Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 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 Giants2008 22:06, 30 November 2014 [1].

Nominator(s): — Tomíca^(T2ME) & — Status (talk · contribs) 21:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I think it satisfies the FLC criteria. Timberlake's discography was pretty much in a good shape thanks to Status (talk · contribs) and his regular updates; additionally I added more information, formatted well the references, added some sales and sourced throughout the article. With this shape at the moment I really think it has a very good potential in earning a bronze star. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 21:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Five external links to correct.

• I fixed the dead ones, and only the Warn are left, although I tried to fix them too, I don't know what's the problem with 'em. However, the links are opening :). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that Justin can be called a singer-songwriter in the first paragraph because he writes all of his music, although if this creates some kind of conflict with other editors, feel free to ignore this point.

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Singer-songwriter is for folk singer ("the term singer-songwriter describes a distinct form of artistry, closely associated with the folk-acoustic tradition"), Timberlake is a singer and a songwriter but I wouldn't consider him folk-acoustic. I would reconsider this or just change it to be "singer and songwriter". I say this because there was a huge discussion about it at Miley Cyrus. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I like to see US and UK written out as the United States and the United Kingdom when it is used as a noun (as opposed to an adjective for charts.)

• Done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe it is common practice to write US as U.S. (with the punctuation) when it is used as an adjective.

• I think that's a personal choice whatever you choose to use, only it has to be consistent through the whole article. I kinda prefer US instead of U.S. tbh hehe :). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't spot any issues in the article, it looks well-developed and nicely written in my view! WikiRedactor (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you @WikiRedactor: ;) ! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the abbreviation for Netherlands should be "NL", as "NLD" seems to refer to the country's original Dutch-language name (Nederland);
• In the As guest artist subsection, there's a link (ref 22) to the NZ chart source under "NLD";
• You should remove the "...which acts as a 25-song extension to the Hot 100" sentence from this note per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS.

• All three done. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks fine in my eyes. :) SN▲P • SN▲P 18:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks you @SnapSnap: so much :) — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support very good work! Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tomica! I will go ahead and have a look at the list and give my input. First thing I want to point out before I do is that I noticed you have a "as of sales" for UK but not the US, why? Erick (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey @Magiciandude: (Erick) thanks for the note... I fixed them and there are 'as of sales' for all the references that provide clear date. For all the others that only have accessdate I left them just with a reference by themselves. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 11:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tomica: Having looked at the list extensively twice, I can see no further issues with it. Given that you've already addressed everyone else's comments, I will give my support. The only small suggestion I have is to remove Discogs from the external links since it's a user-generated site and Allmusic is probably sufficient enough. Erick (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Magiciandude: Status already removed it, thank you Erick, I really appreciate your input here :). — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support A comprehensive list with detailed information. Nicely done! Simon (talk) 13:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Appreciate your vote Simon. Thanks. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:33, 13 November 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:16, 1 December 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 23:19, 25 November 2014 [2].

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Betjeman was a rather unique figure in 20th century English literature. A popular poet—probably the most popular since Lord Byron, a writer on matters architectural—mostly railing against the destruction of Victorian and Edwardian architecture for concrete monstrosities of the 60s and 70s, and a broadcaster who highlighted some of the aspects of forgotten corners of Britain—or forgotten corners of high-profile parts of Britain. This list has undergone a major renovation recently to the point it is FL compliant. - SchroCat (talk) 08:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I'm madly envious that I haven't written this article, and I'd like to find reasons for opposing, but I can't, so am contenting myself with some petty sniping:

• Lead
  • "he attended Oxford University, although left without qualifying" – for what? You want "graduating" here, I think.
  • "shortly after the BBC began regular broadcasts" – the BBC began regular broadcasts in the 1920s: strictly, you mean regular television broadcasts, though I admit this makes an unwelcome repetition of television necessary. I do not press the point.
    • I've tweaked to mention "regular screen broadcasts"; it's slightly inelegant, but covers the point, I hope. - SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good! I'd not have thought of that, which works very well, and is by no means inelegant. Tim riley talk 23:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and his output was prolific, according to Michael Brooke, writing for the British Film Institute": this is genuinely ambiguous: it reads at first glance as though it was JB who was writing for the BFI. I think, as we have the citation, you could just lose the last ten words of the sentence.
  • not sure why you link CBE but not his knighthood
  • Clarke quote: I'd drop the square bracketed [Lord] competely.
• Editor
  • Rupert Hart-Davis has an article you could link to, though it is about the man rather than the firm, and again I don't press the point.

