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 The Rambling Man via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Hong Kong Film Award for Best Actress[edit]

Nominator(s): Tsange ☯ Talk 17:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article to become a featured list as after a lot of work I feel that it now meets Wikipedia's FL criteria. In terms of the article's layout and style I have attempted to make it mirror that of the article Academy Award for Best Actress. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the table reference column contains a reference for both film nominations and individual references for the character names. Tsange ☯ Talk 17:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Skr15081997

• This link is dead since 17 March.
• "given in honour of an actress" --> "given to honour an actress"
• "for her role in the in"
• "were-bye" --> "whereby"
• Maybe we can have "annually at the Hong Kong Film Awards (HKFA) is an award" in the lead so the readers know what "HKFA" mentioned in the 2nd para means.
• "scoring process in where 55%"
• I think it would be good if there's a citation for the 2nd para.
• Since the awards are presented for roles in Hong Kong films it would be good if 1981/1982 link to the particular year's Hong Kong films.
• Are you sure that all subjects of the redlinks in the list are notable enough that Wikipedia will have articles on them someday?
• I think the "See Also" can be removed as all the links under it are given in the templates at the end of the page.
• The list should be sortable.
• The Straits Times is a newspaper so it should be italicized in the citations.
• I don't think that accessdates are necessary in ((cite book)) templates.
• In cases where the cited article's title is in Chinese adding it's English translation would be helpful. Use |trans_title= in the citation templates.

I will leave more comments after the above ones are resolved. --Skr15081997 (talk) 15:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Skr15081997: Okay I think I've fixed these issues and have limited the number of redlinks to just winning films or those that have notability in the West. Tsange (Talk) 21:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• werebye should be whereby
• In the infobox the links– 1981 in film and 1982 in film should be List of Hong Kong films of 1981 and List of Hong Kong films of 1982.
• The Refs column needn't be sorted instead do that for the films column.
• Also it would be good to use ((Sort)) for the names of characters and actresses and film titles beginning with an article.
• Titles used in citations shouldn't be all caps. We can change them to normal form.
• There's inconsistency in the citations, for example, one citation uses hkfaa.com and a few others use Official website of Hong Kong Film Awards though they are citing the same website. Same for South China Morning Post, The New York Times and a few others.
• Rotten Tomatoes is a website so there's no need to italicize it.

Please ensure that the citations are consistent. Newspapers and magazines should be italicized but not the web publishers. You can check other film-related FLs for guidance. I am really interested in this list and I will leave a few more comments once the above ones are resolved. --Skr15081997 (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Skr15081997: Done with these issues, also to prevent duplicate book references I created a bibliography section. Tsange (Talk) 13:58, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've done excellent work on the lead and the table. I have gone through the citations and there are a few issues:

• Instead of Official website of Hong Kong Film Awards. HKFA, the ((cite web)) template can simply have Hong Kong Film Awards in the |publisher= parameter.
• Time Out is a magazine so it should be italicized.
• You've used IMDb as a source but that's not a RS.
• Are you sure HKMDB, Cultural-china.com & Love HK Film are reliable enough for FLs?
• Hong Kong Cinemagic, Indie Wire, Hollywood.com, China Internet Information Center(China.org.in), All-China Women's Federation (Women of China), Screen Anarchy, Screen Daily, Smithsonian Institution can be linked
• It's good that you have created a separate section for books but one full book citation is till there as #ref 51.
• Senses of Cinema should be linked and italicized.
• At one place you use Time but at other Time (magazine)
• MTV shouldn't be italicized.
• What makes nmplus.hk reliable?
• I think the |page= parameter can be removed from the book citations.

That's it for me. --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Skr15081997: Issues have been fixed, however regarding the reliability of the sources I have outlined some reasons why they may be considered reliable.Tsange (Talk) 11:02, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HKMDB - This website has been widely referenced and recommended by numerous published books including

• The Hong Kong Filmography, 1977-1997 by John Charles
• Once upon a Time in China: A Guide to Hong Kong, Chinese, and Taiwanese Cinema by Jeff Yang
• The Cinema of Tsui Hark by Lisa Morton

Love HK Film - The site's principle editor is part of the Hong Kong Film Critics Society and the resource has been cited by sources such as the South China Morning Post, the Singapore Straits Times, Time Out and Film Comment.[2]

Cultural-china.com - Changed the reference to a BBC source instead

nmplus.hk- NMPlus is part of New Media Group, a publishing company on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange

Support: I have made a few edits to the page (diff). I'm Ok with HKMDB (the John Charles book was published by McFarland). After seeing the arguments I'm convinced that the sources are reliable enough. Good job on this list. --Skr15081997 (talk) 14:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Yashthepunisher

• 'Hong Kong film' should be linked to Cinema of Hong Kong
• "The 1st Hong Kong Film Awards ceremony was held in 1982, with no formal nomination procedure established the award was given to Kara Hui for her role in My Young Auntie." A semi-colon is missing somewhere.
• Inverted comma's are missing from some instances in the second para.
• HKMDB --> Hong Kong Movie DataBase.

Yashthepunisher (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yashthepunisher: Issues have been fixed. Tsange (Talk) 15:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Good job on this list! I also currently have an FLC nomination going here and I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at it. Littlecarmen (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC) [3].[reply]

List of songs recorded by Rise Against[edit]

Nominator(s): Famous Hobo (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major pop stars like Katy Perry and Rihanna seem to be getting all of the attention when it comes to Featured song lists, so let's try to change things up by bringing in a rock band (as a side note, no offense to the editors who work on pop articles, you guys seriously do some awesome work with heavily trafficked articles). Anyway, this song list is a bit different from previous Featured song lists, as you might be able to tell quickly. However, I believe that it does its job well, and meets all of the necessary requirements. Famous Hobo (talk) 11:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47

• Just a clarification question, but in the second sentence of the lead, you mention that the band formed in 1999 and signed a record deal. Did they sign the record deal in 1999 as well or was it in a separate year (like 2000 for instance)? I would suggest making this clear to construct a clear timeline for an unfamiliar reader. You can add something like (in the same year) or something along those lines.
• Rather than saying "reached the Billboard 200", I would say "charted on the Billboard 200". This may be just a personal preference, but it would make it clear that we are discussing music charts. I understand what you mean by "reached", but I am just a little off to me though I can be overthinking it.

