Manisha Koirala is a Nepalese actress who has received four Filmfare awards for her performances in Indian films. As always look forward to all the helpful comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two years later, she made her Bollywood debut in Subhash Ghai's Saudagar which was a commercial success. A comma is missing after Saudagar.
However she followed this with appearances in.. Whould read better as: " However she followed this by appearing in a.."
For portraying the daughter of a mute and deaf couple in Sanjay Leela Bhansali's Khamoshi: The Musical (1996) she garnered a consecutive second Filmfare Critics Award for Best Actress.[2][6][8] Replace "portraying", since it wasn't a real-life character.
Redundant to mention "Ratnam" again in Dil Se..
A "and" is missing between Dil Ke Jharokhe Mein (1997) and Achanak (1998).
Company is a crime drama I guess.
The following year, she appeared in Escape from Taliban for which Koirala garnered the.. --> "which garnered her.."
How was Paisa Vasool received? Since it was her production debut.
"Tamilstar" looks like a dubious source. You can use this one instead.
@Krimuk90: Thanks for the comments. I've tried to resolve them, added roles, replace image. Wasn't sure how to phrase that Koirala started to appear to less prominent films in the 2000s but gave it a go. Cowlibob (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More comments:
"Koirala's career had a turnaround when she starred as the daughter of a revolutionary..." It's unclear what revolutionary? I see the source says revolutionary terrorist. Simply saying daughter of a terrorist should suffice here IMO.
"She made her television debut in 2000 as the co-host of game show..." ==> "...co-host of the game show..."
"The show did not perform well in terms of ratings and both Kher and Koirala were fired." ==> "The show's poor ratings led to both Kher and Koirala being fired"
"During the early to mid 2000s, Koirala's career continued to decline, and she appeared in less mainstream cinema" ==> "Koirala's career continued to decline during the early to mid 2000s, as she appeared in less mainstream films"
There's a slight mismatch in the notes column
1) Not sure why "Remake of Telugu film Matru Devo Bhava" is important to mention here.
2) The notes column for Indian does not say that it was simultaneously filmed in Tamil and Hindi, which makes it inconsistent with the other entries.
3) The "Remade in Hindi as Nayak" part of Mudhalvan seems redundant, as Koirala was not a part of the film.
4) The "tied with Rani Mukherji for Saathiya" is better as a footnote.
5) The note for Paisa Vasool should say "also producer" and not just "producer".
All good now in terms of prose. Some comments on sourcing:
What makes Filmibeat a reliable source?
The source for Pheri Bhetaula does not mention the film's director. Also for the same film, the role field is blank. Is it because we don't know her character's name or because it cannot be reliably sourced?
I am not too keen on the Diamond Pocket Books Pvt Ltd publisher, but I can understand if no alternates are available. I appreciate how difficult it is to source information from the 90s. Krimuk|90 (talk) 02:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Krimuk90: Replaced references. Removed Diamond Pocket Book source. I can't find a copy of the film anywhere or any info of character name. Probably the info exists in an offline Nepali source. Cowlibob (talk) 18:20, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Vivvt: Thanks for the comments. I've made the relevant fixes. I think the notes column should remain as if all those became footnotes it would force the reader to flick back and forth from the footnotes to the main table. Cowlibob (talk) 15:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
Any specific reason for using "sort" over "sortname"?
WP:ALT suggests that we should avoid having the same details in caption and alt text.
Source needed for her nationality.
'The show's poor ratings ...' Link ratings appropriately.
"In 2008, she played the eponymous role in the film Tulsi, a Hindi remake of the Telugu drama Matru Devo Bhava." First, the statement is unsourced. Second, the Telugu film itself seems to be a remake of a Malayalam film.
"She also starred in Rituparno Ghosh's Khela, where Koirala played a woman in a troubled marriage." Why use pronoun in the main clause and noun in the subordinate?
"Two years later, Koirala appeared as an adulterous wife in the Malayalam drama Elektra" The previous sentence doesn't mention the year of release of Khela.
@Vensatry: Made relevant fixes. Removed Tulsi. No need to mention Bhoot as she wasn't in the original. I think it was a cameo in Aalavandhan but I can't find source. Have clarified which are double roles etc. in footnotes. Cowlibob (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Comprehensive and well-written indeed. I could spot these two minor issues.
"On 31 July, the newly formed government retracted all civilian awards including..." -- all the civilian.
"Novelist Khushwant Singh who accepted the award in 1974 in the field of literature and education returned it in 1984 as a notion of protest against the Operation Blue Star." -- comma required after Singh and education. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the start, should there be a hyphen in "third highest"?
Yes I guess. Added now.
"are as well archived and are required to...". For less wordiness, try "are archived and required to...".
Done
"but excluding those working with the Public sector undertakings...". "excluding" should be "excluded" instead, and "Public" shouldn't be capitalized.
Done
The first sentence of the third paragraph needs "the" before Indian National Congress.
Done
"one sports persons" shouldn't be plural.
Done
The List of recipients section heading could be reduced to Recipients, as List of never adds much to section headings in general.
Right. Done
Kumari Kamala photo caption: Needs "the" before "late 1970s", and before "New York and New Jersey areas".
Done
In the Kelker caption, I'd recommend putting the abbreviations in parentheses after the usage of the full names. I was confused for a second before figuring it out, and the readers might be too.
Done
The Hangal photo caption needs "the" before Padma Vibhushan.
Done
The Raj Kapoor caption needs a comma after the quote at the start (between the quotation mark and citation).
Done
A few "the"s are needed before award names in the Swaminathan caption.
Done
The M. F. Husain caption needs a "the" before Padma Vibhushan as well, and needs "a" before "contemporary artist".
Done
I'm not doing a full source review, but I noticed that refs 15 and 18 have authors with their first names given first, unlike the others which have last names presented first. These should be made consistent, most likely all last names first since that would appear to be less work. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – With the fixes made, and a further edit that I made to a new photo's caption, I'm confident that this meets the FL criteria. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
Formatting: ref27- the work is Seed Magazine, not Seed Media Group (that's the publisher) (I've fixed it for you). Also note that when you add an archiveurl, if you add "|deadurl=no", the first link will be to the live page, not the archive.
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list because I have worked on it several times so it could meet he criteria, and it has improved a lot since the first nomination and I have addressed all the issues regarding the bad references and links, as well as, a new prose has been made. Bruno Mars has received several nominations and awards in a short career so far due to his efforts as a singer, producer and song-writer. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The American singer-songwriter, multi-instrumentalist, record producer, and choreographer Bruno Mars" → lengthy introduction here. Just simplify it by saying he's a singer and songwriter
"He received several "Best Male Artist" awards, including the 2011 American Music Award for Favorite Pop/Rock Male Artist, the 2012 Brit Awards for International Male Solo Artist and the 2012 Echo Award for Best International Male." → Try to reword this for better flow. My suggestion: He won the awards for Best Male Artist at several award ceremonies in 2011 and 2012, including...
"Mars initially came to prominence as an acknowledged music producer, who wrote lyrics for other artists along with his production team The Smeezingtons" - I am not following you here. You say that he shot to fame as a producer, but later you declare him as a songwriter: "a producer who wrote songs".
"and was nominated for three Grammy Awards, including Record of the Year at the 52nd Annual Grammy Awards" - repetition of Grammy. Consider rephrasing.
Support on every criterion, but I have not checked references and will leave that on other reviewers. All in all it's a sound list. FrB.TG (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Awards in certain categories do not have prior nominations and only winners are announced by the jury. For simplification and to avoid errors, each award in this list has been presumed to have had a prior nomination." - Does this mean that the 235 nominations listed includes nominations that went on to win?
Record of the Year -『 In 2013, it was axed, signaling the end of the award. Mars was nominated twice.』What was axed, the poll or the award? I'm assuming the poll, but I was confused when I read this. Also, "axed" I think is a little to informal. While I firmly believe that Wikipedia prose should be engaging and creative, it also needs to be in a formal style.