I boggle at the width and depth of the research SchroCat has put in for this article, and I support its promotion, without the slightest reservation. Superb stuff! – Tim riley talk 21:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As always, many thanks for your thoughts, Mr R. I've covered all except the RHD one: I looked at his article, and thought it was a little too much about him, rather than the company, to be of use. I suspect someone will link it at some point, and I'll leave it in if they do, as I have no real feelings either way. Thanks as always – and keep me abreast of any reviews (or revues) you have coming up. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• His obituarist. Who?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Doc, Thanks for looking in. The obituarist for The Times isn't named, unfortunately. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great looking list, looks super comprehensive, good job!♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers Doc, much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "In 1932 Betjeman began a career in broadcasting, with a radio programme about the proposed destruction of Waterloo Bridge; he continued with regular radio programmes for the rest of his life, appearing in a wide range of genres, from panel and game shows, interviews, news programmes, documentaries and poetry readings" - programmes in this sentence appears three times. It's not wildly vexing me, but it's a humungous sentence with massive repetition....

• Yeah, not good! Tweaked down to one. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "his output was prolific" is worth expanding on this, or even explaining who claimed his oeuvre to be "prolific"? One man's "prolific" is another's "long weekend on the sauce", after all...

• I've citedd this to the BFI, by way of explanation - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "made a CBE" perhaps expand this first (for our esteemed non-Brit readers)?

• Yep, now done - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is Companion of Literature linked to anything? Not even piped to Royal Society of Literature?

• Good idea: now linked - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Garden City N.Y." can we just say "New York" or is that the actual title of the publisher?

• Garden City is this town in NY state, rather than just a part of NY city. - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a biggie, but consider expanding SPCK to Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, some may not get it.

• Now lengthened - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Two blank cells for "Author" in the "Editor" section, never keen on blank cells...

• I've dashed them up - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't his role in Pity About the Abbey be "co-writer"?

• Yep, added (and note tweaked) - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ref 160 seems to have an odd hyphen, probably should be a spaced en-dash...

• Good spot! - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, a substantial and excellently presented body of work. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers RM, Many thanks for your time and thoughts here, and I think I've covered them all properly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support subject to a few minor points:

• ODNB entry gives 1930 as the year he became Assistant Ed. of the Architectural Review

• Added a footnote to cover the discrepancy. - SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead, end second paragraph: the attribution to the BFI seems barely necessary. They are not the recognised authorities on JB's output.

• Attribution removed. - SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• CBEs are appointed, not "made". And Companions of Literature are "elected"

• Tweaked. -SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• (How did John Clarke get into the act?)

• Thankfully not that John Clarke!

• With regard to Collected Poems (1958) it might be worth noting that this title is slightly misleading. It implies a collection of all published work to that date. In fact, Sir John Piers and St. Katherine's Church are omitted altogether; of the 20-odd poems in Poems of the Porch, only "Diary of a Church Mouse" made it into the collection. Sixteen poems that had not previously appeared in book form were included. So it was something of a mish-mash. The Collected Poems have been updated and republished several times, most recently I believe in 2006; should not these later expanded editions be at least noted?

• I'll dig out something on this, either as a short note in the table or, more likely, a footnote. - SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Now clarified in the table, and information about the reprints in both table and footnote. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any relevance to the "Save Lewisham Town Hall" image, or is it merely decorative?

• Only there as a pretty picture! - SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A most impressive list. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks indeed Brian, it is much appreciated. Betj is one of those who I want to have a go at the main article sometime, but I have a few others I want to do first. Thanks again, - SchroCat (talk) 23:41, 24 November 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:32, 26 November 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 08:57, 22 November 2014 [3].