• These are the only two comments that I noticed while reading through the list and the lead (and they are very minor and nitpicky). You have done an excellent job with this list; it actually makes me want to make another list like this one in the future. I appreciate that you add some diversity by creating this kind of list for a musical genre outside of pop so major credit for that. Once my two brief comments are addressed, I will support this. Aoba47 (talk) 14:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Alright, I think both comments have been taken care of. Thanks for taking the time to review this! Famous Hobo (talk) 01:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Wonderful job with this list; I hope that this receives more attention in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carbrera

• The list does look great, but why wouldn't the list include the live performance songs, as noted in Note A.? Yes, they were performed live, but they were also included on a released album/compilation. Carbrera (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Carbrera: I may be reading into the article title a bit too much, but when I think of recorded songs, I think of songs performed and recorded in a studio. The live performance songs I didn't include were not officially performed in a studio, but at a concert. But since you and Littlecarmen both brought up this comment, I don't mind adding the live performance songs. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: I'd love to see when you finish any changes with the article, so please ping me upon completion. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Carbrera: Alright, I added all live performances to the list (surprisingly there were only three, at least from what I could find). I've also updated the lead to include the three new songs. Famous Hobo (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: Thank you for doing so. I can now support this list. Would you mind taking a look at my FLC as well? I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you very much. Carbrera (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Support – I already peer reviewed this list last month and I have no further issues with the it. Great job on this list! I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at my FL nomination as well. Littlecarmen (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC) [4].[reply]

List of accolades received by La La Land (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to FLC after a break of three months. The list is about the accolades received by the Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone-starrer musical La La Land (2016), which was one of the most successful films of the year. It also broke records at the Oscars and Golden Globes. When I took it up, it was already well written (but not quite comprehensive in terms of prose) and needed some ref formatting and replacement. My thanks to anyone taking the time to review it. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, welcome back to FLC.

Comments from Skr15081997

• The source used for the Volpi Cup info was written in June 2016 but the awards were presented in September 2016.
• [1][9]instead of [9][1]
• Marc Platt is a disambiguation link.
• This link is dead since March 26.
• It would be better if the real Oscar Best Picture award winner is added.
• Austin Film Critics Association citation should be moved to the Refs column.
• Link Metacritic.
• Put the citation of IFTA Awards in the center of its column.
• AFI Awards, USA, African-American Film Critics Association Awards 2016, American Cinema Editors Awards 2017, Australian Film Critics Association Awards, Casting Society of America Awards, Dorian Awards, International Film Music Critics Association Awards, Motion Picture Sound Editors Awards, National Board of Review: Top Ten Films, Society of Operating Cameramen, Village Voice Film Poll, Whistler Film Festival Awards can be added. --Skr15081997 (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Skr15081997, thanks for the welcome and the comments. My apologies or overlooking these awards, which I have now added except AFCA Awards (as there is no online reference available) and top-10 lists as WP:FILMMOS disallows the lists, "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." – FrB.TG (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• With the above issues resolved, I am glad to Support this nomination. Good job on this list. --Skr15081997 (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2

• "The film began a limited release on December 9, 2016, before expanding wider starting December 16" — Maybe something like "The film had a limited release on December 9, 2016" and also state where it had its limited release.
• For note a, list the films in order of their year of release.
• "and Chazelle became the youngest winner of Best Director" — Shouldn't it be "and Chazelle became the youngest winner of the Best Director award"?

That's about it from me. Good work on the list.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Ssven2. Taken on board all suggestions and acted accordingly. – FrB.TG (talk) 13:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will now support this nomination. Good job with this list.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Great job on this list! Littlecarmen (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:07, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Mel Gibson filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Bluesphere 17:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mel Gibson's list of film and television credits, which includes some of my favorites. After completing the article extensively from top to bottom, I'm now confident that this deserves the featured list status. Have at it! Bluesphere 17:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Littlecarmen (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PresN, this looks good to go, what do you think? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, source check required... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 21:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC) [6].[reply]

List of Major League Baseball single-game hits leaders[edit]

Nominator(s): Bloom6132 (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it has been improved significantly from the original list and now meets all 6 FL criteria. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good list, my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• As the page creator, WP:CHICAGO head honcho (Green was born here) and a Los Angeles Dodgers fan, I am wondering if we should note the most total bases in such a performance, which I think is held by Shawn Green.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @TonyTheTiger – it's already noted in the 2nd sentence of paragraph two. In fact, more of his single-game records (XBH, HRs) are discussed than anyone else's in the list. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Somehow, I only saw the table and the text in the middle. I will look at it again.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:51, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Should you mention the at bats breakdown. Only 2 had 8 at bats and the majority only had 6.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, do we want to mention whether any of these people reached base in other ways in addition to their 6 hits.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Try to avoid devolving into baseball stat minutiae. This needs to appeal to general readers, a broad audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All of my comments have been addressed and I believe the list meets FL standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Only thing i saw is this: "no player has ever recorded more than seven hits in a game." Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but technically it should say "no player has ever recorded more than seven hits in a nine-inning game." (on a side note, trying to figure out what happened to Zaza Harvey and coming up short. six hits in a game but 86 career and falling off the face of the earth despite a .332 avg? something's up there.) Wizardman 02:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Wizardman: – No, you're right in wanting to specify so that readers don't get confused. Oh, and with regards to your side note, I think this answers it – Harvey fell ill with a stomach illness that became "so severe he could no longer continue playing". —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A shame about Harvey, small sample size yes but the bit I did find otherwise made it seem like he could've had a nice career. Wizardman 13:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 21:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC) [7].[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Kane Williamson[edit]