Why is British spelling used here for an American artist? I don't care a whole lot, but I thought the convention was that if a subject is from a geographic area with a particular variance of English, that variance should be the one used.
The ASCAP Song of the Year win for "Just the Way You Are" is not supported by the listed citation, which has only the Most Performed Song award listed.
This source no longer supports the claim "The BET Hip Hop Awards are an annual awards show, airing on BET, since 2006, showcasing hip hop performers, producers and music video directors." Perhaps replace it with this and this, which I've used at the List of awards and nominations received by Lecrae.
This does not support the statement that "The iHeartRadio Music Awards is an music awards show, founded by iHeartRadio in 2014, to recognize the most popular artists and music over the past year as determined by the network's listeners."
Addressed every comment. If you could explain what do you intend with the first one, I would be appreciated. I'm just getting started here with the FLC, so I'm still learning perhaps in a near feature, I'm sure any other user here is a better fit to add comments and review. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In awards infobox template, the nominations (in pink) are only those that didn't win, with the winning nominations included only in the awards wins (in green). In this article, you've listed all nominations, winning or otherwise, in the box. See Template:Infobox musician awards for details. With that in mind, I'd convert the whole template - I didn't realize until now that a custom template was used instead of the infobox.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:26, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I suspected, there were a couple of wikilinks that had only one bracket instead of two (like this [[Soul Train Music Awards]). I've had this mistake before happen to me many times, and it's a real pain to dig through the text to find the broken syntax. The infobox is fixed now.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the list currently uses both dmy and mdy date formats. Mdy is American, dmy British. And currently there is a notice to use mdy, even though the article is in British English and uses dmy in the majority. This also needs to be resolved.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since I don't use American English in my writing, I don't know what to amend, however I could ask to GOCE to fix the prose with that intend. I can check the dates. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I won't push for the article to be converted to American English, but the dates should all follow the dmy (e.g. 30 April 2016) format, both in the prose and list and in the sources. If you want to take the list to GOCE, feel free, but I don't think that is needed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:22, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They all are the wrong format now. If this article is using British English, than all dates need to be day-month-year, not month-day-year. There is a script that can do the conversion, but I can't get it to work yet, or else I would've made the conversion myself.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, ping me when you can get it to work or send the script to me, perhaps I could get it to work. On the other hand, is this American English just a couple of words? Example: colour→color; because if it is you could just tell me and I would change them into the american spelling (after a google search, of course). MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why are none of the tables sortable? It seems odd not to be able to arrange them for, by example, order of result. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I never seen using a sortable in an awards and nominations FL for singers. On the other hand, I have seen it being used in actors and actresses but the tables don't work properly. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes - using a table template which was, I think, originally designed for albums, not people. Looking at the template it looks as if it's out of date with all the other uses we make with tables now (no-one's fault on these tables, but I suspect the template may come under scrutiny at some point in the future). The last actor awards list I did (List of awards and nominations received by Laurence Olivier) I used a standard table to allow flexibility - these are far more useful for readers trying to see, for example, which awards were gained for which (film/album/etc) or to compare the number of wins against nominations. Thanks for the explanation. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the tables are all so short, I'm fine with them not being sortable in this instance. That's not a blanket approval for all cases though, so I would recomend a broader discussion at whatever wikiproject about what template should be used for awards-by-artist lists vs. awards-by-album. I do also prefer larger tables so that users can sort by award/win/whatever, instead of broken up by section, but it appears that the reviewers above didn't have a problem with it. I also see that there was a source review done, so, passing. Congrats on having the 3000th FL! --PresN16:04, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am renominating this for featured list because it's the next in the series of lists on Michigan's state highway system. The product of research on and off over the last decade, this is the one page on the Internet that so comprehensively covers the topic of the United States Numbered Highways (US Highways) in the Great Lakes State and would join List of Interstate Highways in Michigan and Pure Michigan Byway at this level. It is also the lead article for a featured topic on Michigan's US Highways. Imzadi 1979→01:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support due an interesting lead and an exemplary table, but there are a few issues worth noting:
In the lead, "Since 1999 there are 13 mainline highways and with the creation of a business route for Constantine a total of 30 special routes in the state" is a bit confusing and lacks punctuation. How about "Since 1999, there have been 13 mainline highways, and with the creation of a business route for Constantine, a total of 30 special routes in the state"?
In the History section, "Included on the initial discussion report were the various remaining overlaps between Interstate and US Highways" does not flow well. How about "The initial discussion report included the various remaining overlaps between Interstate and US Highways"?
In the History section, "Additional freeway sections opened in around the turn of the 21st century" should not include the word "in".
You need alt text on all of your images. I know it's tedious and annoying, but it's typically a requirement for featured lists and articles.
That being said, however, I want to reiterate my support due to the fact that these minor issues take about 10-20 minutes to rectify and do not have a deleterious effect on the list's overall quality. Zach Vega (talk to me) 04:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't? Damn. I must've been gone for a long time. Anyways, Strong Support now. Zach Vega (talk to me)
Source review - minor stuff:
Wikilinking NewsBank should be on footnote 40 and not 45
Same goes for newspaper title 'Herald-Palladium'; it's wikilinked on fn 43 and not 40
Footnote 40 requires username and password. It's available for free on t'internet, but if you wish to keep the links you have at present best include 'subscription required' notification. This goes for other NewsBank links.
Page number for footnote 42?
I notice that for certain footnotes you have included links to newspaper articles as well as page numbers, when I'm certain the MOS says only one should suffice. What's the reasoning behind this?
Otherwise sources are formatted accordingly and consistently. No dead links; all images appropriate licences as far as I can tell. Lemonade51 (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lemonade51: I've updated the wikilinking between footnotes 40, 43 and 45, switching out the URL for FN 40.
As for FN 42, that was accessed online originally at a link that has since gone dead. The URL and access date for that have been commented out for now. If I'm ever in Lansing again, I can attempt to locate a page number for the print edition of that paper, assuming said article was also published in the print edition of the Lansing State Journal. However, I live 400 miles (640 km) from there by car. The paper's online archives through a premium level of Newspapers.com appear to lack the article. For now, a modified version of the cited sentence can be cited to a different source entirely until we can find a replacement copy.
As for the other footnotes, if the page numbers are known, I've provided them as a form of redundancy. If the links go dead in the future, at least readers can fall back to library copies of the print editions. This also gives us a level of redundancy to locate copies through other archive services in the future.Imzadi 1979→04:44, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Winston Churchill's career as a writer may not be the first thing people remember about him, but it was a significant part of his life. It ran from his early years as a soldier to well past his political retirement and paid for his nice pad at Chartwell and his expensive tastes in brandy and cigars. This list has been expanded and brought into line with good standards, and the text now adequately supports and explains the background to those lists. Any and all comments are very welcome. – SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from jfhutson
Lead
”Winston Churchill, in addition to his careers of soldier and politician, was a prolific writer, under the pen name "Winston S. Churchill".” This sentence could be broken up / made easier to read.
It's the final comma that caused problems with reading. It should actually read much easier without it, given there is only one sub-clause to deal with now. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The transition after the first sentence could be better. We're talking about his writing so maybe start by saying he did war journalism and then relate it to bio.
”Although Churchill wrote a novel and a short story in his career, his main output was studies of major historical events or figures.” Starting with “Although” sound off. I would start with talking about his “main output”.
”although Arthur Balfour described the work as "Winston's brilliant autobiography, disguised as world history".” I can't tell what this means, and I need to know who Balfour is.
description to Balfour added. I've added that Balfour "dismissed" the work as quoted, but I think it is probably clearer now. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
”There are around 135 published booklets of Churchill's speeches...” Clarify that this is in addition to the books below and maybe put it below the table. It seems like the booklets might be included in “speeches in a collected form“, so clarify inclusion criteria or that the booklets are single speeches.
