Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2014

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 Hahc21 03:45, 9 March 2014 [1].

---

Nominator(s): PresN 23:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the latest SF award list is done, I'm alternating back to video game lists. With this one, we should be done with Square Enix-related lists for the foreseeable future- and I even had to create this one in the first place, since it was going nowhere as an article. I present to you all List of Chocobo media: the quirky, weird games (and music albums) that Square Enix claims as a distinct series, even though they have absolutely nothing to do with each other beyond having the Chocobo mascot character from the Final Fantasy series as their protagonist. Anyway... There's not much discussion in RSs about the series as a whole, rather than on the individual games (and little of that, which is why the article had to be converted to a list in the first place) but what there is, I have, and the dates and facts for the games and albums are referenced, even the ridiculously obscure tie-in Japanese cell phone games. Thanks for reviewing, all! After this, I'll be back to whatever mysterious award list I dredge up (hint: it's World Fantasy Award for Best Short Story, just like you'd think it would be.) --PresN 23:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on comprehensiveness, it's a complete list of the topic. Thanks for User:PresN's contribution on SE-related lists.--Wangxuan8331800 12:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: reliable sources; well-formatted; easy-to-read; comprehensive. Tezero (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - just a drive-by here, you've got a couple of the publishers backward in your references. You have GameSpot linked to Ziff Davis and IGN linked to CBS Interactive; that's actually backward. IGN is owned by Ziff Davis and GameSpot is CBS Interactive. Also, good use of the GameSpot ref; that's an okay way to use GameSpot as a reliable source (just bringing that up because I know I've bugged you about that the last few times). Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...}_{check out the Sega task force} 02:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoops, not sure how that happened. --PresN 03:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And since I always bug you about it, archived my refs. --PresN 03:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Meticulously cited with good reference formatting throughout (after above issues since addressed), and good presentation. Nicely done, — Cirt (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Another excellent Featured List, covers all the games, and uses reliable sources. The last Square Enix list! The end of an era. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2014 (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 Hahc21 03:45, 9 March 2014 [2].

---

Nominator(s): — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... although I created and worked for it pretty much fast, according to me the list satisfies the criteria to be a FLC. Jake Gyllenhaal's impressive roles and appearances make this list shine even more. I think that the lead covers the most important content from the table, which is sortable and people can see how much the film budget was and its theater gross. For all the users who oppose I would like to post their comments so I can improve the article. Thank You — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WikiRedactor

• There are only a couple external links that need correcting.

• Done/Fixed them. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In the sortable tables, you might want to consider putting the column for years before the column with the film titles. It appears to be a standard for filmography tables from what I've seen.

• Well, actually there is not a standard. In this kind of tables they use the years first, while in examples like this one (which I have created), I use the name of the film first. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe you can drop the 's' in 'music videos' in the heading "Music videos appearances".

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list really looks to be in good shape, and I don't have any further issues; I trust that you will make these minor corrections, and I am confident in giving my support for the nomination. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiRedactor: Thank you very much. I hope you are satisfied with my responses:). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 16:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm happy with the revisions! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Jimknut (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments from jimknut Infobox: This is the first filmography I have seen with an infobox. It looks similar to the infoboxes for discographies and bibliographies. I have no problem with it but since it is one that you created without a previously existing template I think a vote might be needed from other reviewers as to whether or not it is needed. Introduction: "Jake Gyllenhaal is an American actor who has appeared in many motion pictures and several television programs, commercials and music videos." — "Many" and "several" are too vague and arbitrary. Christopher Lee and John Carradine both appeared in over 200 films each, so Gyllenhaal's 28 motion pictures do not seem like "many" in comparison. If you are going to keep the discography/bibliography-like infobox then I suggest starting the introduction similar to a discography or bibliography; i.e. "Jake Gyllenhaal is an American actor who has appeared in 28 motion pictures, 5 television programs, 1 commercial, and 2 music videos." In the introduction you state that he appeared in "motion pictures" whereas in the infobox and table you have "Films". I think you should change it to one or the other. (I would go with "Motion pictures".) Introduction: "In 2005, he co-starred opposite Heath Ledger as Jack Twist in the romance drama Brokeback Mountain." — I suggest changing this to: "In 2005, he co-starred as Jack Twist opposite Heath Ledger in the romance drama Brokeback Mountain." Otherwise it makes it seem as if Ledger played Twist and not Gyllenhaal. Films: The Day After Tomorrow and The Man Who Walked Between the Towers do not sort properly. Commercials and Music video appearances: What did Gyllenhaal do in these? Can you list his roles in them? Year before or after title: As with WikiRedactor I prefer the year column listed before the title but listing the year after the title is exceptable. However, if you're going to do this then you should do it with all of the tables so that there is a uniformity throughout the article. At present time the Music video appearances table puts the year column in fifth place. Jimknut (talk) 18:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for the comments @Jimknut:. I agree this is the first FLC containing the discography-look-alike filmography box (although I did not make it by myself and other filmographies have it too). If a voting is needed where it should happen? As for the other comments (issues) I believe I resolved them. Also added the roles column with the respective roles his is playing in the music videos and the commercial. Cheers! — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Just out of curiousity, what other filmographies use an infobox? Jimknut (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] After a bit of research I figured it out it's the best to remove it. The only one I can found using it is Christian Bale filmography (I created it, but didn't add the box, somebody else did it in the later stage, will remove it from there too). So I guess it's fine now. Cheers! — Tomíca(T2ME) 00:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] According to the IMDb listing for Nailed [3] the name of Gyllenhaal's character is "Howard Birdwell". THe IMDb is sometimes inaccurate but, still, putting the name in might be better than "unknown". Jimknut (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Well, I agree that putting the name is better than unknown, but what should I cite as a source for it? I've been told that IMDb is unreliable source and I can't find other third party reliable source mentioning his role in the movie... — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Starting comments – by IndianBio. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 17:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Born to the Gyllenhaal family --- This should be Born in the Gyllenhaal family per nomen, like Born in the USA

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think somewhere you need to establish that Stephen is his father,without people having to read Gyllenhaal family.

• I am not sure about this one, but check it out. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• although the film was received warmly from critics,[1] Gyllenhaal's portrayal of the NASA engineer Homer Hickam was praised --> This is not correct, the sentence should begin as a fresh one. Also received warmly and praise are not contrasts, they are complementary. So the although usage is also wrong.

• Is it okay now? — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• alongside his sister Maggie and Drew Barrymore --> This makes it sound as if Drew is also his sister, suggest a comma after Maggie.