Nominator(s): —Vensatry _(talk) 08:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing 27, Kane Williamson has plenty of records under his belt. I've modeled this list based on existing FLs. Look forward to comments and suggestions, thanks —Vensatry _(talk) 08:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good to me. List is nicely sourced. Lead section is also reasonable. (Price Zero (talk) 06:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great job Vensatry! If could find time to review List of Australia Test cricket records that would be appreciated. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:11, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Can't see any issues with this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 21:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC) [8].[reply]

List of Norwich City F.C. managers[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) & Dweller (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller and yours truly are nominating this for featured list. We've working across the divide for the first time in a while, this is another in the series of Norwich/Ipswich featured articles/lists that we have collaborated on. The list is almost secondary as the mighty prose preceding it is thorough, well referenced and (the bits that I didn't do) well written. In light of some of the recent managers nominations, we think this is in keeping with the current standard expected of such lists. We are both dedicated to resolving any and all issues as soon as practicable. As ever, our combined thanks to anyone prepared to give up their time in reviewing this list. Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Great job guys – Ianblair23 (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few comments:

• "but most notably in the 1958–59 FA Cup" - I've just never been happy with "notably" in articles, see WP:ITSHOULDBENOTED - I'd normally go for "most significantly" or something like that. The word appears quite a few times through the remainder of the prose too. Any thoughts?

  Fixed --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Norwich City was founded as an amateur football club" - what year?

  Done. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "and we know that he spent the summer of 1903" - as "we know" doesn't appear inside a quotation, shouldn't this be something like "it is known" (ie: using third person)

  Don't think we need it at all. Deleted. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "remains as one of the truly great periods in Norwich City's history" - though this is a quote, I think a simpler paraphrase like "it is regarded as one of the most successful periods of the club's history" would be better

  I think this kind of [what would become] editorialising is far better done as a quote from RS --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but in which case I think it would help to attribute who said the quote - in this case the official history of NCFC (?). The source attributing the quotation is a dead link, incidentally. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attributed to the club. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "but bounced back to the top tier the following season after finishing third" - I'm not sure that "bounced back" is particularly encyclopedic

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The Independent described the win in Munich as "the pinnacle of Norwich City's history"" - the source given is the Eastern Daily Press - I can't see where in the linked article that The Independent is mentioned as attribution for the quote

  Great spot. Probably my fault. Fixed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "the club's performance nosedived" - "nosedived" - see "bounced back" earlier

  Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Norwich's spell in the top flight" - same issue, "top flight"

  Not sure, this seems okay-ish to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A very informative list about a longstanding team you don't hear too much about outside the sports columns, despite major success from time to time. Well done, chaps. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Major success"? I don't think so... thanks for your comments, we'll get to them ASAP. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oi. Watch it. ;-) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 I think all your comments have been responded to and addressed where appropriate? Thanks for your review. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:49, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just one issue to follow up, above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 done I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, one more thing is I'm picking up quite a few deadlinks, which are :

• http://www.canaries.premiumtv.co.uk/page/History/0,,10355~1025325,00.html
• http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-5182545.html
• http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/History/0,,10355~1025325,00.html
• http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/History/0,,10355~1023784,00.html
• http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/History/0,,10355~1025327,00.html
• http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/History/0,,10355~1025326,00.html

I assume most of these can be fixed relatively straightforwardly with a Wayback Machine link. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:57, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think, but one or two were already there with archive urls. Could you check again please? Ta. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.canaries.co.uk/page/History/0,,10355~1025327,00.html is still being reported as dead. I'm going off this script, btw Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Got it I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that works. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - no more concerns, everything checks out Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

• The first thing I look for in any article about a football club is what division they are in. I suggest adding at the end of the lead that as of May 2017 they are in the Championship.
• "to ever defeat Bayern Munich at the Olympic Stadium" I think this could do with explanation as there are many Olympic stadiums, and you have to go through the linked article to find that this was Bayern's home ground from 1972 to 2005.
• "according to Eastwood" This needs explanation such as "according the offical history of the club by John Eastwood"
• "but by then the club had secured their first professional manager, John Bowman" Why "but"? I would say "and"
• "The earliest known recorded link" "known recorded" sounds a bit awkward. I would delete recorded as superfluous.
• "although at this time the club nickname was still "Citizens"" I would delete the word "still" as it is the first time this has been mentioned. Is it known why they were called citizens?
• "The new appointee was James McEwen" This reads as if you have said Bowman left Maybe "In [year] James McEwen was appointed"
• "the club was rescued from liquidation, reformed, with Archie Macaulay appointed manager." The grammar is not right here.
• "A highly successful first season saw promotion back to the First Division" You have not said that they had been relegated.
• I got confused what divisions were being referred to with the changes of name for the second tier from second to first to championship. Some clarification would help.
• "Darren Huckerby" - "player Darren Huckerby"?
• No change needed but is it common that clubs on a similiar level to Norwich have never had a foreign manager? Dudley Miles (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dudley, I'll get to these as soon as I can. In answer to your question, I asked myself that too and compared it to List of Ipswich Town F.C. managers, a team on a similar level (and in a similar location) who also have not had any foreign (i.e. non-UK) managers. So not that remarkable. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles I've made a number of changes to reflect your comments. The only one I haven't addressed directly is the naming of divisions whic really I would find difficult to do elegantly. That's really the task of another article. Thanks for your comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A first rate article. A couple of suggestions. 1. I would make clear that the reason Huckerby's complaint was controversial was that he was a Norwich player at the time. 2. I think it would help to add a note along the lines of: "The second tier of English football was called the Second Division from 1892 to 1992, the First Division from 1992 to 2004, and the Championship since 2004." Dudley Miles (talk) 20:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Dudley, I've hopefully clarified the first point, but I'm still struggling to work out where the note goes. Any thoughts? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• How about after "He arrived at the club before the 1992–93 inaugural season of the English Premier League." - maybe changing the note to "When the Premier League started in 1992, the second tier changed its name from the Second Division to the First Division. It was renamed again as the Championship in 2004." Dudley Miles (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Dudley Miles - made a stab at it.. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto[edit]