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(ping) 13:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cricket list based on List of Cricket World Cup five-wicket hauls, an existing FL. Look forward to your comments and suggestions —Vensatry _(ping) 13:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Another great cricket list by Vensatry - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 01:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – meets the standards. Good work! --Khadar Khani (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "in the ICC Champions Trophy tournaments" not sure you need "the" here.
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "a fifer in the ICC Champions Trophy tournaments. The ICC Champions Trophy" repetitive.
  • Since I jumped into explaining the meaning of a fifer before the tournament, I have to repeat the tournament's name while defining it. —Vensatry _(ping) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• " is considered the second most significant" you use a single source for this claim, could so arguably just the opinion of one writer.
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "As of 2013, the latest edition," why not "As of the 2013 tournament, ..."?
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "a total of 10 fifers have" you've said this already in the previous para.
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I would avoid "edition" altogether when referring to a specific tournament, why not just mention "the xxxx tournament" (where xxxx is a year)?
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• " to take a fifer; he took 5 " take ... took... repetitive prose.
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Econ should be given to the same accuracy.
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Younis Khan should be Younus Khan apparently.
  • Done —Vensatry _(ping) 19:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Well-referenced list and it meets the FLC criteria. --Carioca (talk) 20:26, 19 November 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:51, 22 November 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 Giants2008 00:09, 17 November 2014 [6].

Nominator(s): Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is part of a project for the Lo Nuestro Awards that were considered the "Latin Grammys", before the inception of the actual Latin Grammy Award. This list was created after all the comments and suggestions for the Lo Nuestro Award for Pop Album of the Year, which is already a Featured List. I will be attentive to your comments and help to improve the article. Thanks. Javier Espinoza (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very well formatted and referenced. Great Job. — DivaKnockouts 12:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well-written and well-sourced list. --Carioca (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I can't see any major issues that need to be addressed. Erick (talk) 22:26, 15 November 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 17 November 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 User Giants2008 00:34, 17 November 2014 [7].

Nominator(s): NG39 (talk)

After the recent success of List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Mitchell Johnson here, I decided to start a new cricket-related project. I, therefore, give you List of international cricket centuries at the Bellerive Oval, a comprehensive and well-written list. Living in Tasmania, I have been to Bellerive Oval many times and have a great interest in the ground and this article seemed like a great one to work on. I thank anyone who comments on this FLC in advance. - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 06:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Nice list! —Vensatry _(ping) 19:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks mostly good, but all except for three of the citations are from "ESPNcriticinfo". That's rather excessive. Try replacing some of these instances. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SNUGGUMS: This is considered normal for cricket lists. See here, here and here for three examples of cricket related FLs that have only three non ESPNcricinfo refs. - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)^Talk 06:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I would encourage having more diversity in refs in general for articles, I'll support in this case then. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:19, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand your concern SNUGGUMS and I'll have a little look around the web. Thanks for the support. - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)^Talk 07:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – meets the standards. Good work! --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• "As of October 2014, two T20Is has been played" --> "have been played"
• The first was in 2010 when Australia beat the West Indies by 38 runs.[8] The second T20I was in 2014, — I think it'd be more cohesive to say ...by 38 runs;[8] the second was in 2014...
• I think it's better to link to [[Innings (cricket)]] than to [[Innings#Cricket]] ("100 or more runs in a single innings")
• Add a link to [[Innings (cricket)]] to the word "innings" in the key (as is done with "balls").
• I originally didn't realize that "(1/2)", "(1/3)" etc. were mentioned in the key with the line "Parentheses next to the player's name denotes his century number at the Bellerive Oval.". Is it worth including an example, or at least a pair of parentheses to show visually what it means? The symbol * is used instead of "An asterisk" in the key.

Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 19:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: All done - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)^Talk 00:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Bilorv ^(Talk)_(Contribs) 08:39, 9 November 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:34, 17 November 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 03:30, 15 November 2014 [8].