I'd rather keep it above the table if possible (although I am biddable if there is a good reason for it. I've clarified the rest per your suggestion. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks JFH - your thoughts are much appreciated indeed. If you wish to discuss any of the points I haven't undertaken, please let me know - I'm not firmly set on any of them, so happy to hear any alternatives you have in mind. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, looks good. I added one question above but I'll support regardless, noting that this is my first time participating at FLC. --JFH (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks JFH - you are right on the italicisation of the individual speeches, and I've swapped out with quote marks. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - with comments:
"...sent war reports to Daily Graphic." -- The linked article gives the title The Daily Graphic?
"Churchill wrote a novel and a short story in his career, although his main output was studies of major historical events or figures." → "Churchill wrote a novel and a short story in his career, although his main output 'were acollection of his studies into major historical events or figures."? Slight poetic licence in terms of "collection", if indeed that's what it was.
"In the 1923 general election Churchill lost his parliamentary seat and, moving to the south of France, wrote The World Crisis, a six-volume history of the First World War, published between 1923 and 1931." -- "In the 1923 general election Churchill lost his parliamentary seat and moved to the south of France where he wrote The World Crisis, a six-volume history of the First World War, published between 1923 and 1931" sounds better to me.
Support: My knowledge of Churchill is limited to the little I remember from high school and that (mis?)portrayal of his in The King's Speech. Despite my ignorance, I find this list to be quite illuminating with the added distinction of being skillfully arranged. Just one point from me. The lead mentions that he won the Nobel for his numerous published works, especially his six-volume work The Second World War. I don't see the second part of that statement either mentioned or cited in the main body. Are we saying that because these compilations were his most popular? Krimuk|90 (talk) 11:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Krimuk. I thought I covered the Nobel part with a relevant source, but it appears not; I've trimmed it so the text is now covered by the source. Cheers. – SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Gonzo_fan2007
Link #23 is not available to those who don't have a subscription. Is there any other source you can use, or find some sort of archived version that is accessible to all?
I'm afraid not. It's acceptable to have subscription only as a reference, even though it may (unfortunately) be problematic to some. - SchroCat (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a big fan of the ref's in the headers of the tables. I may be wrong, but it seems like normal convention is to either add a References columns or put the references in the body of the table. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong, as I haven't reviewed FLs in a long time.
Source review – The source links are all working and the references are reliable throughout. There wasn't too much that I could spot-check as most of the references are to print sources, but I looked at numbers 1 and 28 and those turned up fine. There were a few small formatting issues that I found, though:
Reference 3 could use an access date.
Refs 7 and 14 should have the page range appear as pp., not p.
While doing one of the spot-checks, I noticed that there's no space after ref 19. That should probably be fixed before this gets promoted.
The lead says, he continued his war journalism in southern Africa during the Second Boer War, but the body refers to the country. Perhaps, linking the regions (also Sudan) might be helpful for non-specialists. —Vensatry(talk)17:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A brief overview about his parents would be very helpful.
Im not sure it would: they had nothing to do with the writing side of his career. I think the parents are best kept to the main article, or their own. – SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mani Ratnam is arguably the greatest mainstream filmmaker in Indian cinema. The 'well-researched' list contains his directorial ventures and co-productions. I believe it meets the FL criteria. As always, look forward to comments and suggestions. —Vensatry(Talk)06:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ssven2
A small note with the Ramachandran Naman source — The pages are not mentioned properly. Same with the Omar Ahmed reference.
I'm aware of the remake, but I think it's better to wait until the film gets significant indpendent coverage; I'm unable to find references which credit Mani Ratnam as the 'story writer' of the film. —Vensatry(Talk)06:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually i also searched for the refrences but didn't find any. By the way, the article is flawless like your other works. Hence i Support the list. Well done.Krish | Talk15:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"He is credited with redefining the "range and depth of Tamil cinema"..." An attribution would help.
Since the book has a limited preview, I'm not sure if I can find the author. Unfortunately, the DFF site doesn't seem to have the corresponding archive. Let me look for alternatives. —Vensatry(talk)17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Ratnam made his directorial debut, without formal training or education in filmmaking," ==> "Without any formal training in filmmaking, Ratnam made his directorial debut..." Also, since he won an award for writing Pallavi Anu Pallavi, it's best you mention that as well here.
Fair enough, but "training" and "education" serves the same purpose here. Also, the "writing" point has not been addressed. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By 'education' I mean a film school diploma, and by 'formal training' I mean apprenticeship. Do you mean to rewrite the bit as 'written and directed by him'? —Vensatry(talk)10:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The critical and commercial success of the film established him as an important filmmaker in Tamil cinema." The sentence could do without the use of the word "important".
"Later, Nayakan would draw the attention of Time when the magazine included the film in its All-Time 100 Movies list in 2005" Awkward phrasing. Suggest tweak to: "Later in 2005, Time included Nayakan in their All-Time 100 Movies list"
"Ratnam followed this with the tragic romance Geethanjali (1989), which marked his Telugu cinema debut; the tragedy Anjali (1990), which dealt with the story of an autistic child; and the crime dramaThalapathi (1991), which was a loosely based film adaptation of the Indian epic Mahabharata." Why the semi-colons?
Alright. But this part "which was a loosely based film adaptation" can be changed to "which was loosely adapted from the..." Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1992, he made the romantic thrillerRoja for Kavithalayaa Productions. The film was dubbed into many Indian languages including Hindi. The widespread success of the film brought national recognition to Ratnam." Firstly, why is Kavithalayaa Productions relevant here? Also, the three lines can be combined into a single sentence: "In 1992, he made the romantic thrillerRoja in Tamil, which was dubbed into several Indian languages, including Hindi, and gained Ratnam national recognition".
I think it's worth mentioning because until then most of his films were made by his uncle/brother's production house (Geetanjali is an exception though). Kavithalayaa Productions (KB's production house) mainly made films which were directed by KB. Mani Ratnam chose to make Roja (and Thiruda Thiruda) for Kavithalayaa, not the other way round. Merged the latter two. —Vensatry(talk)17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're questioning the phrase's usage, it's pretty much an acceptable one. Bombay received more attention (worldwide) than any of his previous films (even surpassing Roja). —Vensatry(talk)17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Hits" is quite vague; what exactly happened is that the film opened among the top 10 films of the week at the UK box office. Krimuk|90 (talk) 08:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A commercially unsuccessful film may win many awards (read NFAs). As a matter of fact, more than half of our 'Best Film' winners are box-office duds. —Vensatry(talk)17:11, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you say 'nonetheless', it implies that the film won so many awards inspite of being a commercial failure. I think it reads much better in its present state. —Vensatry(talk)07:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"He returned to Bollywood after a six-year hiatus.." There is no mention of the fact that he had worked in Bollywood before this.
The dispute we earlier had about Ratnam's first hit – Idaya KovilorMouna Ragam – repeats here.
Back then, you cited a source (from Hindu/NIE) which clearly stated that Idaya Kovil was his first commercial success. What more do you want? —Vensatry(talk)07:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because Ratnam contradicts this in Conversations. Or I think it's best that I write (inMR) that Ratnam considered it to be his first success, even if it wasn't. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While Roja and Dil Se indeed have terrorism in them, I don't see how Bombay does; yet it is part of the "terrorism trilogy". I think that is more of a "political trilogy". Kailash29792 (talk) 04:32, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our opinion doesn't matter. We have to go by what majority of the sources claim. Some might even include Kannathil Muthamittal and call it a 'terrorism tetralogy'. —Vensatry(talk)07:05, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Pavanjandhyala
For non Indian readers, it would be better if you link Kannada before the mention of Pallavi Anu Pallavi.
The following year, he made the romantic dramaMouna Ragam -- I suggest you to rephrase the sentence as The following year, he made Mouna Ragam, a romantic drama film. After that, i advise you to tell the readers in brief what the film is about.
In the sentence about Geethanjali, Anjali, and Thalapathi, it would be better if you mention their genres before the film's description. For example: Geethanjali, a tragic romance which marked his Telugu cinema debut.