I've only just seen this and wished I'd seen it sooner. I've made a couple of corrections as I've gone. There's some things that have become immediately obvious that I didn't want to go ahead an fix without garnering views first. I originally posted this on the talk page as I noticed the nomination had finished, so thanks to Rambling Man for allowing me the chance to comment here by re-opening it. Note: I know about as much about football than I do about neuroscience. If any of it doesn't make sense, especially my comments around "divisions" and "tables", then please assume your version. As with all my comments, please feel free to implement or disregard any of them at your discretion. Here goes:

Early years

• "In the early years of the club's history, there was no manager." → "During the club's early years, there was no manager." Or "During the club's early years, it was was without a manager". Or "According to the club's history, it was without a manager when it was newly formed..."

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "...according to the official history of the club by John Eastwood..." is this a book? The sentence is written like it is? If so, could it be clarified and perhaps mentioned if it is?

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The club officials, including Turner, had to be removed from office and Norwich were to be ousted from the amateur game at the end of the season." Were they ousted? If so, I'd say so.

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "On 30 May 1905, they were elected to play in the Southern League, in place of Wellingborough, and by then the club had secured their first professional manager, John Bowman." -- I'm not sure of the conjunction here. It is far too unrelated to the initial sentence.

  Adjusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bowman also has a place in Norwich City history..." the adverb of "also" here is not appropriate for a new paragraph, IMO. Perhaps say: "Bowman took a place in Norwich City history..." or "Bowman has a place in Norwich City history..."

  Adjusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The earliest recorded link between the club and canaries... -- perhaps place inverts around canaries, or are you actually explaining the link between NUFC and the bird itself?

  It's the link between NCFC (not NUFC, that's a different club!) and real canaries. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  I told you my football knowledge was questionable. Cassianto^Talk 14:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ""James McEwen, a Scot and a current City player, was appointed in 1907." Three things: A far too informal use of the word "Scot" for a featured article, IMO. 2). What was he appointed as? and 3). I've heard of staying as long as you can in order to get the prized gold watch on long service retirement, but surely, after 110 years, even McEwen must've gone by now!

  Adjusted. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Would it be safe to assume that most would've heard of "travelling expenses"? If so, we may have a spot of overlinking. Also, the txt this is in, is this a quote from somewhere? I was always led to believe we don't link in quotes?

  Unlinked. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rise to the top division

• "Macaulay oversaw one of the club's greatest achievements, its run to the semi-final of the 1958–59 FA Cup." although not strictly illegal in the world of punctuation, I cannot help but feel a colon would be better suited.

  Re-punc'ed. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Norwich were the third-ever Third Division team to reach the FA Cup semi-final." -- unfortunate that they were the third team in the Third Division, but it doesn't escape the even more unfortunate fact that this third/third repetition occurs. How about: "Norwich were the third-ever Division Three team to reach the FA Cup semi-final."?

  Not really, it was always known as the Third Division, not Divison Three... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Unavoidable then, I'd say. Cassianto^Talk 14:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Norwich were promoted to the Second Division after finishing second to Southampton..." -- and again here, how about: "Norwich were promoted to the Second Division after finishing behind Southampton, who secured first place."?

  Reworded, slightly differently from your suggestion. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine. Cassianto^Talk 14:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "However, following a boardroom row after a 3–1 home defeat to Everton on 17 November 1973, Saunders resigned as manager on the spot. The new man in charge was John Bond who oversaw the club's relegation that season." -- What value does "on the spot" add? He resigned and the immediacy of it, as far as I can see, is wholly irrelevant, unless of course it wasn't? Also, "The new man in charge..." is less preferable to "The new manager" or "John Bond took over as manager" or something similar...

  Resigning immediately after a defeat is vanishingly rare, in fact I can't think of another example. Reworded the Bond thing. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Fine. Cassianto^Talk 14:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "The 1984–85 season was one of mixed fortunes for the club; a fire gutted the old Main Stand on 25 October 1984 but on the pitch, under Brown's management, they reached the final of the League Cup (known at that time as the Milk Cup) at Wembley, having defeated local rivals Ipswich Town in the semi-final. In the final, they beat Sunderland 1–0, but in the league both Norwich and Sunderland were relegated to the second tier of English football." Why do we omit a comma after the first "but" in "...a fire gutted the old Main Stand on 25 October 1984 but on the pitch", but use one later for "In the final, they beat Sunderland 1–0, but in the league..."?

  Comma added. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "He kept Norwich in the top tier and the following season Norwich finished fourth, which, like 1986–87, would have been enough for 1989–90 UEFA Cup qualification, but the ban on English clubs was still in place. -- assuming one knows why there was a ban in place? As a non-follower, I have no idea. Also, the year range jars a little; I'd suggest: "He kept Norwich in the top tier and the following season Norwich finished fourth, which, like the 1986–87 season, would have been enough for 1989–90 UEFA Cup qualification..."