Nominator(s): — Rod ^talk 15:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it provides a variety of ways of viewing and sorting the 58 scheduled monuments in Bath and North East Somerset by age, geography, type etc. — Rod ^talk 15:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "The current legislation supporting this is the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979" This is not quite right. 'current' is recentism, and the Act surely governs rather than supporting (although I see that the NE page uses the word 'support'). The reference for this paragraph only supports the first half.
  • I'm not sure of the best way to say it. The Act referred to replaced previous legislation, and, although from 1979, is still the one which applies. The "supports" refers to the process of scheduling in the previous sentence. I will look at the references.
• "The Great Circle at Stanton Drew is the second largest stone circle in Britain (after Avebury); it is considered to be one of the largest Neolithic monuments to have been built." I would prefer "The Great Circle at Stanton Drew is one of the largest Neolithic monuments ever built, and the second largest stone circle in Britain (after Avebury)."
  • Changed.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "There are also several Iron Age hillforts such as the one at Maes Knoll" Why not "such as Maes Knoll"?
  • Changed.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "which is connected to the Wansdyke a medieval defensive earthwork" It is a bit confusing to say that it is connected to a later structure. Perhaps "which was later incorporated into the medieval Wansdyke, a defensive earthwork.
  • Changed.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "More recent sites include several bridges which date from the Middle Ages to the Palladian bridge in Prior Park Landscape Garden[10][11] and Dundas Aqueduct which was built in 1805" This seems to say that an aquaduct is a bridge. I would make it two sentences.
  • The Dundas Aqueduct is a bridge (carries the K&A canal over the river and railway) so I don't quite see what is wrong with that one.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Ucucha's Harv error script shows note 53 as an error.
  • Thanks - I wasn't aware of that tool now installed & error hopefully fixed.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I ought to know, but what is the point of Wikidata?
  • I'm sure there are better explanations somewhere, but to me it links together all references to an entity across all wiki projects (commons and foreign languages as well as en). I think it is useful here as the same site can be a Scheduled Monument and a listed building, so may have entries on several lists (and EH reference numbers) but only one article. User:Pigsonthewing added it to the template which is used on hundreds of these sorts of lists so I have been adding it where the object has one. I have been thinking of making it hidden (as the date scheduled column is) so that machines can still find it but people don't see it - not sure about this at present.
    • Interesting comment by SchroCat on Wikidata at User talk:Tim riley#DYK and POV. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've hidden the wikidata from view. It is still present for machines to read but removes one column.— Rod ^talk 16:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• A good list, but shouldn't it have a column for a brief description? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm never sure whether a description is needed or not, as most of the data you might put in it is listed in the other columns.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, which I will continue to work on.— Rod ^talk 07:45, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've now added a notes column as suggested. This is very wide on my screen compared to the other columns. Do you think this is helpful?— Rod ^talk 17:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:00, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Nice looking page - and I can only echo the previous reviewer: first rate! - SchroCat (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have had a read of the lead knowing little about this subject and I feel that it gives a very useful and well-written summary of the topic which is very well-referenced. The table is clearly ordered and referenced throughout and I do believe this meets the FL criteria. I will echo the reviews above - well done! Many thanks, --Noswall59 (talk) 01:26, 11 November 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:19, 15 November 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 SchroCat 20:01, 11 November 2014 [9].

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another filmography article from me. This time for actor, Leonardo DiCaprio, star of many films including Titanic, Catch Me If You Can, The Aviator, and Inception. As always welcome all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I made some other adjustments for you. It looks good now. Jimknut (talk) 00:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support everything looks good now Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Krimuk90

• I have made some copyedits to the article to tighten the prose. Feel free to discuss if you disagree with any of those.
• This statement "The film became the highest grossing at the worldwide box-office (it has since been surpassed by Cameron-directed Avatar (2009) which holds the record as of 2014)" is a bit problematic. The Avatar fact appears more of a trivia and is especially jarring in the filmography of an actor who has no connection with the film. I would advice on deleting this fact. You can change it to: "Titanic emerged as the highest grossing film at the worldwide box-office at the time".
• The Basketball Diaries does not link to the film.