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Gyllenhaal starred in the 2004 disaster film The Day After Tomorrow;[3] despite receiving mixed reviews from critics,[6] the film was a commercial success at the box office --> Another instance where a splitting would benefit the construction or a tweak like this: "Gyllenhaal starred in the 2004 disaster film The Day After Tomorrow, which, despite receiving mixed reviews from critics, emerged a commercial success at the box office".

  Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's the thing, why don't you end the Lead with something concise, like oneor two sentences from critics which talk about Jake as an actor or his acting methods? At present it has a bit of proseline effect with sentences going in a particular structure "In XXXX, he starrted in film YYYY, received a/b/c reaction"

• Well, that basically happens with every filmography (I explain facts about how the film is going/went). However, if you see there are some facts about his most important roles and acclaim and awards he gained. Also, I reduced the use of "In XXXX" etc. I think it's okay as it is. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• USD$ the $ symbol isnot necessary when you write USD.

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of the reference titles need an en-dash.

• I believe the script fixed them. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The magazine articles needs issn and the album booklet references needs catalogue ID.

  Done for the magazine reference, changed the booklet refs with an iTunes ones since I was not sure about the ID. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The main infobox image. I think it works perfectly fine without the upright parameter and it is defaulting itself to screen size as well. I checked it in my laptop lowering the resolution.

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my key scrutiny on this list. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you @IndianBio:! Here are my responses. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 22:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Brilliant, and I'm happy to provide my support for this wonderful list. Congratulations if it gets promoted. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 14:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much! ^_^ — Tomíca^(T2ME) 14:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Very well organized. Good presentation throughout. High quality referencing. — Cirt (talk) 01:43, 25 February 2014 (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 Hahc21 03:45, 9 March 2014 [4].

---

Nominator(s): Decodet (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that after doing some hard work on it, this list finally meets the criteria. I have nominated (and successfully promoted) other discographies before so I'm aware of the criteria and the way a featured list should be. It is all organized, everything is well sourced and the references are properly formatted. Let me know if there is anything wrong that needs to be changed so I can resolve it. Thank you in advance. Decodet (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prism

+ The lead section is rather short. Isn't there any information you could gather to describe the process of being signed to Interscope, or who discovered them? It would add a lot to the page. Try searching on Google Books for the band, if you're lucky, you may find some noteworthy Billboard magazines. Also, why were they dropped from Interscope?

I've added some information. Thanks for the tip! About being dropped from Insterscope, we don't have any clue. Probably poor sales, but it's not covered by any reliable source. decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ I'd recommend you to add the parameters '|people=(add director)' and '|format=Music video' to the references that link to a video page (music videos section).

Done! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ FN9 has website Lescharts italicized.

Fixed! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ If US Alternative is shortened to US Alt. (with the dot) why is there not a dot on US Main(stream)? If you know what I mean.~

Fixed! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ I reccomend you to change FN14 to Peak positions for singles as main artists and then the cite web template.

Done! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ FN15 should have title changed to The Pretty Reckless — Kill Me - Single.

Done! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ "Heaven Knows" needs reference to prove it's a single.

There was no source because it has charted. But I've added a reference anyways! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ On the extended plays section, "List of albums, with selected chart positions and certifications" should have albums changed to extended plays.

Fixed! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ Lead needs references for singles (on the last paragraph).

Done! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ In the Going to Hell part of the wikitable (Albums section), Release should be changed to Released. (typo)

It is not a typo, actually. I put "Release" instead of "Released" because, well, the album has not been released yet. So putting "released" would be incorrect. March, 2014 is a future date as of now. Therefore, I choose to change it to "Release". ~~

+ FN11 has AllMusic italicized.

Fixed! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ FN12 and 13 should not have Billboard and respective publisher wikilinked.

Fixed! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+ FN19 has VEVO italicized.

Fixed! decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I oppose this nomination, but I will support it as soon as you fix the issues I pointed out. :) prism △ 20:19, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment! I've worked on the issues you've pointed out. Do I have your support now? decodet. (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you do. I Support this nomination now. :) prism △ 13:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Succinct and well sourced. Nicely done, — Cirt (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! decodet. (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• "Interscope Records signed the band for a record deal." is iffy. How about 'Interscope Records signed a record deal with the band.'?
• Music videos table could be made to be sortable.

Other than those two points, and I few minor tweaks I made, I see nothing wrong with this article, so I am happy to support. Adabow (talk) 09:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have fixed that. Thanks for your support! decodet. (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2014 (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 Hahc21 03:45, 9 March 2014 [5].

---

Nominator(s): Caponer (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a comprehensive list of colleges and universities operating in the U.S. state of West Virginia, based upon the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. -- Caponer (talk) 19:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the situational awareness of the FL reviewers, this article was reviewed and featured in DYK. The DYK review may be referenced here: Template:Did you know nominations/List of colleges and universities in West Virginia. -- Caponer (talk) 23:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent listCoal town guy (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just placing a note that I haven't forgotten about this nomination! Will be hopefully adding some comments soon. :) Ruby 2010/2013 14:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to this nomination, Ruby! I look forward to reviewing your comments! -- Caponer (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please move the accreditation agencies below the main table, it is by far not the most important thing about this list. --Golbez (talk) 00:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Golbez, thank you for your suggestion. Done! -- Caponer (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Most encyclopedic and educational. A few redlinks sprinkled throughout, but those aren't holdups for featured quality. I like the background and intro discussion in the lede section. Nice job, — Cirt (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Great looking list; just leaving a few thoughts behind (sorry for the delay in commenting!):

• Have you considered using Template:Multiple image for images in the lead?

Thanks for the suggestion! I've found three images of West Virginia university buildings of similar size and scope. There aren't too many images available on Wikimedia Commons to work with. Let me know what you think! -- Caponer (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "In addition, there are two institutions classified as special-focus institutions."

Thanks for the catch! I've corrected this sentence. -- Caponer (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the data you are using is more recent than 2012 ([6])

Thanks for the catch! I've corrected his one as well. -- Caponer (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like there are a lot more defunct institutions than you included ([7])

I chose to only include Mountain State University and Storer College, as they were the only two defunct institutions with existing Wikipedia articles. I wanted to avoid a list of red-links at the bottom of the article. Would this be a deal breaker to just include these two, and add additional defunct colleges as their respective articles become available in the future? I could also create stubs for each institute if this is a deal breaker. -- Caponer (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, your explanation makes sense to me (I'd just add them as they're created). Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest inputting the WV portal in the See also section. Ruby 2010/2013 04:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I've moved the portals to the See also section. -- Caponer (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby, thank you so incredibly much for taking the time to review this article. I'll be piece-mealing my response as I address each of your concerns. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes look great. I am now happy to support the promotion of this list. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 03:45, 3 March 2014 (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 Hahc21 03:45, 9 March 2014 [8].