  The ban is noted in the Heysel Stadium article which is linked but I've added a section link too. Your suggestion repeats the rapid repetition of Norwich, so I've re-worded that... The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "However, the 1991–92 season saw Norwich flirt with relegation, finishing 18th and Stringer resigned" -- clumsy conjunction here.

  Reworded, but suboptimally I think, feel free to tweak it yourself. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  No need. Cassianto^Talk 14:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Premier League, Europe and club centenary

• "The Independent described the win in Munich as "the pinnacle of Norwich City's history" -- I would think it entirely impossible for a paper to say this, a journalist from the paper, would be more likely.

  Reworded. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Reflecting on the shock result... a spot of editorialising here.

  Shock's off. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• ...in January 1994, he left the club to take charge of Everton" -- as Mayor? Councillor? Or Everton F.C.?

  Since Everton's already been linked and this is all about football management, I think that stands up to scrutiny. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Walker had commented to the press earlier in his time at Norwich that "to earn a decent salary" What benefit does the inverts have around "to earn a decent salary"? It would be just as impactive without them.

  I guess "decent salary" doesn't read particuarly encyclopedically. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Hard to paraphrase without breaching OR/POV/PEACOCK or some combination thereof. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  "Decent" could be changed, although it could be attributed to a quote or person; i.e, "Walker considered his salary to be good". Cassianto^Talk 14:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Walker's replacement was first team coach John Deehan..." The definite article is far more superior to use in a BritEng article compared to the American way of saying things, even more so, here. This occurs elsewhere in the article, but it is a matter for either one of you to adopt or disregard.

  Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "...the club sold 21-year-old striker Chris Sutton to Blackburn Rovers for a then British record fee of £5 million. Maybe here, too.

  The added. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "Walker was unable to repeat the success... As we speak of Walker in the previous sentence, and no one else, I'd use a pronoun here.

  Removed quick Walker repeat. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Please check for overlinks to Bryan Gunn.

  Reduced overlinking. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "however they suffered a shock 1–7 defeat. "shock", again.

  Removed "shock". The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• "He oversaw a turnaround in fortunes to lead Norwich to promotion back to The Championship... -- Watch for caps...

  The Championship is the formal name of the league below the Premier League. ~~

  Fine. Cassianto^Talk 14:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• There maybe an overlink to Alan Irvine, but for the life of me, I can't find it. Is there a tool that can be used to check for overlinks? There always used to be.

  Not overlinked, yes there is a tool, have a look in my monobook.js. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, and shamelessly nicked for future use. Cassianto^Talk 14:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it, I think. I'll have another read through when you're done. Ordinarily, and with this amount of comments, I would've opposed. But I'm confident that these minor issues can be fixed or discussed to the benefit of the article, especially with you two at the helm. Good work and I now understand a subject a little bit better than I did before. Cassianto^Talk 16:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All addressed and/or responded to Cassianto, thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 12:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. Support. Cassianto^Talk 14:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as re-promoted! --PresN 12:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [9].[reply]

The Wiggles discography[edit]

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I had success with Hi-5 discography and thought I'd give the same treatment to The Wiggles, also a very popular Australian children's group. They have many more releases so much more to dig into.SatDis (talk) 02:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – Great job SatDis! – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Wonderful work with this! Aoba47 (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carbrera

• To be consistent, the "Live albums" section combines "Peak chart position" and "AUS" in one box whereas the other sections separate them; I would separate them here as well

The rest looks great. Carbrera (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks Carbrera for your feedback. I have taken on your suggestion. SatDis (talk) 03:57, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support – thanks for your change. If you are not busy, would you mind taking a look at my FLC as well? I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks and regards, Carbrera (talk) 05:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [10].[reply]

List of municipalities in Rhode Island[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am continuing my attempt at standardising all list of municipalities. Specifically, and with the help of many others, my goal is to have high quality featured lists of municipalities in all states, provinces and territories in North America. This will be the 14th such nomination and I believe this article is a complete and comprehensive list of all municipalities of Rhode Island.

I have modeled this list off of other recently promoted lists such as Montana and Alabama so it should be of the same high standard. I've incorporated suggestions from recent reviews to make this nomination go as smoothly as possible. I hope I caught them all. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be added to perfect this list. Thanks again for your input. Mattximus (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

• " 5 historic counties which have no government." This sounds a bit odd. Maybe "which have no municipal functions as the state has no county level of government" - and delete same comment below.

  Done, I've modified the second comment so that it refers back to the first one, while adding some new information. Does that work?

• What is the difference between a city and a town? Are there any differences in powers between them and is the definition a USA one or specific to Rhode Island?

  Reworded to show they are interchangeable. The difference lies in their type of government.

• "cities provide services commonly granted to county governments in other states." What does this mean - that cities provide services which are provided at state level to towns?

• Cities provide services which are normally given to counties in other states. I'm not sure how to reword this one.

• An explanation of the different forms of government would be helpful.

• I added a large section dealing with the types of government, hopefully well-sourced. I think this is an excellent comment, something I should have added before nominating.

• Looks fine - these queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks Dudley Miles, sorry it took so long to make your changes, I must have missed the ping telling me you had given me a review. Always appreciated, and I'm happy to make further recommended changes. Mattximus (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support and a couple of nit picks.

• "provide services commonly granted to county governments in other states" I would prefer "commonly performed by". Done
• "city or town manager that is generally appointed" I think "who is generally appointed" would sound better. Done Dudley Miles (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks again, all nit picks are very welcome. Mattximus (talk) 00:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – I cleaned up one remaining issue from the fixes; everything else looks good now. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, promoting. --PresN 01:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Ajay Devgn filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Skr15081997 (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Devgn has been acting for more than two decades in the Bolywood industry and has played a variety of roles; ranging from his early action-packed roles, his comical roles (especially in Rohit Shetty's films) and an array of dramatic ones. In the process he has garnered two National Film Award for Best Actor. This list was previously nominated by D'SuperHero in December 2015. Before that I had sourced all of his credits in the tables. This year I resumed my work on the list and now I'm confident that the filmography meets FL criteria. Looking forward for constructive comments. Skr15081997 (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kailash

• The first line can mention which films (on the basis of language) he acts in.