That's all. Good work! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 04:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Krimuk90: Thanks for the review. I've converted the Avatar reference into a note so it's not jarring. Skr has corrected the wikilink for Basketball Diaries ahead of me. I only changed back one of your ce. Global star ==> famous globally as I didn't want to say star twice as I've already said he starred in the film. Cowlibob (talk) 21:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: All good! Best of luck! :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 05:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent work, meets the Featured List criteria.--Skr15081997 (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

• The sort needs looking at in the filmog – some films are sorting on "The"
• Why are some publications linked in the refs and others not? This should be consistent
• For published books you need to include their locations as well

– SchroCat (talk) 10:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: Sorted point 1 and 3. All publications are linked in the refs at the first mention as per SNUGGUMS' advice presumably so that it's not a WP:OVERLINK issue. Cowlibob (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... OVERLINKING doesn't really apply to captions, leads and the other ephemera, such as notes and references. I'd suggest either linking all or none of them, as the inconsistency looks odd. - SchroCat (talk) 21:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: I've linked all publishers wherever possible now. Cowlibob (talk) 12:20, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article is brilliant. Excellent work. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 18:40, 9 November 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) 20:00, 11 November 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 SchroCat 20:09, 11 November 2014 [10].

Nominator(s): Khadar Khani (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This list is based on similar list, South Africa national women's cricket team record by opponent. I have worked on the list a few month back and now I believe this is according to the FL criteria. Look forward to your comments and suggestions. Regards, --Khadar Khani (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Quick comment looks really light on prose to me. I'd love to see some more detail ahead of each table. I know the SA list was promoted 18 months ago, but I don't think it meets what I would expect from a featured list any more. More discussion over the games, the significant results etc.... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: I have expanded the lede a little. Please have a look. Regards, --Khadar Khani (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Great list, especially after the lede was expanded, well-sourced. --Carioca (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looks really good - another job well done by Sahara4u. Just a minor comment - is "Pakistan Women" a proper noun? The photo caption uses this, but the tables say "Pakistan women". I'll have a more indepth look at the list later. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixed. --Khadar Khani (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Good list, meets the criteria . Also, I am waiting for you at my nom - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 06:09, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Greatly improved since my first visit. If you have time can you review this one? —Vensatry _(ping) 16:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vensatry: thanks for the support! I'll review your list ASAP. FYI, List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers is once again at FLC! Regards, --Khadar Khani (talk) 17:56, 8 November 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) 20:00, 11 November 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 SchroCat 20:10, 11 November 2014 [11].

Nominator(s): PresN 16:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Back again with an old favorite! I've nominated this list before, but after 2 months and only one comment/support, it fell off the nominations page. I'm bringing it back now for another attempt. Following in the footsteps of the World Fantasy Awards for Best Novel, Best Novella, and Best Short Story, (not to mention the dozens of Hugo Awards, Nebula Awards, etc.) we have here the World Fantasy Award for Best Collection. And it's a strange one. Not so much for what it is now, and what it originally was- an award for the best collections of fantasy works by a single author- but because for 10 years in the middle of the 40 it's been around, anthologies of works by multiple authors were eligible, until they so overran the category that they got split out into their own. I've tried to make it clear what's going on, though, so there shouldn't be any confusion. Anyways, this list follows the same format as the previous 28 sci-fi/fantasy award FLs- table, winners, sorting, yadda yadda yadda, and as always comments from those previous FLCs have been replicated for this list. Thanks all for reviewing, and hopefully this time it will make it through! --PresN 16:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per last time. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Very well written, organized, and cited. Usually I make a "Comments by Ɱ" section and go into depth trying to fix problems, but after reading it, I found that's not necessary. Well done.--ɱ (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very well referenced and well written, it meets the criteria. --Carioca (talk) 20:25, 7 November 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) 20:00, 11 November 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 (talk) 08:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Nominator(s): TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel's The Avengers is the third-highest grossing film of all time and the highest grossing film of 2012. Due to the film's enormous popularity, the film's article and its sub-articles, including this list, are highly visible. The list itself is comprehensive, well organized, and well referenced and I believe its rating should reflect that. However, any comments that might further improve the list are welcomed. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Made changes to lead. Added refs for the plot and cast. Added scopes rows and cols to the table. Formatted the refs. Good job. Cowlibob (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove duplicate wikilinks in the table per WP:OVERLINK
  • See the comments above by Cowlibob: The table is sortable so they should all wikilinked.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In tables you can link more than once if it's useful which it is in a sortable table. Cowlibob (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can the infobox image be something other than Downey? I first thought it was his awards page, so something of the cast maybe? Or film poster?
  • The rationale for Downey's image is explained in the caption and the film poster is WP:NFC, so no.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I really got, so fix that and I'll support. Good job Triiiple :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Title should be standardized between this article and the main The Avengers article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I tried hard to find as many errors as possible: I was losing heart in my struggle until I got to the refs and finally found something to comment on: FN17 has an inconsistent date format. That's it, nothing else to gripe about... – SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done: Sorry for the trouble. :) TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice piece of work, and happy to support. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support

