.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC) [10].[reply]

List of Hot Country Songs number ones of 2010[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another country number ones list. Eleven of these lists have been promoted recently and the one currently nominated has multiple supports and no outstanding items -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - ref 58 shouldn't have a leading zero in the date, and I fixed the sortable ref column, but otherwise I can't really find anything to grumble about! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - I'm finally getting on top of all those niggly little things :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - seems really good to me. I can't see anything.--Lirim | T 21:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Got nothing to nag you about, once again. I think the pattern has taken shape. Courcelles (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A little hesitant to promote with such a tiny FLC, but I suppose after a dozen lists it had to happen. Well done! --PresN 01:45, 10 July 2018 (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.

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Bibliography of works on Madonna[edit]

Nominator(s): —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 17:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, firstly we have many author bibliography articles. But this article is the first of its kind I believe about bibliography on someone else. This is an exhaustive list with meticulous details and formatting about the journalistic, academic, scholarly work on American singer Madonna, encompassing biographies, articles, essays, thesis, dissertations. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 17:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• drive-by re:

  The first Madonna biography by author Mark Bego, it was published in May 1985 and contains 189 pages.

  Seems like the only part worth retaining in notes like this is the first four words. "Mark Bego", "1985", and even the page count are already mentioned in the same row. To repeat them in a note is redundant, if they are important to even note in the first place. (not watching, please ((ping)) if needed) czar 15:36, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There's some other redundancy too eg "French biography written by Guy and Danièle Abitan.", "Dutch biography authored by Alfred Bos, Tom Engelshoven and Stan Rijven.", all of which simply duplicates other cells on the rows. If there's nothing additional that needs saying in the notes column then just leave it blank...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Also worth noting that at least half of "A handbook by Ilene Rosenzweig which is humorous biography for Madonna haters and scandalous "bras" that stood over her clothes." makes no sense at all....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Czar and ChrisTheDude: fair points, in those cases where you see that the information is duplicated, do you suggest to use the ((n/a)) to fill out the notes column? I personally don't prefer just a blank box. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 18:27, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, but I can't imagine that there's nothing to say about those entries. Don't they have at least one book review? czar 18:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many of them I have had language problem in understanding the reviews. Some of them I removed due to a lack of any notability or the author lacking any credibility at all. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 18:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar and ChrisTheDude: I have trimmed much of the notes section, changed them to avoid repetition, and removed entries where there was nothing notable I could find. Would you take a look again? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Goodreads is user-generated, no? My impression was that it's unreliable czar 05:37, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Czar: WP:RSN relegated Goodreads not to use for any review purposes, but for catalog its fine including ((Goodreads book)). I have not used Goodreads for any critical review if you see. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:47, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not good for RSN, it can't be good to source facts for this list either. And that template is for the "External links" sections of WP articles about books, though I wouldn't even recommend it for that czar 05:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I can find other sources than Goodreads and if I cannot find it, I would say that entry might be non-notable for the list. What do you say? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:54, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the book has absolutely no secondary source coverage, it sounds reasonable to exclude them. But if the idea is completeness, you could probably cite WorldCat as an alternative to Goodreads czar 05:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar:, I'm torn actually between your two suggestions. I have included the WorldCat ((oclc)) links already in a column, so wouldn't that be another repetition? What about Google books as source? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 05:58, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't done a bibliography at FLC before so I don't know the standard level of detail expected. My gut says to leave the notes+refs column empty if the OCLC listing sufficiently covers the rest of the row's detail. Also I doubt the ASINs are needed, right? ISBN/ISSN + OCLC should be more than enough to identify czar 06:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against removing the notes and reference column seeing that already featured lists like Dan Savage bibliography and Madonna bibliography uses that format. I will see what I can do about Goodreads as per the previous suggestion of finding more reliable source, else remove it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 06:08, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: I'm happy to say that I was able to successfully replace the Goodreads links with other reliable journal and magazine links. Some of the entries had to be removed completely since there was no third party reference I could find, thereby did not deem them to be notable. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:27, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Bluesatellite

• ((dynamic list)) should be added to the top of the page. There will never be satisfying standard for its completeness.
• "The life and work of American singer Madonna has generated various..." - It should be "have"
• "...including biographies, journals, articles, essays and thesis" - It should be "theses" as there isn't only one thesis there
• ...since she burst onto the pop scene in the early Eighties". - period should be before quotation mark
• ...for gender relations, American culture, and the future". - Same as above
• The releases have sometimes become best-sellers but... - "bestseller" is the correct one, isn't it?
• Why should we have the redlink? I don't see the necessity if the articles are unavailable.

I have never edited this article, not even once. Hope this helps. Bluesatellite (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

• As Bluesatellite pointed out, you should use the plural "theses" as more than one thesis is present, and be sure to fix the grammatical errors with periods for quotes
• "including German, French, Dutch, Spanish, Italian among others"..... why not just "including German, French, Dutch, Spanish, and Italian" instead?
• "In some cases, like for Morton's book, Madonna herself has criticized the release, and in case of Ciccone's book, it led to a rift between the siblings" reads rather awkwardly
• Contrary to what your "The releases have sometimes become best-sellers but have also faced varied reception from critics and academics" sentence implies, reviews aren't connected to sales
• It's improper grammar to start sentences with "but" like you did in "But it was a subject of ridicule and indignation overseas" as that forms an incomplete sentence.
• "As noted by CBS News president Fred W. Friendly" uses a passive voice, and I recommend using the active voice instead (i.e. "CBS News president Fred W. Friendly noted")
• Unless the redlinked entries are likely to warrant pages anytime soon (which I doubt), then I agree with Bluesatellite that they should be unlinked