Added

• Genres need not be linked, unless they are uncommon terms (like jidaigeki or masala).

Delinked except a few.

• Further, he essayed the role of revolutionary Bhagat Singh in Santoshi's biopic film The Legend of Bhagat Singh, which won him his second National Film Award - "essayed" sounds like Indian media jargon (similar to "on floors") which may be replaced with something like "portrayed" or "played". You can just say "biopic", not biopic film.

Done

• as a secret agent in Qayamat: City Under Threat, which had average box-office collection. I think "secret agent" can be delinked, and "collection" must be pluralised.

Delinked and replaced.

• In 2007, Devgn had two releases; Cash, directed by Anubhav Sinha, and Ram Gopal Varma ki Aag, based on the 1975 cult classic Sholay. Despite featuring ensemble casts both of these films performed poorly at the box office and the latter one was panned by critics. - Can the "ensemble cast" sentence be merged with the previous one? You could also mention that Aag (write as Ram Gopal Varma's Aag) is considered one of the worst films ever made.

Done

• In 2008, Devgn acted in the social drama film Halla Bol, directed by Santoshi. - it links to social film, which has more to do with social media. Perhaps you meaning something like social problem film or social realism?

Changed

• The same year, he ventured into direction with the romantic drama film U Me Aur Hum. - I already mentioned above to delink common genres, and you could also mention that he produced this film.

Done

• He re-teamed with Shetty for the role of an upright police officer in the action drama Singham (2011) - I would say, He again collaborated with Shetty.

Changed per the suggestion.

• Add a "director" column to the filmography table.

@Kailash29792: Bollywood Hungama, Sify, IMDb, TCMDb, AFI, BFI etc. don't mention film director's name in an actor's filmography. The notable collaborations are mentioned in the lead. An actor's role in the film, year of release and the film's title are the important things as far as a filmography is concerned. We have notes column for mentioning particularly important info. --Skr15081997 (talk) 04:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments coming soon. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since when has IMDb been a reliable source? I also wanted to suggest that you follow WP:FILMOGRAPHY so that the table doesn't feel incomplete. As for my other comments...

@Kailash29792:, the Director column has been added and all names under it sorted. --Skr15081997 (talk) 06:15, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The picture should have an "alt" description, along with when it was taken (write like, "Ajay Devgn in [year])

Added

• Character names should not include honorifics or titles unless necessary (see WP:HONORIFIC).

Removed

• Makkhi is the Hindi-dubbed version of Eega. You could mention that in the table under "notes".

Added

• Centre the dash in the rows of Haal-e-Dil and Save The Girl Child.

Done

• Mention Mahabharat as an animated film under "notes".

Done

• All links are working. You could optionally archive them to avoid link rotting--Kailash29792 (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: I have made the changes as requested. For the link rotting thing, the URL's have been archived and if some of them turn dead the archive-links will be provided. Adding them all for 100+ citation will increase the page size unnecessarily. I have also checked the WP:FILMOGRAPHY page. The 3 tables given there don't use the Director column. So I don't think that adding them to this list is really mandatory. Thanks for your time and thorough review. --Skr15081997 (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Looks great to me. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2

• "Devgn played a blind rebel" — Rebelling for what exactly?

I checked the film's plot. The rebel info has been corrected.

• "Devgn played a character loosely modelled after Dawood Ibrahim in Ram Gopal Varma's critically acclaimed gangster film Company (2002).Further, he portrayed the revolutionary Bhagat Singh in Santoshi's biopic The Legend of Bhagat Singh, which won him his second National Film Award in 2002 and Filmfare Critics Award for Best Actor along with Company." — Can be rephrased as "Devgn played a character loosely modelled after Dawood Ibrahim in Ram Gopal Varma's critically acclaimed gangster film Company (2002). Further, he portrayed the revolutionary Bhagat Singh in Santoshi's biopic The Legend of Bhagat Singh, which won him his second National Film Award in 2002; he received the Filmfare Critics Award for Best Actor for both films."

Rephrased

@Skr15081997: That's about it from me.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 10:03, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ssven2: Changed both of these. --Skr15081997 (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will now support this nomination. Good job with this list.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 14:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG Wanted to do this earlier but I guess I forgot about it. Kinda underrated actor to be honest. Some of my favorites of his roles are in Company, Gangajal, Omkara and Drishyam. Anyway here are a few initial comments.

• Perhaps mention that Raju Chacha was his film in which he also played a role.

Added the producer part.

• "Further" is unneeded.

Removed

• Perhaps the sentence with that word would be better as: "He won his second National Film Award for portraying the revolutionary Bhagat Singh in Santoshi's biopic The Legend of Bhagat Singh"?

Rephrased

• I would de-link the genres.

Delinked all

• Reference 14 is unneeded or extra.