• I was going to do the whole comments-then-support-once-fixed thing, but what I found was so minor I'm just going to support anyway.
• "Marvel's The Avengers [...] more commonly known as The Avengers" - comma before "more"
• "released theatrically in the United States on May 4, 2012 and" - comma after "2012"
• "Ray Bradbury Award for Outstanding Dramatic Presentation" is not a Nebula Award category- it's presented at the same ceremony as the Nebula Awards, but it's its own separate award
• References: maybe link Roger Ebert in ref 2, link Huffington Post in ref 7, and the publisher for ref 30 is "World Science Fiction Society", not "The Hugo Awards"

• If you found this review helpful, consider reviewing my World Fantasy Award for Best Collection FLC up above. Completely optional. --PresN 00:10, 28 October 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.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:05, 7 November 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 SchroCat 10:29, 6 November 2014 [15].

Nominator(s): Yakikaki (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it has a potential of becoming a good featured list, on a topic which isn't greatly covered but which is in many ways interesting. Yakikaki (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment

• You have added the link to the Google and Bing maps but the maps do not show the name of each site. You need to add |type:landmark_region:GB|name=site name. See for example List of Local Nature Reserves in Greater London. It can take a 2 or 3 days before the site name is shown on the map. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the input! I've added the names now, and look forward to being able to see the names on the map; this always annoyed me, so thanks for the input! Yakikaki (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "This is a list of church ruins on the Swedish island of Gotland" It is forbidden under Wikipedia rules to start a list article "This is a list"

• Sorry about that, I've seen it in so many lists I thought it was almost required... I agree it looks much better without it.

• "For a list of still functioning churches on Gotland, see the article on churches on Gotland." I do not think this should be in the first paragraph. It could go at the end of the lead or in a See also section.

• I moved it to a See also section.

• Your figures seem confusing. You say in para 3 that 7 are in the countryside, which agrees with the list, but in the first para you say that 13 out of 19 are in Visby, but you only list 12. Then you say that at least 12 were built within the city walls, which presumably includes surviving churches, and later that all but one were ruined. It is not clear how many were outside the walls and whether they are classed as Visby churches.

• It should be right now: nineteen in total, twelve in Visby and of these, ten inside the walls.

• "Following the Battle of Visby in 1361, building activity declined." Presumably the battle was a disaster for Gotland, but worth explaining.

• Very good point; I've tried to elaborate the section about the decline a bit.

• "The abbey was disbanded" - I don't think disbanded is the right word for an abbey.

• Changed it to "dissolved", which I hope is more appropriate.

• The pictures and descriptions are first class. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your kind words and these excellent comments! Yakikaki (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A very good list. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks good to me. Jim Carter 04:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Complete and comprehensive. w.carter-Talk 09:25, 5 November 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) 10:34, 6 November 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 Giants2008 03:06, 3 November 2014 [16].