---

Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 04:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because, well, I believe it meets the criteria. I've modeled this largely after the featured Oregon list. It is a rather short one (with only 18 entries), so hopefully it won't take long to review. I see a large backlog on this page and will be happy to help clear some of it by jumping into reviewing tomorrow. Any comments here are much appreciated. Ruby 2010/2013 04:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments mainly minor technical issues... " the Minnesota State Legislature" the article doesn't have "State" in its official name. Removed. Ruby 2010/2013 04:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] "Minnesota did not select " a touch anthropomorphic, the State itself doesn't select anything. Changed to "designated" (not sure if that's also anthropomorphic). I could perhaps change to "the Minnesota Legislature did not select..."? Ruby 2010/2013 04:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] You have "State Seal" capitalised and "state song" uncapitalised, why the difference? Not really sure, other than that the former is capitalized in its own article and the latter is not in List of U.S. state songs. I tried to follow that standard. Ruby 2010/2013 04:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Not sure "Morel" needs to be capitalised. Agree, done Ruby 2010/2013 04:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Similarly "Blueberry", "Ice", "White" etc etc. I've fixed this and other examples, per the formats shown in their respective articles. In most cases, this meant that I added lower caps (some, like the Common Loon, I left capitalized). Ruby 2010/2013 04:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Consider linking poet laureate, probably more in need of a wikilink than, say, "muffin". Agree, done (linked one, delinked the other). Ruby 2010/2013 04:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] "Rep." what's that? State Representative. I have made this more clear. Ruby 2010/2013 04:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] "Honeycrisp apple" or "Honeycrisp Apple"? Probably the former. Be consistent. Agree, have changed them all to Honeycrisp apple. Ruby 2010/2013 04:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] "Sen." again, no need for such abbreviations. Agree, done Ruby 2010/2013 04:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Last part of the last para in the lead is virtually the same as the second para of "Nicknames and unsuccessful proposals". I've added a bit more to the lead and tweaked it. I tried to summarize the Nicknames and unsuccessful proposals section in just a few sentences, which was difficult to do without boring readers. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 02:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] The Rambling Man (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply] Thanks for reviewing! I have addressed most of your concerns -- will see what I can do about your last point when I get a chance, probably tomorrow. Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 04:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• Have to say I'm surprised ice hockey, and not professional wresting, is the state sport. Jesse Ventura missed a trick here.

• Facepalm I was hoping you guys across the pond would remain unaware of that particular piece Minnesotan of history. :/ Governor indeed... Ruby 2010/2013 02:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't sound too ashamed—as I see it he's the only politician in history to be honest about his intention to "win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat". GRAPPLE X 12:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• With no article to explain it, it might be worth adding a little bit about lester soil. With the image being so tall you could add a line in the description without the table growing any. Just something along the lines of "Lester is a [dense/loose] [loamy/sandy/silty] soil present in approximately sixteen Minnesota counties", or however it actually is.

• Agree, have added more about Lester. Ruby 2010/2013 02:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• " the "Gopher State", which is inspired from an early political cartoon" -> inspired by. You take inspiration from, but are inspired by.

• Agree, have fixed to "by". Ruby 2010/2013 02:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "the most northern state excepting Alaska" -> might flow better as "the most northern of the contiguous United States" (I find that "the most within a defined scope" reads better "the most overall, bar X")

• Agree, have used your suggested language. Ruby 2010/2013 02:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The unsuccessful proposals—some of these seem a bit frivolous (not that official soils and muffins aren't...), if there's any particular quirk behind the proposals it might be worth noting (I imagine the Tilt-a-Whirl one may have been a promotional stunt, for example). It's not major but it would help address Rambler's last point about helping the lead and text differ a little more strongly.

• Yes, many do seem rather frivolous! I've sought to explain wherever possible the significance of particular proposals (unsuccessful and successful), but see that I failed to do so for the vaunted Tilt-a-Whirl. I have now added some more information on it to clarify why it was proposed. If I did the same for the animals, it would make the section rather bloated. Ruby 2010/2013 02:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• On a similar note; given the state motto and sport, maybe a mention of the North Stars hockey team taking their name would help too.

• Good idea, have added a blurb on this. Ruby 2010/2013 02:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure I'm keen on centred text in the description cells; totally an aesthetic opinion.

• Per your suggestion I previewed those cells with the left alignment, but unfortunately they looked odd when the others were centered. I've decided to leave as is. Ruby 2010/2013 02:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "as a signal to the state's dairy industry that Minnesota cares about them" -> wouldn't an industry be an "it"? Could be phrased as "workers in the state's dairy industry" instead to keep the plural.

• Agree, have changed to "it". Ruby 2010/2013 02:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "In 1904 and 1905, Minnesota's state song was written" -> Written in two stages, or should this be phrased as a range?

• The source indicates it is a range. I've changed the wording to say "from 1904 to 1905". Ruby 2010/2013 02:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's all I can really see. GRAPPLE X 18:43, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks very much for reviewing! Please let me know if there's anything else. Ruby 2010/2013 02:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Changes look good to me. Happy to support this one. GRAPPLE X 12:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Quite well sourced and great structure. Most educational. — Cirt (talk) 01:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: State of Minnesota is linked in many of the refs. Should it perhaps only be linked in its first appearance in the reflist? I may be ignorant of relevant policy with this question; excuse me if that's the case. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 18:48, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this is usually up to editor preference. IMO, it would look a bit odd to only include one link to State of MN but link all mentions of the Star Trib. I've always sought to link all my citations in my articles for consistency's sake (especially if the references list is rather long). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 20:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Dana boomer (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Muffin, link blueberry? Done Ruby 2010/2013 19:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] Muffin, "where they grow in bogs, hillsides, and forests." One of these things is not like the other... Bogs and forests are habitats - hillsides can be found in either or neither. True, I've just removed "hillsides" altogether. Ruby 2010/2013 19:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] Soil, link soybeans and corn? Done Ruby 2010/2013 19:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] Song, "From 1904 to 1905" -> "In 1904 and 1905"? That was the old wording before an above reviewer suggested it be changed. I agreed, since "From 1904 to 1905" seems to indicate that it was written in a range (which it was). Ruby 2010/2013 19:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps "between 1904 and 1905" would work too? GRAPPLE X 19:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I like that wording. Done! Ruby 2010/2013 19:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] Song, " it served as the school's official song until 1945," Is it still the university's official song? No, it was eventually replaced with the Minnesota Rouser. I will add this to the song blurb. Ruby 2010/2013 19:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] Tree, "It can grow between 60 and 100 feet tall." Please add a conversion for metric readers. Good suggestion, done (my first time using the convert template, incidentally). Ruby 2010/2013 19:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply] Just a few minor comments; otherwise, it looks to be in great shape. Dana boomer (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for reviewing! Let me know if there's anything else. Ruby 2010/2013 19:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Thanks for the fast response, everything now looks great. Dana boomer (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - tried to find something to nitpick about, but I got nothing. Consider archiving your online references with a site like webcitation.org or web.archive.org so that if the referenced websites change or go down, the list isn't affected. --PresN 06:27, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks very much for the support. I've archived the two State of MN links that I use the most; most of the others are from Highbeam, which I imagines takes enough care of their links. Ruby 2010/2013 03:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Congrats on a quality list! (I've not looked closely enough to cast a vote, but at first glance it looks great. Just dropping in having come across the list by chance.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 03:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for creating it to begin with! I'm just happy to have (hopefully) gotten it to where it needs to be. Ruby 2010/2013 03:56, 6 March 2014 (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 Hahc21 03:45, 9 March 2014 [9].