Removed

• My major concern here is the size of the lead. It could use some trim. You could especially remove some of his unimportant roles. It would also help the tone of the lead, which at the moment is a bit list-y to be honest i.e. "he did this then he did that". – FrB.TG (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, FrB.TG, I have removed the details of his short films, Bol Bachchan and the actress info in the first para. Given his extensive career and a variety of films, I had added only the films worth mentioning in the lead. If you feel that any of the titles can be removed go ahead. All help is appreciated. --Skr15081997 (talk) 07:11, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Instead of Bol Bachchan (which I added back), I removed Himmatwala (an embarrassment of his career to be honest) and some other unremarkable films of him. I also made some tweaks in hopes of improving the prose so pls see if I have altered meaning. Great work with the list of a great actor. PS I wonder why you haven't added his awards in "Notes". – FrB.TG (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG, thanks for your edits. They have made the lead much better. For the awards info, I feel that since there's a separate page for his accolades they shouldn't be mentioned in the notes column. Notable wins and noms can of course be mentioned in the lead. Thanks for your help and review. --Skr15081997 (talk) 05:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: The list qualifies every FL criteria. Well Done!Krish | Talk 13:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the ((featured list candidates)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC) [12].[reply]

WHO Model List of Essential Medicines[edit]

Nominator(s): Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last 4 years a number of us have been worked to improve all 414 medicines on this list. The leads of each item now provides a decent well referenced overview of the subject in question and an article exists for each of the medicines / combinations. The WHO just released an image under an open license for use to us. World Health Day is April 7th and 2017 also marks the 40 anniversary of the EML. Would be nice to get this ready for the main page for that date. I also believe it meets the FL criteria. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comments Ozzie10aaaa

perWikipedia:Featured_list_criteria

• Criterion 1- is consistent with professional standard [13]

• Criterion 2- is consistent with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section (and WP:MEDMOS[14] where applicable)

• Criterion 3- a. covers the scope of WHO Model List of Essential Medicines very well[15]

b. consistent with Wikipedia:Stand-alone_lists and does not violate Wikipedia:Content_forking

• Criterion 4- African trypanosomiasis........ Medicines for the treatment of 1st stage African trypanosomiasis...seems to be "two" headers, would you be willing to merge or get rid of one of them?

• Criterion 5- a.consistent with Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style, makes good use of text layout, minimal redlinks

b.could use between 2-5 images to bring more interest in the "list" for our readers?

• Criterion 6- is stable, no Wikipedia:Edit_warring.............@Doc James:

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have adjusted the headers[16] let me know what you think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• perfect,and consistent with the rest of the list, thank you.
• the other issue is images as indicated above (2-5 images) as our readers will be more interested when they see as well as read.[17] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay will pull in a few more :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

as a result of [18] and [19][20][21][22][23][24] in reference to this Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates nomination I therefore

• support--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BlueRasberry

• Delete per Wikipedia:Copyright in lists. No evidence is provided that the WHO released the copyright to this creatively compiled list, nor is any argument made that this list is ineligible for copyright. This is an ordered ranking based on judgement, separating medicines which matter more from ones which matter less. The WHO's copyright policy is at http://www.who.int/about/copyright/en/. They forbid anyone from having access to their health information with only some exceptions, and it seems that they do not find it essential for anyone to have access to their essential list of medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well that could be problematic. Can we obtain permission to use it like we apparently did with ICD-10 (Talk:ICD-10#ICD-10)? (Though I'm a little confused by how we are using ICD-10 unless the WHO relicensed it CC-BY-SA, which I don't think they did.) Sizeofint (talk) 04:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thks Blue. Will work on solving copyright.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluerasberry I have gotten formal release of the list under a CC BY SA 3.0 IGO license. Have sent the permission to permissions-en and cc'ed you on it. Here is the ticket Ticket:2017013110007321 Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. will work on the ICD stuff next. The prior director recently retired. Not sure who has replaced him. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:11, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All copyright concerns are resolved. This article should not be deleted because it has a free and open license. I processed the OTRS ticket and posted a note at the top of the talk page documenting the free license of this list. This is no longer a deletion discussion, and can now resume as a review of a candidate for featured lists. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bluerasberry anything else? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from bluerasberry

A Thousand Doors suggests that this article include more discussion of the items in the list. That user also suggests merging essential medicines to this article, saying "There isn't really a massive amount of content in Essential medicines anyway – a merge probably wouldn't be entirely unreasonable." I had these thoughts too, and I think other people would.

I do not think these articles should be merged because this article already has a large browser size Wikipedia:Article size and should not be made longer. Also, this list is complicated enough already, with 400-500 technical terms to maintain.

I agree that the "essential medicines" article is short but that article could be much longer. On the talk page there, I posted links to sources about the history of determining what is and is not an essential medicine, and to discussions of drug patents for essential medicines, and the impact of identifying essential medicines. Each one of those concepts probably passes Wikipedia's WP:Notability guidelines and could be its own Wikipedia article. Besides that, these concepts each apply regionally - so the story about history, patents, and impact of the essential medicine concept in India will be different from Brazil. It seems like there are sources to tell these stories from the perspectives of multiple countries.

There is another muddled concept here. This list is for the "model list", which is sort of general and global, whereas individual countries may have their own list. Like for example, a country with tropical diseases may need medicine which a colder country would not need, and both of those countries may have their own modified lists separate from the model list. There are thousands of papers published on this concept and it seems like at least 100 of them are comprehensive enough to cite. I am not aware of anyone with broader plans to summarize all this in Wikipedia, but combining the list with the concept compromises both. If this model list were combined with information about regional variation, then that confuses the purpose of the model list.

I am not bothered that only a few self-published sources are cited here. Typically on Wikipedia we establish notability and neutrality with third-party sources, but in this case, notability of this list is not in question and the WHO is the only authoritative source for the list.

I did question whether there should be a section about the history of revisions to this list. I would not mind it, but neither do I think it is essential. List articles do not always go into such detail, and I think that history of the concept is better placed in the "essential medicine" article, leaving this article to be a well-considered copy of the list.

The criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Points 3-6 I take for granted; the list is comprehensive, has the correct wiki-structure, follows Wikipedia's manual of style, and this is a non-controversial article. I will comment that not every featured list has established Wikipedia articles for all its list items, but this one does, and that is superb.