Can you provide a source for this statement confirming the latter half -- "In 1997, Ratnam co-produced and directed the political drama film Iruvar, which was loosely based on the relationship between cinema and politics in Tamil Nadu."
Linking Bollywood would be very beneficial.
The commercial failure was the most successful film at the 50th National Film Awards, winning six awards including the award for the Best Feature Film in Tamil -- "...including the one/honour for the..."; only an attempt to avoid close repetition of the word "award".
Yuva was simultaneously filmed into Tamil as Aayutha Ezhuthu with a different cast. I feel that a source confirming this should be a part of the lead. Because, the filmography table isn't mentioning the same fact.
Weren't Kadal and OK Kanmani his production ventures? If yes, please mention that in the lead.
I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it is very close to meeting the criteria. The Six Nations is about to finish, so what better way to celebrate than by getting this list to Featured standard. I currently have a list here, but as it already has three supports and no outstanding comments, this nom should be ok. Cheers NapHit (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (includes source review)
"At that time a try by itself wasn't worth any points," avoid contraction
"George Lindsay scored five tries in Scotland's 4–0 win over Wales in 1887. This is most tries scored in a single match," could you find a way to link both sentences?
Not obligatory, but images could have alt text.
Sources are fine, no real signs of close paraphrasing. No dead or dab links.
For consistency purposes, are the general sources 'ESPN Scrum' like Ref 1?
Small point - should the lead mention that rugby union is the sport involved? The link to the Six Nations will lead readers to discover the sport, but it might be worth making it explicit in the article? --Bcp67 (talk) 21:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from ShuddeI have to oppose for now. I have a number of comments, but my oppose is mainly due to the first sentence:
Comments from Shudde
"Since the inception of the Home Nations Championships in 1883, which became the Five Nations with the addition of France in 1930 and the current Six Nations Championship in 2000 with the addition of Italy, over 40 Rugby union players have scored three tries or drop goals (a hat-trick) in a single match."
There is one serious problem, France joined the Home Nations Championship in 1910 (so it became the Five Nations) but were then ejected from the tournament from 1932 until 1939 due to allegations of professionalism. They rejoined, but the tournament did not resume until after the Second World War. Considering the importance of this, I worry about the sourcing of the rest of the list (hence my oppose). Please source everything, and double check every statement is supported by its source.
It's also not clear what a hat-trick is, "... scored three tries or drop goals (a hat-trick) in a single match" -- this reads as though scoring a try and two drop-goals is a hat-trick. So how about "... scored three tries or three drop goals (a hat-trick) in a single match."
"Rugby" should really not be capitalised unless part of a proper noun (so Rugby Football Union, Rugby school etc).
I do not like the fact that tries and drop-goals have been conflated together the way you've done here. I notice that this was bought up by Nergaal (talk·contribs) at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Rugby Union World Cup hat-tricks/archive1. Joseph2302 also seemed to think this was strange. I know that it was suggested by another user that you add drop-goals, but I think most rugby followers would expect a hat-trick to exclusively refer to tries. I can live with both being listed, but can drop-goals be separated out into their own table? The two achievements aren't really comparable, and we seem to be implying that they are by listing them together here.
The prose needs a bit of a copy-edit, and I think some of the statements are unclear. For example:
"George Lindsay scored five tries in Scotland's 4–0 win over Wales in 1887, the most tries scored in a single match." -- You mean the most tries scored by a single player in a match right? There have been matches with more than four tries scored many many times.
"Lescarboura's hat-trick against England in 1985 is the only time the feat has been achieved with the match ending in a draw." -- again this is a little misleading. His "hat-trick" was in drop-goals, so it's not fair to compare that to tries. Second, at least according to the table, Neil Jenkins scored three drop-goals in Wales' 28 all draw with Scotland in 2001.
"Chris Ashton's four tries in 2011 is the most by anyone since 1969." -- Again this could be implied to mean a number of things, including that no player has scored four Six Nations tries (in total) since 1969, rather than no player has scored four tries or more in a single Six Nations match since 1969.
I see you have tried to separate out tries and drop-goals in the lead, but I think this could be more clearly done.
"Dominguez's hat-trick is the only one by an Italian player in the competition." -- Again we're conflating tries and drop-goals. No Italian has scored a hat-trick of tries right? Maybe this should be explicitly mentioned somewhere.
I think the lead could probably be expanded a little bit. There are a number of things that come to mind. If this is a notable achievement we could expand on it without trouble. Charles Wade was an Australian in Brtain studying when he scored his hat-trick, which was on debut and also as a last minute replacement. Jehoida Hodges was a prop who ended up being moved onto the wing (due to an injury) when he scored his hat-trick. Michel Crauste is, as far as I can tell, the only forward to score a hat-trick of tries while actually playing in the forwards! These things are all examples of the kind of interesting pieces of information that could be added to the lead.
I know that you've followed the same format as for List of Rugby World Cup hat-tricks, but I find some of the table heads and column headings a bit strange. I can live with most of them, but can we change "Hat-tricks by national team" to something clearer. At the moment it reads like the national team was scoring the hat-trick when it is an individual achievement. I can't think what would be both clear and concise however (I'll mull this over and hopefully think of something). It'd also be good in this table to separate out tries and drop-goals (and have a "total" section).
I think thats it from me. Sorry to oppose but some of the problems are too serious (such as the first sentence) for me to do otherwise. -- Shuddetalk09:20, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments @Shudde:, I've addressed nearly all of them I think. Apologies if I haven't. Regarding the extra info, I'm not sure if this would be pushing the boundaries of what s relevant, plus sourcing the Crusate and Hodges points might be problematic. However, I am open to persuasion and maybe it would be a good idea to have a bit more info. Interested to see your responses. Cheers. NapHit (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would definitely not push any boundaries to expand the amount of information on the subject of this list! This is supposed to be a notable topic, so surely there are articles/sources that discuss Six Nations hat-tricks in some detail. I'm asking you to expand it (it's very thin on prose) -- I only offered some suggestions after a very quick google search; who know what a more thorough search could uncover?
Again we need to be careful with the prose. You said:『George Lindsay scored five tries in Scotland's 4–0 win over Wales in 1887, the most tries scored by a single player in a match.』but this is only for 6N Championship matches, not all internationals (Marc Ellis (rugby)), and definitely not all rugby matches.
A number of my comments have not been addressed. I have struck those that have. I have left the prose section un-struck because despite any changes I'm not yet happy with it.
I have split the first sentence up and rewritten it a little. Please let me know if you're happy with it. Hopefully this makes the subject of the list clearer (it probably needed to be split into two sentences, one way or another).
I've had a go at adding some more information and I have tried to tidy the prose up in places @Shudde:, let me know what you think! I'm not sure if you have noticed, but I included the France bit in a footnote. I think I've had a go at doing all your comments now! NapHit (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some comments. Maybe some more later:
Yes I noticed the France bit was in a footnote, which is fine by me.
The second sentence needs work, the tense is all over the place.
Shouldn't The Daily Telegraph be just The Telegraph in most of the references? Aren't we referencing the website rather than the print newspaper?
I'm not sure about this. I've always referenced it as The Daily Telgraph, because that is the name of the publication. I'm not sure if that changes depending on whether the article was posted solely on the site or print in as well. NapHit (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ref [1] doesn't support footnote [A]; it says France were ejected in 1931 not 1932, and does not say when they were readmitted.
Ref [2] does support that Italy were admitted in 2000, but does not support the rest of the statement. Ref [1] does that, but it also says that the tournment started in 1882 not 1883. In fact Wade's hat-trick was scored in 1882, so there is obviously a mistake somewhere.
Ref [3] supports the information on Wade.
Ref [4] does not support that a try meant a "try for goal". It does support that no points were awarded for tries.
Ref [5] supports the statement, although is there nothing more recent? That page is over ten years old (the record could theoretically have been overtaken since then).
Ref [6] supports the Smith sentence.
Ref [7] can't check the reference so will AGF.