---

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list, which covers some of the most beautiful and unsullied areas in Colorado, closely follows the format I used in the Michigan and Alaska lists, both now FLs. I look forward to your comments! Dana boomer (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- this list is looking good, but after reading the Michigan list, I would like to see a little more information on some of the more notable landmarks in Colorado. Is there any content you can add? I'm not suggesting you expand the lead that significantly, only to add a sentence or two about some of the sites' significance (culturally, militarily etc.). Thanks, Ruby 2010/2013 00:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, the corresponding list is actually List of National Natural Landmarks in Michigan, not the National Historic Landmarks list you linked above. The NHL list is summarizing almost 40 sites, while this NNL list is summarizing 14, in a different program. I'll look at the Colorado list tomorrow, and see if there are any little bits and pieces I can add in, but wanted to make sure you were comparing to the right list :) Dana boomer (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, you are correct. That's what happens when you're reading late at night, I suppose! :) Sorry about that. Now looking at the correct Michigan list, could you specify in the lead the first two designations you are referring to (and the latest one)? Ruby 2010/2013 00:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, now added. Dana boomer (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• User:Ruby2010, do you have any further comments regarding this list? If so, they would be much appreciated! Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This list looks great and worthy of becoming an FLC. I support its promotion. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 19:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A very good list. I would suggest linking "unconfined aquifer". Dudley Miles (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the support and the suggestion, which I have now acted upon. Dana boomer (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Very informative list. Quite educational and encyclopedic. Meticulously sourced throughout. Well done. — Cirt (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your review and support! Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "13 fully within Colorado and one shared" MOSNUM says use either numbers or words to describe similar things, so "Thirteen" or "1".

• Fixed. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• " two Natural Landmarks, while two Landmarks" various varying description of the landmarks, you abbreviated them to NNLs in the lead, why not just use that each time?

• I did a bit of tweaking to this, but I don't think it made it much better. Do you have any better wording to get rid of the two landmarks...two landmarks... repetitiveness? Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Over doing the accuracy of the conversion, we don't need square miles to the nearest 0.001.

• Rounded to the nearest 1/10. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Owners include private individuals and several municipal, state and federal agencies" vs "Both public and privately owned properties can be designated as NNLs." isn't this effectively saying the same thing twice?

• No, not the same thing. The second says that both public and private properties can be designated as NNLs, the first says that NNLs owned by the various groups listed have been designated as NNLs in Colorado. For example, Colorado has NNLs owned by municipalities, while Alaska doesn't. In Michigan, a public university owns at least one NNL. I think there's at least one state where there are no NNLs on private land. So, the first is what is done in that state, the second is what could be done in nation-wide. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "may object to" why would they do this with all the benefits thereafter described?

• They don't want the guv'mint on their land? Honestly, I'm not really sure, but I would guess it would boil down to the distrust/dislike that some people in very rural areas (which are where the vast majority of the NNLs are) have for the federal government. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Top North American" do you mean the best when you say "top"?

• Yes, changed. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "5.000 sq mi" see above.

• Rounded to the nearest 1/10; also fixed another one that was to the nearest 1/1000. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• General ref and specific ref 1 appear to be the same.

• They are. The general ref covers everything in the table that isn't specifically referenced to other sources, while the first specific ref covers the information in the lead that precedes it. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "A major example of" any need for "major"? Is it backed up by reliable sources?

• The source calls it an "excellent illustration". Any suggestions for rewording? Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• National Park Service is linked in ref 1, not in the general ref which comes before it.

• Now linked in both places. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "species- and plant-..." are plants species?