As for a media review, File:Madonna - Rebel Heart tour 2015 - Berlin 2 (23220594196) (cropped).jpg is properly licensed and thus fine to use. Hopefully my comments help. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:05, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Bluesatellite and to SNUGGUMS, I have addressed the points raised. Hope it satisfies now. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I can safely support now. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:15, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After re-checking the article, I have no reason to oppose this nomination, so I gladly support. Nice job! Bluesatellite (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Great work with this list; I could not find anything that requires improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you @Aoba47:. Since you did not have any other comment may I ask you to do a source review and spotchecking for the list? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 13:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the message, but I do not believe that I am qualified enough to do a source review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar and ChrisTheDude: One last ping to see if your comments have been addressed. I have one point of concern as well- the ASINs should be removed. ISBN and OCLC are international standard identifiers for books; ASIN is literally just Amazon.com's internal product catalog number. It's narrowly specific to a single retailer, and shouldn't be used as if it was a standard. --PresN 15:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to do a full review today, but at a quick glance it seems like the only comment I did raise (that a lot of the notes were redundant and simply duplicated info in the publication date/page count/etc columns) seems to have been resolved. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: thanks for explaining about the ASIN, when you put it in that way they are not needed and I have removed them. Except for the Luv for Keeps The Story of Madonna's Stalker documentary work which is solely available on Amazon, so I guess for it keeping the ASIN is fine. Rest all removed. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 16:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My major points were addressed. But looking at it now, I don't think Luv for Keeps should be included—having neither an ISBN or OCLC ID indicates that it's not an important book on the topic. Also the source doesn't appear to even mention it? (not watching, please ((ping)) as needed) czar 10:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Haha @Czar: what a coincidence. I had just removed it thinking it to be non-notable and I realized you commented the same thing here. :P —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, source review passed, promoting. --PresN 01:45, 10 July 2018 (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.

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 via FACBot (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC) [12].[reply]

List of Hot Country Songs number ones of 2009[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following the successful promotion of the lists for 1959, 1991, and every year from 2000 to 2007 inclusive, and with 2008 having multiple supports, here's yet another one.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• I have a question about this sentence (Four artists achieved a first number-one hit in 2009.). Would “their first number-one hit” be better than “a firt number-one hit”? Something about the current phrasing reads a little off to me.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I was confused by this part (The five-week run by Lady Antebellum's "Need You Now" was the longest spell at the top by a single song,) from the second paragraph, as it seems to repeat the same information from this part ("Need You Now" also achieved considerable crossover success) from the first paragraph.
  • I've re-arranged things a bit to fix this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I would revise/simplify this sentence (When Aldean's song spent its fourth week at the top in late September, it was the first song to do so since February of the previous year) as I was confused when I first read it. Wouldn’t it better to simply the sentence by just saying it was the first song of the year to stay at number one for four weeks. I am not sure how important the “February of the previous year” part really is in this particular context.
  • I've made a slight change to that bit, but I feel that the "February of the previous year" bit is important as it emphasises that it had been a huge length of time (more than 18 months) since a song had stayed at number one for that long...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• For this part (Brad Paisley duet with Keith Urban) in the “Chart history” table, I would remove “duet”.
  • But that's how Billboard credit the song, so therefore (IMO) that's how it should be credited here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with the lists. I only found relatively minor points to correct. I never really thought about these types of lists before, and you made it an engaging and informative read. It definitely inspires me to work on a similar type of list in the future. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47:, any chance of checking back in....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the ping. I was not aware that you responded to my comments. In the future, please ping me to let me know that you responded as I will not know otherwise. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be something wrong with the lead/image though so I would suggest correcting that. Aoba47 (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Some sort of shocking copy/paste fail on my part, now rectified.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries. It happens to the best of us. Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support No concerns. Courcelles (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2018 (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) 21:16, 1 July 2018 (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 via FACBot (talk) 02:16, 3 July 2018 (UTC) [13].[reply]

List of games by Firaxis Games[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 20:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next up in my series of 90s video game developers/publishers (3D Realms/id/Raven/Epic), we have a developer that... doesn't intersect with any of the others. Firaxis Games has a different arc than the other companies I've made lists for: while they were started at basically nothing, Firaxis feels like it began in media res. Sid Meier, one of the founders, was not only already relatively famous (especially since Microprose put his name on the box cover in the games' titles), and co-founded it with the other big designer at their previous company, but they almost immediately launched into a spiritual extension of the Civilization series he was best known for. From there, it's... well. It's continued to grow over time, continued to make games (but not exclusively) in the Civilization series, never did anything too crazy, never moved away from straight game development. Even getting bought in 2006 didn't change much. So, narratively, not as exciting as some others. Professionally, well, Civilization is one of the biggest names in the industry, so they're doing alright. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a reason not to include sale numbers in lists like these? Nergaal (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The near-impossibility for finding sales numbers for any game, much less games that came out prior to ~2010, much less all of them. Unlike movies, the games industry doesn't report sales publicly. --PresN 16:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Even for big-shots like Civ5/Civ6? Nergaal (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Courcelles (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Can't see anything to improve. Anarchyte (work | talk) 06:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support No problems.--Lirim | T 21:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Source review – The references all appear to be reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool shows that they are all in working order. Spot-checks of refs 13, 24, and 50 show no verifiability concerns. Overall, this source review is a pass all the way around. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:27, 28 June 2018 (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) 21:10, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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