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it gives a good summary of Sandra Bullock's career thus far. As always look forward to all the helpful comments. Cowlibob (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Excellent work. Though not mandatory, I have added the films portal template in the External links section and moved it to the end of the page.--Skr15081997 (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I made a few corrections to the text of the introduction. It looks fine now. Jimknut (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great work, and the lede is excellent, very well-referenced. --Carioca (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now: It is poor writing to have every second sentence start with "In (Year)". See WP:PROSELINE. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492: I take your point. Reworked the lead so it's less like that. Cowlibob (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I have no remaining concerns. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: I see where the confusion was. I'm using that ref to support the first part of the sentence not the breakthrough bit and have moved it up to reflect that. Cowlibob (talk) 08:35, 29 October 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:30, 3 November 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 Giants2008 03:11, 3 November 2014 [17].

Nominator(s): mcd51 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it substantially matches the quality of currently the featured list Mayor of San Francisco. mcd51 (talk) 01:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, article appears to easily meet requirements set forth in WP:FL?, commendation to those who have worked on it to get it there.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Skr15081997

• The lead looks too short. More info should be added to it.--Skr15081997 (talk) 02:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is the party of presidents of boards of trustees not mentioned?
• Link a few of the publishers in the cite templates.
• Joshua Bean was the first mayor. Please add his image.

I haven't read the article completely.--Skr15081997 (talk) 03:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've expanded the lead to more closely match Mayor of San Francisco, but I can add more information as necessary.
• As far as I can tell, the party of the presidents of boards of trustees is not documented in any accessible source, though I've tried to add it where known.
• Publisher links are now included in the citations where available.
• This is the only picture of Josh Bean that I've been able to find, though I haven't found any photographs. It can be added if that is the desire: [18] mcd51 (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, I have read the article again. No more issues found. Nice work.--Skr15081997 (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dudley Miles

• "The previous mayor, Bob Filner, resigned" Confusing as the previous sentence is about the 1880s.
• "Due to an 1852 bankruptcy, the State of California dissolved the government" Presumably the city went bankrupt only two years after it was incorporated, but it would be helpful to spell this out.
• "The mayor currently earns" - recentism. The applicable date should be given.
• Party column in the table. When a table is sortable, all the terms should be linked, not just the first one.
• A good list - these points are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the article to address these four concerns. Let me know if there's anything else that needs to be addressed mcd51 (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A good list. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:35, 2 November 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:36, 3 November 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 Giants2008 03:11, 3 November 2014 [19].

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Buchan was one of the most prolific and high-profile British writers of the 20th century. In between writing he was a barrister, a publisher, a lieutenant colonel in the Intelligence Corps, the Director of Information—reporting directly to prime minister David Lloyd George—during the First World War and a Unionist MP who served as Governor General of Canada. He had written five books before he left university, and was a historian—including an impressive set of works on military history—biographer and poet, although nowadays he is probably best known as the author of thrillers, which include The Thirty-Nine Steps and Greenmantle.

This is a fresh bibliography, made partly from a limited one on the main Buchan article, but greatly expanded and now brought into line with MOS requirements, and fully sourced throughout. – SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lovely list. A few thoughts -

• Why are edited works first? It feels like they'd be a more natural fit at the end, even if the first thing he published was an edited work.

• I appreciate exactly what you are saying, and it's something I mulled over for a while, but instead plumped for chronological as being the most neutral way to approach this. All the tables on the page are in chronological order, so novels to poetry all start with the sequential 1894 to 1898. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "List of works..." sounds very comprehensive, but there are presumably a number of uncollected short pieces in magazines etc (compare the various pieces collected in The Far Islands and Other Tales of Fantasy). I think omitting these is reasonable, but would it be worth explicitly addressing this somewhere?

• Yes, I think so: leave it with me and I'll dig out something suitable from the sources to cover it with a citation. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've added a line within the lead to cover this. - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Fifteenth-Scottish-Division 1914-1919" (1926) is probably an artefact of strange old British Museum cataloguing not liking brackets, and I am almost completely confident the title is actually "The Fifteenth (Scottish) Division 1914-1919".