• Ugh. Now changed to animal- and plant-. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I think I have replied to everything above. Dana boomer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Rambling Man, I think I have addressed everything above. Any further thoughts? Thanks in advance, Dana boomer (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with a comment- you're mixing date types in your references; pick one (yyyy-mm-dd or Month dd, yyyy). You also have a few redirecting links in the descriptions that don't seem intentional, if you care to fix those. --PresN 22:51, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the support. The dates are standardized, as far as I can tell - publication dates are month day year, access dates are yyy-mm-dd. This is a completely legit way of styling references, and is the style I generally use in everything I write. Not sure which redirect links you're speaking of, or why they're a problem? Dana boomer (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh, looked it up, and it turns out that's true- pub dates have to be consistent, and access dates have to be consistent, but they don't have to be the consistent with each other. Never knew that; always thought it had to be one format for all dates in the references. Still looks silly to me, but to each their own. As to the redirects, it's just minor issues that don't matter much- quarries, wetlands, igneous, and I meant unconfined aquifer, honey ant, and hanging garden as well (also: Indian Springs Trace Fossil), but on second look they seem more or less intentional. --PresN 07:32, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Perfectly happy with 99.9% of the list; my only minor quibble is that the image used in the lead, of Hanging Lake, makes the lake look quite... dinky. The image used in the table seems much more impressive, and I'm wondering if it might be better to swap those two around, because at present the initial impression is that you're leading in with an ol' swimming hole. (The fact that this is such a petty gripe should indicate there's plenty right with the rest of it. :P). GRAPPLE X 01:02, 8 March 2014 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC) [10].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List about Megadeth's awards. All I managed to found since the band hasn't received much accolades through out their career. I believe I've re-arranged the sections correctly and re-builded the prose.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Serial comma. It looks like you use one here: "one box set, and numerous singles", but not here: "alongside Anthrax, Metallica and Slayer". Per WP:SERIAL, make it consistent. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed that issue. Thanks for the comment.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). A nice page, but I've got a few comments of things that could improve it further: (1) Remove "Grammy Award-nominated" from first sentence in lede, not sure that's encyclopedic or NPOV. (2) 3rd paragraph in lede is a two-sentence-long-paragraph, suggest merging it or expanding it. (3) Other recognitions - this sect seems oddly located and strangely named, perhaps rename it to simply Reception and change it to prose format and expand it to a couple paragraphs in length. (4) Move cites in table to new column for Notes and place them there, for uniformity with other list pages. (5) You might think about adding at least a couple free-use images. — Cirt (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comment. I copied that "Grammy-nominated band" from Metallica awards, while that paragraph about "Other recognitions" was inspired by List of awards and nominations received by Fiona Apple.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I looked it over again and still stand by my above comments. Keep me posted if you wish to address them, — Cirt (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but placing the notes is separate column is unfeasible because Template:Awards table doesn't feature such an option. Anyway, I wanted to ask is it better to merge the third paragraph with the first or second? And are the images available on Wiki Commons suitable for here or should I update a new one?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, no worries about the refs column. I'd say merge the 3rd para with the 2nd, but I'll leave that editorial judgment up to you. I'll defer to your judgment about which images from Wikimedia Commons you wish to use that are relevant, but then they would need an image review after being added to the page. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 04:05, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cambalachero (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The numbers of the table do not seem right in comparison with the tables below. Have in mind that usually we only count as "nominations" the unsuccessful ones; when Megadeth wins an award it goes to "wins", not to both "wins" and "nominations". In Genesis Awards you said "Megadeth has" and in the following one you said "Megadeth have"; decide if the name of a band counts as a "he" or a "they", and use an uniform style. To say that Megadeth "have yet to win" seems to imply that they should do so, which is an opinion; just say that they have not won so far. You should also reference that they are one of the most nominated artists without a Grammy win, as that isn't something self-evident from the tables in this list (as it involves other artists and their own Grammy performances). The loudwire entry should have the song between " ", as in the other tables. You should also link Megadeth and Dave Mustaine at the last tables, overlinking does not count in table entries (specially when they are different tables). And does Guitar World have a tie between Mustaine and Friedman at the 19º, or do they have a joint entry as a guitar duo at their table? Cambalachero (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. The awards won also fall under nominations. Take a look at Metallica awards or Thirty Seconds to Mars. Mustaine and Friedman ara ranked as a guitar duo, or share the nomination. The other notes are proper and I will address them as soon as I can.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Cambalachero: user L1A1 FAL addressed some of your concerns, while the rest of them are explained above. Anything else that needs to be done?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's still the use of "has"/"have", and the last sentence of the grammy is still unreferenced Cambalachero (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the first note. I couldn't find a source that says Megadeth were one of the bands with many nominations who hasn't won, so I omitted that sentence.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Cambalachero (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Thanks to Вик Ретлхед for the helpful and polite responses to my comments, above. — Cirt (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from CrowzRSA (talk) 14:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments ...is ranked as one of the "Big Four" of thrash metal, whose commercial success led to popularization of the thrash metal sub-genre. redundant use of "thrash metal," perhaps change to "...led to popularization of the genre." Megadeth is considered as one of the most successful... → "considered to be one of the most..." Thrash metal needs to be linked only the first time it is mentioned in the lead, then once again in the body. Dave Mustaine, Megadeth's frontman has been nominated twice, reword to: "Megadeth frontman Dave Mustaine has been nominated twice," What makes rockonthenet.com a reliable source? Since Blabbermouth.net is part of Roadrunner Records, Blabbermouth should be listed under "

• Support - the article has excellent structure and reads well. I see no further issues, good work! CrowzRSA 14:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This is an excellent addition to the project that meets the FL criteria. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2014 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC) [11].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Tomobe03 (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I trust it conforms to FL criteria. The list passed an A-class review of the WP Military History Project, it has been copyedited since by a GOCE volunteer and received other improvements. Tomobe03 (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). I see great improvements from the A-class review by WP:MILHIST. Minor quibbles: (1) The Footnotes sect should be just called Notes; as Footnotes are for comments at the end of the article, and Notes is for citations. (2) I actually like the breakdown by type of sources in the References sect, but in academia these would all be arranged purely alphabetically, totally fine either way, I'll leave that up to Tomobe03. (3) Image review: Three images used in article, all appropriately licensed at Wikimedia Commons, no issues there. Great job overall, — Cirt (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for having a look at the candidate. I have now retitled the section heading.--Tomobe03 (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments This is looking good and my points are fairly minor.
• "an open revolt of the Croatian Serbs in August 1990. It further developed with the increasing involvement of the Yugoslav People's Army in the conflict". I think some clarification would be helpful. Presumably the Serbs revolted against the Croatian regional government and the YPA intervened on the Serbs' side?
  • Indeed. Clarification added.
• "following the electoral defeat of the government of the Socialist Republic of Croatia". Similarly to above, revising something like "defeat of the socialists by Croat nationalists in the election of a Croatian government" (or whatever is correct) would make clear why the defeat provoked a Serb revolt.
  • Since the issue is secondary (in my opinion) to the article subject, I have added this clarification to article body only but left the lead as-is. Would you agree with this or do you think the info warrants inclusion in the opening paragraph?
• I would link Zagreb.
  • Linked.
• "special forces unit of the Ministry of the Interior that exited before the 1990s" I would add Croatian before Ministry and what did they exit from?
  • Added "Croatian" as suggested. "Exited" is a typo - fixed now, should be "existed".
• Vinkovci. "20 troops killed" would be better than "20 killed troops". Dudley Miles (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amended as suggested. Thank you very much for taking a look at the article. Cheers--Tomobe03 (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A good list.
• One further suggestion. "following the electoral defeat of the socialist government of the Socialist Republic of Croatia by the Croatian Democratic Union representing a nationalist programme" looks rather clumsy. How about something like "following the electoral defeat of the socialist government by the nationalist Croatian Democratic Union". The link to the Socialist Republic of Croatia could then replace the one to the Government of Croatia in the lead, where it would be more accurate referring to 1990. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trimmed one "socialist" reference through a piped link. Thanks for the tip.--Tomobe03 (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I reviewed this article at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Croatian special police order of battle in 1991–95 and gave it my support. All of my concerns were addressed there. 23 editor (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I have nothing to add, it all looks good. --PresN 18:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. - SchroCat (talk) 09:39, 6 March 2014 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC) [12].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sax Rohmer was a prodigious writer between his first book in 1910 and his death in 1959. He started his career writing songs and sketches for music hall stars George Robey and Little Tich, and ghost wrote Tich's autobiography. He is probably best remembered for his creation of the villainous Fu Manchu, who appeared in 15 of Rohmer's books, before finding a further life in the cinema. – SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I am familiar with this subject thanks largely to my work on the Tich FA and my FAC intended work on Robey. As such, this is a very accurate account of the information given on them. I have made the couple of small fixes myself as they were really small and more effort would have been needed for me to post them here rather than to just get on with it; I see no further issues whatsoever. Great stuff! Cassianto^Talk 10:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments typically good stuff, some minor technical points.