Ref [8] supports the statement.
Ref [9] supports the statement although it is a little out of date.
Ref [10] only supports the last part of the statement.
Ref [11] I don't know what is going here, but guessing you have mixed up some urls because it links to an Independent article.
I would like to see inline citations for the information in the lead that is referenced from the general references. This is a case of WP:INTEGRITY and would make everything much easier to verify. I normally wouldn't worry so much, but there has been issues with sourcing here so I think it would be prudent.
I'm not 100% happy with the prose (especially the second sentence), but would be willing to strike my oppose regarding that. However I'm not happy with the sourcing. I did want things double checked, and I don't think everything was spotted. Can this please be addressed? I'm hoping it's not too hard even if it is a bit tedious. -- Shuddetalk15:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again @Shudde:. I think I've addressed all your concerns now. I've gone through all the references and they should be good. I've changed the prose here and there, let me know if it is to your liking. NapHit (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck my oppose, and will offer my weak support. I still have a few points that may be worth considering:
Still not sure about whether it is the Daily TelegraphorTelegraph -- admittedly I took my information from wikipedia (an unreliable source!), but it does say "Telegraph.co.uk is the online version of the newspaper. It uses banner title The Telegraph and includes articles from the print editions of The Daily Telegraph and The Sunday Telegraph, as well as web-only content such as breaking news, features, picture galleries and blogs." which is why I thought Telegraph was more accurate. Something to think about.
I have played with the second sentence. But the prose in general could do with a careful read by an uninvolved editor.
Still not happy with the headings "Player hat-tricks by their national team" and "Player's hat-tricks by their national team" as I think they read funny. I can't think of a good alternative however!
I do think that this list needs a careful read by some uninvolved editors, but I thank @NapHit: for their hardwork and wish them good luck! -- Shuddetalk16:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from MPJ-DK
Figured I'd drop by with my 2 cents worth of comments on this FLC over the next day or so. Side note: I have a Mexican National Women's Championship FLC going on and would appreciate any and all feedback (Not asking for Quid Pro Quo, my review is independent of participation in my FLC). My comments will be split into three sections as listed below. Side note - I have put both this page and the list article on my watch list, I will try to keep an eye on them. MPJ-US00:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lead/Text
No where do I see it indicated when the list is accurate "as of"? The general references were accessed on 6 July 2014 and 17 November 2015 respectively, which means they could be out of date since that is quite a long time ago?
Player hat-tricks by their national team - Sorts okay across the board, the list itself seems to hit the marks.
Sources
At least one of the sources should link to "ESPN"
I think linking in sources is more personal taste. I don't like doing it myself, and I don't think it is required by any specific guideline. So, I don't think it's really necessary. NapHit (talk) 21:40, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sources look like Reliable sources, well formed with all the information that's possible to extract.
Checking sources as I review they look like they are covering the various statements.
There is no textual source to support that Wade was the first to score a hat-trick - this is where the use of "general sources" really becomes a challenge as we have to judge the lead to figure out "is it in general source" or does it need a specific source?
That match was actually the first ever in the championship and is referenced as such. So, I think that should cover it. NapHit (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support My only comment would be to add a sourced sentence at the end of the lede that says "The last hat-tricks was achieved by Jonathan Joseph on 14 February 2016" or something similar mentioning the last person and time it was achieved. Otherwise a very well-rounded list! « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 04:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing with the theme of Arsenal, this is the third and final section of the completed players list. Again, it's modelled on lists which have been promoted, and illustrated with pictures. Please note that Soccerbase stats cannot be entirely trusted; for instance it states Remi Garde and Luís Boa Morte have made 28 and 14 starts respectively, when in actual fact it's one less for both. For that reason, I've cross-checked all apps with this and the club's database. Would greatly welcome any sort of feedback, ta...Lemonade51 (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead: "Two players – Ray Daniel and Roger Ord, fell...". Either use two en-dashes or two commas.
I think you should include a second (and perhaps a third) list-ordering criterium, such as total appearances and club career years or alphabetical order of names.
Support I've just had a play around and a read through with the aim of adding some comments, but I can't see any issues. Miyagawa (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
All good on the sources (I made one minor tweak). The only thing I'd say is that it may be worth while archiving the web sources to stop link rot. That's not a step needed for FLC, but it may avoid problems in the future. - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Only one comment: we say "The club's name was shortened to Arsenal in 1914": the preceeding text doesn't make it clear that it was Woolwich A by that time, not Royal A. It's only a minor point, but it may be worth a one-line footnote to clarify? - SchroCat (talk) 07:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My only comments are suggestions and not necessary for my support. It may be helpful to have an inline citation on the last sentence of the lede pointing to Arsenal's current roster. Also, since there are only two notes, it may be better to not set the column width at 50em. In a very wide screen set-up, the 50em will put the notes in two columns, but since there are only two notes it looks kind of funny (creates white space because the first note is so much longer than the second). Again, neither of these are necessary for my support. Good work! « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 15:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because Bajirao Mastani is the most awarded Bollywood film of 2015, winning for its direction, acting, and technical achievements. I think it meets the FL criteria.Krish | Talk07:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Yashthepunisher
"A co-production between Bhansali and Eros International, Bajirao Mastani stars.." Replace Bajirao Mastani with "it" or "the film".
There is only review to support the "positive reviews from critics" claim.
"Bajirao Mastani garnered many awards and nominations in a variety of categories.." Again replace BM with a "it". Also, "many" is redundant here.
"..with particular praise for Bhansali's direction and music, cinematography, production design, costumes, and performances of Chopra and Singh." Production design includes "costumes", so you should remove it.
Provide a correct alt text for the image of Chopra and Singh.
The sentence "A co-production between Bhansali and Eros International, it stars Ranveer Singh as Bajirao I, Deepika Padukone as Mastani, and Priyanka Chopra as Kashibai, with Tanvi Azmi, Aditya Pancholi, Vaibbhav Tatwawdi and Milind Soman playing supporting roles" is too long. It can be split into two easily. Also, mention Bhansali's production company there.
Why the screenplay, cinematography, and editing are discussed in the same sentence?
"The screenplay was written by Prakash R. Kapadia, with the cinematography provided by Sudeep Chatterjee while Rajesh G. Pandey edited the film". Please find a better way to reword the second half of the sentence.
A comma is required between "art direction" and "and".
Agreed the film has received the highest number of nominations at the 61st Filmfare Awards and won nine. But, from an encyclopaedic point of view, most and leading mayn't be neutral.
Well its a fact that the film received most nominations and won maximum awards. This is also present in many FAs and FLs.Krish | Talk17:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"It received thirteen nominations at the 2015 Producers Guild Film Awards, collecting..."—"...Awards, and earned..." sounds better.
Break that sentence about Producer Guild Awards after Azmi's nomination. It is too long.
"Bajirao Mastani received thirteen nominations at the 22nd Screen Awards, winning seven.."—and won seven.
"It was produced by Bhansali and Eros International". Awkward as it mentions the name of one of the producers and then a different production company. It would be easier to say that it was a co-production between Bhansali's SLB Films and Eros International.
"The film stars..." This sentence can be split into two. "The film stars Ranveer Singh as Bajirao I, Deepika Padukone as Mastani, and Priyanka Chopra as Kashibai. Tanvi Azmi, Aditya Pancholi, Vaibbhav Tatwawdi, and Milind Soman feature in supporting roles."
For its budget, I can't see a mention of it in the The Hindu source. Also a different reference is needed for its critical acclaim as the source given is the opinion of one of the reps from one of its production companies.
"Bajirao Mastani has grossed over ₹3.5 billion (US$52 million)". This statement needs a "as of" as presumably the film is still in cinemas.
Bajirao won Best Production Design at Filmfare not Art Direction.
For the GIMA awards, Shail-Pritesh were nominated for their work on "Deewani Mastani". Nitin Shankar also won the award with them. Bhansali also won the Best Music Director award.