• Yes - although on checking the BL sources, they have one volume as shown here and one in brackets! I've swapped over to the bracketed version. - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• "Nelson's History of the War 24 volumes" - perhaps "Nelson's History of the War [24 volumes]"? I also think this is itself an error in the cataloguing - he surely didn't author all 24 volumes! Three of the 1916/17 volumes appear to be his individual contributions to this, and either he was listed because he was an overall editor or because he was individually prominent.

• Let me go back to the sources for this and see if I can bring a little more clarity to this point, although I think you're probably right - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The BL source seems to suggest all of this was written by Buchan (as does this and this. David Danieel (in the Book and Magazine Collector) calls it "a mammoth project encompassing a million-and-a-quarter words, written between 1915 and 1919 as events unfolded". Gale's Contemporary Authors confirms he wrote this himself: "On the eve of World War I, Buchan became ill with a duodenal ulcer and was confined to his bed. He spent this time productively, however, writing the hefty Nelson's History of the War and the popular shocker The Thirty-Nine Steps". - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Many of these must by now be on (eg) archive.org - is it worth linking to copies of first editions where available? Andrew Gray (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I shall ponder the last point: I'm not a big fan of external links within an article (or table) body, but it may be a worthwhile step in this case.

• A quick look at the MoS suggests this may not be a good idea, per WP:ELPOINTS. We have the following links at the bottom of the page, pointing to the main sources where the works can be accessed, and I think we may have to leave it at that:

• Works by or about John Buchan at Wikisource
• Works by John Buchan at Open Library
• Works by John Buchan at Project Gutenberg
• Works by John Buchan at Internet Archive

• I'll be back shortly with the needed corrections for your points above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thoughts: I've added a tweak already, and will sort the rest shortly, reporting back when all done. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, All now covered. Thanks very much for all the time and effort you've taken on this: it's much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, along with a few unimportant quibbles:

• We have variants of the name of the publisher Thomas Nelson/ T. Nelson Publishers and plain Nelson.

• All now consistent - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not on my screen they ain't: there are twelve Thomas Nelsons, six T. Nelson Publishers and four plain Nelsons. Tim riley talk 13:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Harrumph! Now completed, I hope! - SchroCat (talk) 14:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• William Blackwood & Sons – at one point is William Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh, but mostly just William Blackwood & Sons.

• Tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• P. Davies is Peter Davies – one of Barrie's lost boys, who became a publisher. His firm seems to have been based in both Edinburgh (Massacre of Glencoe) and London (Men and Deeds).

• Linked and sorted - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blackwell Publishing or Blackwell Publishing, Oxford?

• Oxford - foolish of me to forget one of my favourite shops - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Boston, MA – I think the usual abbreviation for Massachusetts is Mass, rather than MA, though I may be quite wrong.

• Both are correct, I think, with the US Post Office preferring the two character approach; I've tweaked to Mass, which is more traditional - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarendon Press (Nine Brasenose Worthies) – based in Oxford, not London, according to this.

• Yes, it certainly is! - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a beautfully constructed and painstakingly researched page, and I don't see how it could be done better. Meets all the FL criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 09:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks for all your observations here: I've hope I've tweaked and plucked correctly on this lot. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an article worth linking with "Director of Information"?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can find, unfortunately. There is one for the department, but not the position. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support A pristine list, excellent work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks - much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support

• There were only a couple issues, listed below, but I went ahead and fixed them myself.
• "The following year he was awarded a scholarship to Brasenose College, Oxford; shortly after his arrival he also published his first novel, Sir Quixote of the Moors, which he dedicated to Gilbert Murray, his university tutor;[5] by the time he left the university he had published five books,[1] including Scholar-Gipsies, the first work of non-fiction he wrote" - wow, and I thought I made really long sentences. That second(!) semicolon should really be a period, after "tutor".
• "The Moon Endureth: Tales and Fancies" in the poetry section is sorting under "T"
• Completely optional, but if you found this review helpful, consider reviewing World Fantasy Award for Best Collection up above. --PresN 17:52, 29 October 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. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:42, 3 November 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.