• Blank publisher for "Aboo Tabah", probably worth a note.
• "Other works of Sax Rohmer" shouldn't that really be "Non-fction works..."?
• "by M. Retford." vs "and T. W. Thurban" in Notes. The consistency of the use of full stops is the issue here.

• Sorry, being blind here, but I thought I'd got the full stops in place: where am I missing them? - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "The books of Rohmer" previous captions have used his full name. And this appears to be more specific than "books", "novels and story collections"...
• New York or NY? Unless one means the city, the other the state I suppose...?

• Yep: I've gone for the city in full and the state in the shortened form. - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a curiousity for me, the book is called The Mystery of Dr. Fu-Manchu but the character is referred to here as Fu Manchu (i.e. without the hyphen). What's the deal?
• Not sure you need Category:Bibliographies by writer as Category:Bibliographies of British writers is more refined.

The Rambling Man (talk) 09:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• All done, bar the one where I'm being dense! As always, many thanks for taking the time to go through this! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). Only one minor suggestion: You might want to move the page to Sax Rohmer bibliography, per prior precedent of the WP:FL at George Orwell bibliography. Otherwise, nicely done! — Cirt (talk) 02:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks Cirt: much appreciated! There are a couple of different formats for bibliographies and I've plumped for this, largely because I find the format of "Sax Rohmer bibliography" gramatically lumpy! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome, — Cirt (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - with a few comments

• "was a British song and sketch writer, and author" - that comma just seems awkward, maybe "was a British author and song and sketch writer"

• That's not quite right either, but I agree the previous version was awkward and tweaked to something more appropriate. - SchroCat (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Notes shouldn't be sortable in the Non-fiction table

• Yep, done. - SchroCat (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that the first table's heading is "Songs and musical monologues written by Rohmer", the others should be in the same style (i.e. Plays written by Rohmer, not "The plays of Rohmer")

• Ive standardised to "xxxxx by Rohmer", which should be ok. - SchroCat (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• --PresN 19:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks PresN, much appreciated! Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 00:10, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:

• No image of the man?

• Nothing free that I could see, unfortunately: I'll have another search around, as I've got access to a source i didn't have when I wrote this. - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Born" twice in two sentences

• Swapped out one for "pseudonym". - SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• His formal education finished in 1901 with the death of his alcoholic mother - probably not intended, but could be interpreted as his education led to her death, or that she was teaching him

• Now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ghost written - I think this should either be one word or hyphenated

• Hyphenated in BrEng: now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 07:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why no films based on Fu Manchu? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There are a few, but Rohmer didn't have a hand in any of them, as far as I can tell. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, thanks for your quick replies. I will be promoting this nom now. There may be a delay in the bot processing it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Crisco 1492 03:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC) [13].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): Cirt and The Rambling Man. — Cirt (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was inspired to create this page after seeing George Orwell bibliography which was brought to FL quality by koavf. Prior to this nomination, the most recent quality improvement step for this page was a Peer Review with helpful participation from Joe Decker and koavf. Before that, it had survived an attempt at deletion with unanimous "Keep" participation aside from the nominator, and a prior peer review.

My thanks to The Rambling Man who helped mentor me through the quality improvement process for Dan Savage bibliography. — Cirt (talk) 12:43, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User talk:Cirt, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bibliographies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Media, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Talk:Dan Savage bibliography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books. — Cirt (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

---

• Note: I've listed The Rambling Man as co-nominator with me, as he helped mentor me through this particular quality improvement process for Dan Savage bibliography. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 12:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Cirt's involvement with this article does not violate his topic ban (assuming that hasn't been lifted wholesale... I don't really keep up to date with Arbcom's dealings) as he has received a dispensation. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, Crisco 1492, ArbCom passed that motion linked above, which specifically allows me to perform a quality improvement project to attempt to bring this page to WP:FL quality. Thanks Crisco 1492 for that link, — Cirt (talk) 13:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No worries. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Uncertain about this but "The Washington Post reported that according to Nielsen BookScan approximately ", there should be a comma between BookScan and approximately. Ref 2 redirects, needs an updated link (http://www.altweeklies.com/aan/dan-savage-takes-editorial-reins-at-the-stranger/Article?oid=1151 is the current one) Still not updated. My mistake. It was actually bib 3. They used the same link so that confused me. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Ref 7 needs an updated link Ref 29 is dead? Ref 40 needs an updated link Ref 83 needs an updated link Ref 86 needs an updated link Ref 88 is dead Ref 101 needs an updated link Ref 102 needs an updated link Ref 104 needs an updated link Ref 105 needs an updated link Third to last bibliography needs an updated link

• Tentative support Refs are completely fine now. I don't have any remaining issues, but I agree with Bencherlite's judgement. When he supports the list, consider my support there too. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the Support. Most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Not a great fan of the opening line: "The bibliography of Dan Savage includes six books and an edited compilation book, chapter contributions to eleven books, op-ed pieces in The New York Times, and an advice column on sexual issues in The Stranger written by the American author Dan Savage (b. 1964)." Which basically boils down to "The bibliography of Dan Savage includes stuff written by Dan Savage", which is circular and doesn't tell us what The Stranger is. Don't worry about having to have something there in bold. How about this as the first paragraph: "The American author Dan Savage (born 1964) has written six books, op-ed pieces in the New York Times, and an advice column on sexual issues in The Stranger (an alternative newspaper from Seattle, Washington). He began contributing a column, Savage Love, to The Stranger [etc]..."
  • Comment - Agree with Bencherlite here. My own bibliographies (Kwee Tek Hoay, Chairil Anwar, and Amir Hamzah) use the style he suggests. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, thank you, Crisco 1492, I've already modified this with the helpful suggestion, as recommended by Bencherlite, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Third paragraph of the lead: "Savage's 2005 book The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family recounting his personal experience deciding to marry his partner Terry Miller and analyzing same-sex marriage, reached The New York Times Best Seller list." needs a comma before "recounting".