Ref 2 doesn't support the "Based on the Marathi novel Raau by Nagnath S. Inamdar" claim.
The rest of the lead looks good.
Filmfare Awards - no mention of Remo D'Souza or Ganesh Acharya for choreography in the source, and the list is missing Best Story win for Vijayendra Prasad
Bajirao Mastani was written by Prakash R. Kapadia not Vijayendra Prasad, who won for his film. Why I would add his name to a film he has nothing to do? Krish | Talk12:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Screen Awards didn't publish the nominations this year. However, they showed it doing the television specials and the main event televised on 31 January 2016. Hence I had cited that episode and that is fine to use as most of Indian FLs use these kinds of citations. It mainly because the coverage of awards in India is very poor. They don't have their own websites or any kind of links. I hope its clear.Krish | Talk16:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Do not list certifications for countries that are not used on albums chart. You list certifications for albums certified in Mexico, but no albums chart for it.
"In 1995, Selena was inducted into the Billboard Latin Music Hall of Fame, the Hard Rock Cafe's Hall of Fame,the South Texas Music Hall of Fame, and the Tejano Music Hall of Fame in 2001." I'm not sure if this is really appropriate for a discography article. I think the Billboard article sums up it well since it outright calls her the bestselling Latin artist of the '90s.
"Dreaming of You became the first and only predominately Spanish-language album to debut and peak at number one on the Billboard 200 chart." I would put "to date the" before "only".
You list the standard certification Amor Prohibido but use the RIAA Latin certification on the studio albums section. You should just stick one, not both as to not confuse readers who are not familiar with the RIAA Latin certifications.
I still see the Latin certification used for Amor Prohibido on the table. Either use standard for both the prose and table or the Latin certification for both of them. Erick (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not required, but I would mention some of her albums being the bestselling albums of the year such as Entre a Mi Mundo being the bestselling Regional Mexican Album of 1993 in the US or Dreaming of You being the bestselling the bestselling Latin album of 1995-96 in the US. This could readers an even better insight on how well those albums did.
There is no logic to the order of the sources list: it should be in alphabetical order by surname
You need to sort out the caps in the titles:
Selena's Secret: The Revealing Story Behind Her Tragic Death is preferred to
Where were you when... the music played?: 120 unforgettable moments in music history
You need to add the location of the publishers for most of the printed sources
Check the date format in the refs; You have many in the 10 April 2016 format and others in the April 10, 2016 format: pick one (probably the US-favoured April 10, 2016, as you use that within the article as well) and run with it throughout
For some refs with Billboard you include the publisher, for others you don't: pick one and be consistent (as you're not including the other publishing companies of other works, best to remove the publisher name)
Hi AJona1992, Not quite: you need to re-order the sources so they are in alphabetical order, starting with the 1996 World Book, then Arrarás onwards and finishing with Untiedt. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:26, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow reviewers again! Nominating another list for FL, which is of awards received by a fantastic film of 2015. FrB.TG (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"The film's screenplay ... is based on the The Boston Globe's "Spotlight" team, which uncovers the sexual abuse scandal in Massachusetts" Awkward use of the present tense, and not entirely correct, grammatically speaking.
What is the Silver Mouse Award? How is it notable enough to be mentioned in the first paragraph?
" grossing a total box office" How does one gross a box office?
"..held the third place for the People's Choice Award" Awkward phrasing, again.
This is an awards list, so isn't it notable to note that Spotlight is the first Best Picture winner to win only one other Oscar since the 1940s?
"It received the award in the same category at the ..." -- received an award. It also avoids close and unnecessary repetition of "the".
"In addition, Spotlight was named Best Film by several critics associations, including ..." -- i think, rather saying "named Best Film", it is better to write that Spotlight was "named the best film of the year".
"The film was also included in American Film Institute's list of the top ten films of the year." -- I think you can end it as "... list of 2015's top ten films". It is also an attempt to avoid repetition of "of the". Pavanjandhyala (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I couldn't find any outstanding issues and there are no disambiguation or dead links, and the prose is very well-written. Good job! Erick (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The list focuses on the discography of South Korean girl group T-ara. Personally speaking, this list is suitable for a FL candidate as it is comprehensive and fully detailed, as well as references are OK and reliable. Simon (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
:Hi HĐ, just wondering if you know there is anyways we can verify the Japanese/Oricon sales number? I know some have ranking.oricon.jp for the references, but sometimes I'm just confused on where those numbers come from. I'm not just talking about Tara discography page, but I also looked at GG discography recently and saw the same thing.--TerryAlex (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HĐ, I find it quite hard to keep track of the sales numbers, I guess we are aware not every K-pop sales number is up-to-date on Wikipedia, or they are up-to-date but but there aren't any sources lying around to confirm them, accept for maybe OneHallyu, which isn't considered to be a RS. What do you think about this?
Back to Tara's discography, I think you should elaborate a bit more about the last 3 EPs that they released. As far as I'm concerned, they ranked quite high on the Gaon chart so there should be an indication of that. It looks incomplete to me to end the paragraph with "The group has released three further EPs, Again, And & End, and So Good from 2013 to 2015". --TerryAlex (talk) 15:36, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sales are not required to be up to date I think. Several artists' discographies do not have the latest sales figures up to 2016, some of them even date back to 2009 or earlier. About their 3 latest EPs, I'm considering expanding it. Thanks! Simon (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have trimmed the lead a bit. Their latest 3 EPs have been added their positions of the Gaon but I did not add too much information as they do not contribute much to T-ara's career like their previous releases. Simon (talk) 05:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Singles: I see a reference for "Log In" under Korean Hot 100, but that song was not included as a part of the overall chart
Promotional singles & Collaboration singles: you should clean up the references under Korean Billboard, since many of those don't apply
Other charted song: Gaon - no references for "Hurt" and "Don't Get Married", Korean Billboard chart also has many redundant references that don't apply.--TerryAlex (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleaned up a bit. Added source for Mirage position. "Hue" and "Love Game" should have Billboard positions when registered. Thanks so much! Simon (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
HĐ, I reread the lead paragraphs, though the last 3 EPs only managed modest success, is there really nothing else to say? Maybe you can mention the single "Number 9" reaching top 5.--TerryAlex (talk) 05:31, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not sure if there is any minor issues I'm not being aware of, but the article looks good and well-sourced. The lead paragraph covers the topic nicely.--TerryAlex (talk) 14:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For "L—R", should an em dash really be there? Something like "From left" might be better.
Done
Should there be refs for all the album release dates? There are refs for some but not all. I don't know if this is required.
Added all references for release dates
I think it would be a good idea to use Template:Small instead of <small> for (with Chopsticks Brothers), (Ballad version) etc because it will display as 85% on all browsers. <span style="font-size:85%;"> can be replaced with that template as well. (On my browser, <small> is smaller than 85%.)
Done
Produce 101 should be in italics
Done
In Note A, "and therefore there" doesn't sound right; maybe replace with "so".
The source given says the last chart was issued on May 10, 2014
There is some inconsistency with the Korean song titles (some are in notes and some aren't). I think it might be better to have it like "You Drive Me Crazy" (너 때문에 미쳐), and just explain the different English translations in the notes; something like Also translated as "I Go Crazy Because of You". "Wae Ireoni" is the only title in Korean; is there a reason for that?
Fixed
The table formatting for Gaon/Billboard peak chart positions is different in the singles table, compared to collaboration singles, promotional singles and other charted songs. Can you change those to match?
I think not, as the official singles additionally appeared on Japanese/US charts, while the collaboration and promotional singles only appear on the Korea-related charts.
"number one single" should be "number-one single"
Done
"of Gaon Album Chart" should be "of the Gaon Album Chart", for consistency
Done
Ideally, there should be archive urls for all the Gaon Chart references, since we never know when the site will change.
Citation 28 – I don't think Pann is a reliable source (user-generated); use Oricon instead.