Background:

• overlinking (Catholic, bachelor's degree, theater)
• Perhaps mention where The Stranger is based here
• The Kid: What Happened after [etc]" does not use the same capitals as our article about it (I think you need a capital "A" in "After" to avoid the redirect"

Works

• The Kid - as before, check capitals
• Overlinking galore throughout the rest of the lists(s). The NYT and The NYT Company are each linked over 15 times; repeated links for Dutton; Seattle; MTV; YouTube; Savage Love; etc etc etc etc. Useful links are just drowned in a sea of blue. If the lists were sortable, then there would be a reason for repeating the links, but I can't see why every article he's written for the NYT, for example, needs repeated bluelinks. Nor do I think we need "Savage, Dan" at the front of every one. Other featured bibliographies manage without this.
• Low value links e.g. three different links in the six words "Master of Communications in Digital Media", none of which are very useful.
• Watch for unnecessary repetition - in the "books edited" section, for instance, we read a lot of stuff for the third time (lead; background; books edited). That's one too many, I think - either in the background, or the books edited section, but not both.
• Television - what's referencing these appearances? Is there anything to be said about them?
• Plays - you sometimes link the original work, sometimes not.
• "was credited as: Keenan Hollahan" - why the colon?

Further reading

• Why so many other sources here? If they belong in his article, then fine, but this is a bibliography not a proxy-biography.

This is not a full review but I think there's still a lot to be done. Bencherlite^Talk 00:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thank you, Bencherlite, I will get on addressing above soon, and respond back here when done. — Cirt (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments from Bencherlite

1. Done. Lede = changed to suggestion from Bencherlite, I like the new version, thank you!
2. Done. Added a comma.
3. Done. Removed overlinking.
4. Done. Mentioned here where the Stranger is based.
5. Done. Fixed link to avoid redirect.
6. Done. Again, fixed link to avoid redirect.
7. Done. Went through the entire page subsection-by-subsection. Removed overlinking. Removed "Savage, Dan", where it is unambiguous. Looks better this way, thank you!
8. Done. Removed low value links, as suggested.
9. Done. Removed unnecessary repetition. Preserved info in Background sect. Trimmed info from books edited sect.
10. Done. Added referenced info about material, to the Television sect.
11. Done. Linked original works.
12. Done. Removed colon.
13. Done. Trimmed amount of entries in this sect.

Thank you for these recommendations, Bencherlite, the page looks much better for them! Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 05:35, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've gone through and removed a great deal more wikilinking, per above recommendations by Bencherlite. The page is more focused because of these helpful ideas. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: after a thorough read of the lead section and analysis of references and list itself, I think this is suitable for FL as it is well referenced and structured. Keep up the good work. Prism △ 12:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Prism, for the Support and the kind words about the quality of the list page, most appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Wow this list looks brilliant! Well sourced and well structured overall. I am very pleased to give my support. Great work! — Simon (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your Support, HĐ, and your nice thoughts on the list, I really appreciate it. — Cirt (talk) 14:00, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PresN (addressed)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Comments "was published in 1998 by Plume" - maybe link to Plume (publisher), since it's not obvious that it's a company rather than a person, due to the name. You're also not consistent about mentioning the publisher in the lead (You only do so for 2 of 5 books), so either mention it all the time, or none of the time. I'd say none of the time, since you turn around and mention them in the next section You mention 4 of his written books in the lead, and the one he edited, but not the two newest ones? "The book features contributors including Barack Obama" - if you just look at the main phrase, all you say is "The book features contributors". You need an adjective- numerous? notable? If it was worth linking Uni of Ill and The Stranger in the lead, it's worth doing it the first time you mention them in the body. Link the publishers in the tables the first time they're used; I see above that you were asked not to do it every time since the tables aren't sortable, but now they're not linked at all You have the headings "author", "contributor"... and "books edited". Why not "editor"? The "Advice Column" section has a floating "Savage Love" above the actual savage love entry The formatting on the Internet section is just strange- you flip Savage's name (but not Miller's) and put in a retrieval date, as if it were a citation. I'd rather see, instead of Savage, Dan; Terry Miller (September 21, 2010). "It Gets Better". It Gets Better Project (YouTube). Retrieved December 13, 2012. have "It Gets Better", part of the It Gets Better Project (YouTube), with Terry Miller (September 21, 2010) It just makes more sense to have it as a list item, rather than a pseudo-citation. If you want citations, then have a citation. Same thing with the This American Life Live! line under Television - flipped names, citation styling, ugh. "including Lily Tomlin, and LeAnn Rimes" - no need for a comma In Articles, I think you mean those to be subsection headers, but they're just floating bits a text, since there's not a lot of separation between them and the line above. And again, I don't see the point of retrieval dates. If you're going to specify the second column of Awards as the main column, why not just put it as the first column? Saint Joan and The Best Man are both links to disambiguation pages The media portal link way at the bottom is just a redirect to the Journalism portal, which you already have linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PresN (talk • contribs) Thanks very much, PresN, for these detailed and helpful comments, I shall get to addressing them now, and then note back here when done. — Cirt (talk) 20:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Response to comments from PresN Done. Removed mention of publishers from lead. Done. Added two newest books to lead. Done. Added word "notable", as suggested, thank you, looks better this way! Done. Linked these two terms in first instance of appearance in body. Done. Linked first instance of publishers in the tables. Done. Changed heading to "Editor". Done. Removed floating term above entry in this section. Done. Adjusted formatting in Internet section, as suggested. Done. Modified formatting of This American Life! entry in Television section, as recommended. Done. Removed comma. Done. Changed to subsection headers. Done. Switched "Awards" to be first column. Done. Fixed links to disambiguation pages to more specific links. Done. Removed link to Media portal. Thank you, PresN, for these helpful recommendations -- I agreed with all of them so I've implemented the changes directly to the list page. The list looks much better for them! Thank you for your comments, — Cirt (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looks good now, made a few tweaks, but I'm willing to support. --PresN 21:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problems with the tweaks, and thank you for the Support ! — Cirt (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list looks to be in very good shape! My only suggestions would be to organize the references in three columns instead of two as they currently are, and also to make the pictures a little bit large to see more of their detail. But these are just small ideas, of course, and I have no problem giving my Support to the nomination! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've changed the references sect to three columns, and adjusted the size of the images, per above suggestions. Thanks very much for your Support, much appreciated, — Cirt (talk) 21:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - What is the point of the background section? It doesn't have much, if any, information that is not in the lede. Other bibliographies / lists of works that I am familiar with do not have such a section. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the interest, Crisco 1492, per WP:LEAD, lede intro sects should be summaries of information presented later in the page, and should be able to function as a standalone summary of the entire page's contents. That's how I constructed the lede intro sect, in order to conform to WP:LEAD. Hope that's helpful, — Cirt (talk) 03:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's also similar to how I structured the sourced info and lede intro sect for a prior successful WP:FL I worked on, at 29th Golden Raspberry Awards. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For an article at FAC, that would generally be correct. However, lists are generally treated as the main content of an article, particularly in a bibliography, with the lede simply providing context. That's how all FLs on works by a single author have been presented so far (including my own List of works by Amir Hamzah, List of works by Chairil Anwar, List of works by Kwee Tek Hoay, and SchroCat's List of works by E.W. Hornung and List of works by H. C. McNeile. Christine's List of Maya Angelou works has a different list format, but the lede functions the same. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• As for Golden Raspberries: yes, film award ceremonies generally have a bit more information than what's presented in the lede. Our articles on Oscar ceremonies, for instance, both list the winners and nominations, and also serve as articles on the ceremonies themselves. But it's not really the same type of list. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand the reasoning but I followed the prior experience I had at 29th Golden Raspberry Awards and the approved guideline page at WP:LEAD. This FLC page currently has five (5) Supports for the current format for the Background section. I'd rather not make such a drastic change to the page at this point in time after this amount of unanimous Support for the current format. Thank you for your understanding, — Cirt (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand. In that case, I'll ask that another delegate take a look-see and comment as to whether or not they agree with my position. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not quite sure I understand, Crisco 1492. I've addressed all issues from above comments, leading to multiple users to change their prior positions to Support. This FLC currently has five (5) Support comments. Is it not yet ready for promotion? — Cirt (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Further, Crisco 1492, the Background sect has more info than in the lede, as the lede per WP:LEAD is a summary of more detailed info that follows later in the page. I'd rather not have to gut sourced info from the page, and the lede/intro sect is already sufficiently sized and I'd rather not add more info to the lede in order to then remove the entire Background sect. — Cirt (talk) 03:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) It is, more or less. However, I am not comfortable with promoting the article as it stands owing to its marked difference from similar articles. As I may be (perhaps even likely am being) overly cautious, I think it best if either SchroCat, Giants2008, or Hahc21 to seek a third opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Crisco 1492, this FLC has been open for one month. It has five (5) Supports. I don't want to have to remove sourced info, and I don't know how to change the page to satisfy your complaints. What would you have me do? What do you suggest? — Cirt (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am just asking for a second opinion from another delegate. I am not saying this is a bad list, or that it does not deserve to pass (the lede is solid, and it looks reasonably complete). I am just saying that I am uncomfortable with the background section, and asking that another delegate provide further input. If the delegate who responds agrees with you, I certainly have no issue with this article being promoted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Please bear with me. I am now in the process of transitioning the lead to function as the Background info to help ground the reader and introduce the reader to the topic, as per the list pages you cited, above. Hopefully this will be helpful. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That would work too, but don't force yourself to do something you disagree with. Consensus may be against me, and there's no deadline; Schro or Giants or Hahc could have a very different opinion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's fine. :) I'll update back here when done. I want to be collaborative and follow the model from the prior lists you cited that are approved as Featured Quality. — Cirt (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I've transitioned info to the lede section, per above recommendations by Crisco 1492. I think the page looks quite good this way, actually. And if it's the standard of prior FLs for Bibliographies, perhaps that's okay that it doesn't conform with WP:LEAD, as maybe that's intended more for articles. Hopefully this is now satisfactory, Crisco 1492 ? — Cirt (talk) 03:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That looks peachy. Will promote now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! :) — Cirt (talk) 03:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The colouring of the row headings in the tables are somehow conflicting with the arrows (I'm not exactly sure how to call them), causing one to believe that the tables are not sortable. I was going to comment to advise you to add sorbability, and then saw that they already were.
• When there's multiple references referencing the same thing, such as an award in the awards table, I think it would be best to combine them into one reference, instead of having a big line of different references.

— Status (talk · contribs) 18:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Status, for these comments, I will look to addressing them to help further improve the page, but this particular page has already been promoted to Featured List quality status. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad! For what it's worth, I would have supported. — Status (talk · contribs) 18:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Cirt (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2014 (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 Hahc21 10:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC) [14].[reply]

---

Nominator(s): prism △ 19:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think, after working a lot on it on my sandbox, it meets the Featured list criteria. Also, as I have said in my previous nomination for Natalia Kills discography I want to turn more Natalia Kills articles into certified, quality pages. As you comment this nomination, please do not only write Support or Oppose, but also include your reasons as to why you're reluctant or you approve the passing of the page, don't limit yourself to only writing random words that will not help the outcome of this nomination. Thank you! prism △ 19:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For me, everything looks good! I'm more than happy to support this nomination. Good job! :) decodet. (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just some small fixes, and I'm happy to give my support for the nomination! WikiRedactor (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiRedactor: Thank you, and please check if my edits comply with your reccomendations. :) prism △ 20:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Prism: Exactly what I was looking for! WikiRedactor (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: (having stumbled here from my FLC discussion page). The article currently passes a revisited image review. After further subsequent review, the article page is high quality. It is an informative list that educates the reader while also being quite meticulously sourced throughout. Well done. — Cirt (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much! Prism △ 12:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

====Comments from Crisco 1492====

• Per the instructions, I don't think this should have been nominated just yet. This was nominated a mere week after the discography, at which time the minimum of ten days before a nomination could even be closed had not passed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll defer to the judgment of Crisco 1492 here, before doing additional review myself. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC) [reply]

@Cirt: I have talked to Crisco 1492 and he is not closing the nomination. So, do you support the nomination now? Prism △ 11:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Concise, well structured and definitely featured list material, with little change needed according to me. I give my support --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Singles should have sources (from iTunes, Amazon...) to clarify its release — Simon (talk) 10:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HĐ: I have added references to prove the release in the Ref. table part. Do you give your support now? Prism △ 22:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Definitely if you use en-dashes for the sources — Simon (talk) 11:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have substituted all em-dashes by en-dashes. Do I have your support now? Prism △ 17:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The list looks fine now — Simon (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In order to avoid using too many commas, "...by releasing a single with UK-based record label All Around the World Productions, entitled "Don't Play Nice", under the name Verbalicious, in 2005." → "by releasing the single "Don't Play Nice" on UK-based record label All Around the World Productions in 2005, under the name Verbalicious."  Done
• "Kills started songwriting for other artists" → "Kills started writing songs for other artists", as "songwriting" is not a verb.  Done
• I think words like "record" and "LP" are a little vague, so I'd personally replace both with "album" anyway.  Done
• The symbols in the table should be placed after the song titles so it doesn't mess with the table's sortability.  Done

SnapSnap 19:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SnapSnap: Do I have your support now? Prism △ 19:44, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. SnapSnap 20:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This article has been promoted. There may be a delay in the bot processing it, so please be patient. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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