Changed
Citation 2 needs more parameters filled in—the Korean title, work (OSEN), author (Lee Hye-rin)
Done
I also think might be a good idea to mention "Number Nine" in the lead. Maybe "Sugar Free" too (T-ara's highest charting single on World Digital Songs)?
@HĐ: The lead looks complete now, but "all of which" in the last paragraph should be "both of which".
Done
The Billboard chart was still published in Korea until July 16 [13]; the source you have is from US Billboard.
Fixed
I don't understand what you said about the table formatting for peak chart positions; I still think it should be consistent. The font sizes are different (90% vs 85%), and <small> is making it even smaller. The singles section says "Hot100" and the others say "Billboard".
Spotchecks: refs 17, 36, 50, 64, 73 checked; 50 has a problem- it claims to cite that the Korean hot 100 stopped in July 2014, but unless I'm missing something that ref, while showing the purported last week, doesn't explicitly show that there were never any weeks after
Formatting: A lot of the online refs seem to be missing accessdates; at first I thought you were omitting them when you had an archive, but even when you don't you miss some.
Very well written and detailed article, I couldn't find any flaws in the article. There is, however, a CS1 error with FN#50; once this is fixed I can support the article. Best – jona✉13:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Thanks for your help Reywas92. All the google searches showing skipping flower beetle derive from the LWT page, so I suspect it is a typo. I think the beetle should be deleted unless you have a source to say it is Mordellistena neuwaldeggiana. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 08:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but you should say what they won the award for...
"environment in the capital, its "Biological Recording Project".... could turn that comma into a full stop. But the next sentence would then change becoming to became.
activities from water management to chalk grassland restoration,... not really a range, so maybe "activities including water management, chalk grasslands restoration, "
I'm confused why some organisms have wikilinks, and some others do not. Is there logic behind it? For example why is water-dropwort linked but not common spotted orchid?
Is there a reason the sources are separate from citations? Why not just have citations?
It is usual and I think helpful to have a separate section for sources which are repeated with different page numbers. It means that the citation can be given as e.g. For a Wilder City, p. 5 and elsewhere p. 10 rather than having to give full details each time. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a section called "Sites formerly managed by the Trust", it should probably have a short description explaining why the sites are no longer managed by the trust?
Well, reviewers were quite keen to jump on this one, weren't they? Did a source review, which passed, so... promoting! --PresN15:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
On my screen there appears to be an extra blank line before "Public access". Is this deliberate?
It is deliberate because on my screen without the blank line the heading is at the bottom of the previous column. Is there a better way of ensuring that the heading is in the right place? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:29, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've played around with different screen sizes and resolutions (I normally use very wide screens) but can't duplicate this.— Rodtalk08:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a specific rationale for the order of the entries in the "other classifications" column? If I sort by that column some that include CAONB do not appear with the others as they have NT or SAC first (ieBradenham Woods, Park Wood and The Coppice & Aston Rowant Woods) If I was being a real pedant I would suggest alphabetical order (as in the key) but that would mean difficultly if I wanted to find all sites with a particular designation (eg NT, BBOWT or SAC). I don't know how to resolve this one.
Otherwise the table appears comprehensive and everything sorts as it should.
References
Ref 51 (COMMUNITY WILDLIFE OFFICER) is in block caps - any reason? It also includes a "&" in "Berkshire, Buckinghamshire & Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust" when the other references to this organisation use "and"
Support – Another Rolls Royce article from this source. I have striven to find something to carp about, but can't. Very happy to support. Plainly meets the FL criteria, in my judgement. Tim riley talk18:01, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph is stubby at one sentence and feels more like a note than a natural part of a lead section. I saw a suggestion above that it be placed in the see also section. If you don't want to do that, perhaps consider putting it in a hatnote at the start of the Sites section.
Very minor, but the ranges in the titles of refs 14, 23, 29, 30, and 74 could use en dashes. That's how nitpicky I must be to offer any commentary. It's a strong effort overall.Giants2008 (Talk) 01:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have never understood en dashes. Can you advise what I should do?
Support – I ended up doing the dashes myself, as I didn't think they were worth the trouble of extending the review. As I said before, it's a strong effort. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I added a reference for where it was located originally (Benfica obviously), and explained that the parish split. Can't really find a source that says exactly são domingos de benfica.
"The club was renamed Sport Lisboa e Benfica, when it merged with Grupo Sport Benfica in 1908, and moved to the Estádio da Luz" → "The club was renamed Sport Lisboa e Benfica, when it merged with Grupo Sport Benfica in 1908, and later moved to the Estádio da Luz"
Fixed
"Nine players have made more than 400 appearances, including four members of the 1961 European Cup-winning team," needs citation
Added, but it's actually 10, was incorrect for 2 years and no one noticed.
Not sure what the significance of the 'Notable players' section is, what makes these players more prominent than a Benfica footballer playing for the club two seasons ago? I would suggest removing it, but I'll leave it for others and yourself to decide.
I agree it makes no sense, I removed it, but SLBedit re-added it, which led me to created a topic in WP:footy to reach consensus.
Did Manuel Bento score -203 goals? Looking at other lists, it's best to omit cleansheets.
@Lemonade51: Fixed all, totally missed Javi Garcia. About the names, I tried to follow the Almanac who used just the shirt name, but I've added the first names on the majority. --Threeohsix (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "notable players" section just seems to reflect a selection of past players spotlighted in a piece on the club's website, this has no place in the article
Agree
Showing negative goals against keepers is not a normal/usually shown stat for footballers, remove them
@ChrisTheDude: Following the what the source used, but expanded them include first name in the majority, although same are only known by their first name like Quim, Jardel, Lima.--Threeohsix (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but players from other countries are not known by just one name in that way, so the name by which they are known should be used
Is it necessary that sentence about the name change and the move to Estádio da Luz? In my opinion, it is actually separating two sentences that fit pretty well one after the other.
I've tried to merge the two and still sound consistent, what you think?
My point was to have that sentence removed altogether. Like this: "The club was formed in Belém in 1904 as Sport Lisboa, and the first team played their first competitive match on 4 November 1906, when they entered the inaugural edition of the Campeonato de Lisboa, being renamed Sport Lisboa e Benfica, when they merged with Grupo Sport Benfica in 1908, later moving to the Estádio da Luz in 1954. Since their first competitive match,More than 750 players have since..."Parutakupiu (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is António Veloso really the second-highest appearance maker? Either the lead is wrong or the list is wrong (actually, it is wrong as Veloso has more league than total appearances!). Double-check other possible errors in the list.
Fixed.
Why not Eusébio's photo in the lead? It's the second-best option since there is none of Nené.
Changed it to the lead, didn't have it there so Eusébio originally because I didn't want to give him a disproportionate level of recognition.
Lowercase "Hat-trick" in footnote b.
Done
Footnote d. should be "Player who later became first-team head coach"
Done
Some footnotes end with a period mark, others do not.
There's no player with at least 100 appearances that was on loan in the club, so I don't think you need that "Player" part in the Key section.
In the "Total appearances and Total goals", you forgot to add international competitions such as the UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League and their previous denominations (European Cup and UEFA Cup).
Support Very well presented and easy to use and discover. Only suggestion I could make (you don't have to listen to me at all) would be to mention Pereira as most-capped international while at Benfica, and Nené as most-capped Portuguese while at Benfica, given as a lead is to summarise all of the content in the rest of the article, and international statistics is one column of the table. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that, if I had sources for it. Keeping track of internationals games while representing a club is very trivial. I only add that row of info because the Almanac has that information for about 95% of the players currently listed here. (the exception being the ones that were internationals after the 2012)--Threeohsix (talk) 17:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I think you could expand on the history of the club a little more in the first paragraph. How many league titles have they won, mention the European Cup success. This will give the reader an overview of the club.
Are there are anymore players you can mention in the lead. Did any former players manage the club later on for instance?
Added them to the lead.
"More than 750 players have since made a competitive first-team appearance for the club..." -> Since then, more than 750 players have appeared in competitive first-team matches for the club
Had to change to "Since their first competitive match"
The player column should sort by last name not first name
Don't use bold to signify the player is still at the club. This is not allowed per MOS:BOLD. In fact ,there is no need for any signifying of this, as the reader only has to look at the year column to see who is still at the club.
Removed
Position column should actually sort by position, like here
Not sure if there is any benefit to having a separate league column, surely just the total column would suffice?
The same question can be said of substitutes appearances in Liverpol article. I added it to match Birmingham's article, as I said in the lead here. If that's necessary for you support, then it will go.
Lemonade51 Changed Luisão to one in Benfica kit. Fix ref 79. Serbenfiquista.com as a fan site I say it's pretty reliable, never discovered any inconsistencies there.--Threeohsix (talk) 10:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that we don't normally consider fan sites to be reliable. To make an exception for this site, media reports indicating that it is trustworthy would be more useful than a single editor's opinion. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this for featured list because it is the final hurdle in making a good/featured topic on the 400-series highways of Ontario, the result of over 7 years of research, photography and writing by myself and a few helpful peers. Floydianτ¢05:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Firefox is good with tables, so it automatically resolves that error, which resulted from not having |notes=none. I've made the adjustment that should fix it for you on Chrome/IE (lol... IE). - Floydianτ¢02:07, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest the list gets moved to List of 400-series highways in Ontario as to give more context that its a list and that the 400-series highways are in Ontario, something many readers cannot assume.
I think the current title adequately and concisely covers the scope of the content. Aside from the minor former highway system in B.C., no other highway system in the world uses 400 numbering to some context. - Floydianτ¢02:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can a section listing the format for the highway names be added to the infobox?
I'm not sure how to do this. If you're familiar, could you add it? It's simply "Ontario Highway X" (or "King's Highway X" officially). - Floydianτ¢02:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you can add a description section covering the maintenance, numbering scheme, total length, and longest and shortest highways of the 400-series highways? See List of Interstate Highways in Michigan for an example. I would also order the three sections preceding the table as Description, Design standards, and History.
Design standards and description cover essentially the same thing. I added a paragraph covering the maintenance, length, and min/max length routes. Not sure what to say that isn't obvious or covered regarding the numbering scheme. - Floydianτ¢18:16, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you link to Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which concerns the United States. Doesn't Canada have a similar manual? If so, you should link to that or indicate that title instead of the US MUTCD.
Nope, in Ontario at least we conform to the MUTCD. We have the OTS which deals with it legally, but that follows the MUTCD. - Floydianτ¢02:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why are some of the lengths to 0 decimal places and some of the lengths to 1 decimal place? You should be consistent here.
Only ON 412 has that issue, and the length is based on the only reliably available length. Heck, the MTO hasn't updated the length tables since 2010! - Floydianτ¢02:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I've contacted the 407 construction group to locate a centreline profile that can give me precision to 1/10th of a km. Until then, it is what it is. - Floydianτ¢02:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way the size of the shield for Highway 407 can be reduced? It looks disproportionately large compared to the other shields.
Right now, all shields are displayed by {{routelist row}} with a size of "x25px". Unfortunately, Highway 407's unique shield dimensions yield ugly results with that code. I think there should be a discussion somewhere (not here) to fix the issues that have come up regarding shield sizes in that template and in {{jct}}. As for right now, the module design does not allow for a clean and easy fix. -happy521405:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Testing it on the row for ON 412 does indeed return 6 miles. Ping me or adjust the entry for 412 from 10.0 to 10 when you've applied your modification. - Floydianτ¢05:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The current TPR (technically preferred route) drawings for 407E phase two provide stationing measurements for the 407 alignment, but not for the EDL/418 alignment. At this time, as with ON 412, 10 km seems to be the rough and only estimate. I've contacted the construction firms for each phase to see if they can provide more accurate data. - Floydianτ¢05:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't Queen Elizabeth Way unsigned Highway 451? You should make a note of this in the table.
Only for maintenance purposes. I figure this is minor enough to barely warrant mention on the article itself. I'd sooner mention it being the first intercity divided highway in North America when it opened between Toronto and Hamilton in June 1937. - Floydianτ¢02:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have a table for future HOV lanes. Is it possible to add a table for current HOV lanes?
At this point there are only 3 sets of HOV lanes, which are detailed in the prose preceding the future HOV lanes table. Seems redundant at this time, but certainly warranted in the near future as several new sets are opened. - Floydianτ¢17:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"it wasn't until 1952 when these routes were given 400-series designations." The contraction here should definitely be reworded, as it isn't the strongest possible writing. Yes, I just used one myself, but us reviewers tend to do that once in a while when we're in a hurry to get back to the article. :-)
This may just be me, but I've never been crazy about sentences starting with numbers, like "400-series highway design has set the precedent...". Can the sentence's ordering be changed to avoid this?
Where is the last sentence of the lead sourced in the body? I see the claim "among the safest in North America", but nothing involving comparative traffic volume.
First paragraph of Design standards: "Highways in Ontario are among the safest in North America, with 0.63 fatalities per 10,000 licensed drivers in 2010.[52]" (per 10,000 being the comparative part). - Floydianτ¢15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
History: "Until early 2015, Highway 407 and 416...". Given how other sentences in the area are written, shouldn't Highway be plural?
While on the subject, I've never been fond of the use of "notably", since I would hope the content would be notable if mentioned in an FLC candidate.
Sort of fixed this in splitting the sentence... But "of note" is more-or-less the same. I use it because there are many other design standards that are copied by many other jurisdictions that aren't worth mentioning. - Floydianτ¢15:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Highway: Cells that are colored should have matching symbols, per WP:ACCESS. This helps keep articles accessible and provide confusion. For my sake, it took a few moments before I realized why the color was there (I presume because the network has still only been proposed?). Giants2008 (Talk) 22:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Imzadi made accessibility tweaks, but I still don't see symbols for the colored cells. Is it possible to tuck a symbol into that template that places a colored box at the bottom of the list (the one next to "Proposed or unbuilt")? If not, this will be considerably harder, and I may end up capping the comment if resolving it proves too difficult. You might want to ask Imzadi about the issue. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you want a symbol to accompany the colour. Though I agree this would improve accessibility, there's no appropriate symbol to use. It would be entirely made up. - Floydianτ¢03:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like other recent high-level road lists have a similar system. Can't say that I'm in love with not included the symbol, but I don't want to be the stick-in-the-mud who makes a big deal about it, so I'll leave the point out for other reviewers to consider and consider this review completed. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally, we've required that the notes explicitly explain the condition prompting the color usage in tables like these in highway articles. We've also built the templates to include tool tips (hover text) that appears when a reader hovers his cursor over the colored rows in tables. In this case, the "proposed" text in the "Formed" column conveys the explicit meaning behind the orange color, the tool tip says "Future route" and the color key at the bottom says "Proposed or unbuilt". These last two items (tool tip, color key and color usage) are additional visual clues to reinforce the "proposed" text in that column, and they're sufficiently handled as is. Imzadi 1979→05:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support – With Imzadi's explanation, I'm satisfied that the accessibility guidelines are met by the measures he highlighted. That was my last remaining concern about the list, so now you can consider my review complete. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:09, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Imzadi1979—I made a few minor tweaks to some of the citations to enhance formatting consistency. The sources look good in terms of quality and formatting, Floydian. Also of note: it's usually not necessary to cite the volume and issue numbers for newspapers, especially since they're normally not used to index issues in libraries, unlike the publication date.
As I noted in the GAN review, by converting this over to a tabular list format, I'd support a future nomination here at FLC. I have two last comments before I formally support promotion:
AADT Traffic Volumes 1955–1969 and Traffic Collision Data 1967–1969 is listed in the bibliography section and cited in full in two footnotes (63, 64). You should convert those two footnotes to use either {{sfnp}}or{{harvp}} for consistency with the other entries in the bibliography.
Second, but the Emery source isn't cited anywhere, so if retained, that should be shifted to a "Further reading" section.
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