Criteria 1 is about the prose, which is suitable. Criteria 2 is the toughest one. I addressed the issue above by talking about what should and should not be in the article. I fail to recognize a sort of additional prose content which could be added to this article to complement the list. Right now, the lead introduces the concept, describes the ordering of the list, describes the historical list versions, and describes a derivative concept. There are other derivative concepts, particularly lists for countries, but I think it is fair to mention the children's list because that one too is a model list where as country lists are not. I am open to conversation but I say pass. ✓ Pass Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from RexxS

This is a commendably comprehensive list in Wikipedia terms – not just because of the breadth of its content, but because of the depth of coverage provided by all the linked articles on each individual medicine, a factor sometimes overlooked when assessing whether a list deserves to be described as "one of Wikipedia's best works". The contributors to those articles deserve our gratitude for the immense amount of work put into them as well as this list.

I usually try to assess lists for common breaches of accessibility compliance, and baring two minor concerns, I believe that the list meets our accessibility requirements in general:

1. The list is properly structured with sections and headers meeting Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Article structure;
2. it contains no text that is too small to read per MOS:FONTSIZE;
3. no use of colour makes text unreadable, per MOS:CONTRAST;
4. no information is conveyed solely by use of colour, per WP:COLOR;

However, the use of the dagger typographical symbol † might be worth re-considering. Older versions of some of the most common screen readers don't read that symbol, although I'm told that support for many symbols has been improved in the latest versions of JAWS. To address that problem, we have a template ((†)) which substitutes an image and alt text that all screen readers can speak. The only other small concern is the lack of alt text in all five of the images, but as those images serve merely to illustrate the appearance of particular medicines, rather than making a point, the caption alone serves the main needs of alternative text. In these sort of cases, I wouldn't feel that the lack of alt text a sufficient issue to prevent promotion, although I'd naturally encourage editors to provide alt text where they feel able. --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:RexxS will fix. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hum, the article uses ((ref)) which does not accept that other template. Might take until I get home in a couple of days to figure it out unless someone beats me to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that template ((ref)) is being misused as it's designed for each ((ref)) to have a corresponding ((note)), rather than just one note (which breaks the backlink). I have a look at the documentation a little more closely and see if I can find a simple solution. --RexxS (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-) Added alt text for completeness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:RexxS have switched to an "Alpha" symbol. Does that solve the issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: That's likely to be an improvement, as most screen readers can make some sense of some Greek characters. You never really know unless you have the time and facilities to test large numbers of screen readers, and there are often settings that can be enabled to speak text that is not voiced by default. Anyway the web helps sometimes: for example, there's a resource at http://accessibleculture.org/research-files/character-references/jaws-we-all.php that gives a survey of what characters JAWS and Window-Eyes will speak. If you really, really want to be sure all screen readers will speak a symbol, you have to stick to normal text plus the symbols you get on a standard English keyboard, like *, #, $, etc. Anyway, I'm not suggesting you should change the symbol again, as one could spend forever trying to cater for every possible case. --RexxS (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose I'm sorry to be such a Debbie Downer, but I really don't think this article is good enough just yet to be featured. I see that this candidacy has already achieved support from four editors, but I'm pretty sure that two of them have never even reviewed a FL before and one is apparently "not bothered" by the lack of sources, which raises something of a red flag for me.

I really don't think that this article is of as high a standard as it could be. As I've mentioned previously, there's very little in the way of prose – the Notes section is longer than the lead, which I don't think I've ever seen in a FL before. Speaking of which, the difference between core medicines and complementary medicines should actually be the in lead, not buried away in a note at the bottom.

The layout is a little uninspired – it's just the list itself with half a dozen images dotted about. The WHO structure this list in a table, which contains much more information – could that layout just be copied?

If nothing else, at the very least the lead image issue needs to be resolved, which, for my money, is this article's biggest issue. If that image isn't used yet by the WHO then including it in this article to illustrate this subject is original research. If it might be used by the WHO then it violates WP:CRYSTAL.

As I've said before, this was a challenging article to improve, as there are currently no similar FLs – when this article reaches FL status, it will probably set a precedent for similar lists. But I do think it should perhaps it would benefit from a thorough peer review first. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 07:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes getting images is an issue as getting WHO to adopt an open license is a slow effort. I guess all we can do right now is wait and see if they use the image unless you have a better one in mind.

World Health Day is now over. The lead does and has for some time discussed the difference between core and complementary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an example of a different layout that this list could use, I would expect it to look something more along these lines (not collapsed, obviously):

Beta Lactam medicines

Medicine	Image	Core/ complementary	Notes
Amoxicillin		Core	Powder for oral liquid: 125 mg (as trihydrate)/5 mL; 250 mg (as trihydrate)/5 mL Solid oral dosage form: 250 mg; 500 mg (as trihydrate)
Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (amoxicillin + clavulanic acid)		Core	Oral liquid: 125 mg amoxicillin + 3125 mg clavulanic acid/5 mL AND 250 mg amoxicillin + 625 mg clavulanic acid/5 mL Tablet: 500 mg (as trihydrate) + 125 mg (as potassium salt)
Ampicillin		Core	Powder for injection: 500 mg; 1 g (as sodium salt) in vial
Benzathine benzylpenicillin		Core	Powder for injection: 900mg benzylpenicillin (=12million IU)in 5-mLvial ; 144 g benzylpenicillin (=24 million IU) in 5-mL vial
Benzylpenicillin		Core	Powder for injection: 600 mg (= 1 million IU); 3 g (= 5 million IU) (sodiumor potassium salt) in vial
Cefalexin		Core	Powder for reconstitution with water: 125 mg/5 mL; 250mg/5mL(anhydrous) Solid oral dosage form: 250 mg (as monohydrate)
Cefazolin		Core	Powder for injection: 1 g (as sodium salt) in vial For surgical prophylaxis a>1 month
Cefixime		Core	Only listed for single-dose treatment of uncomplicated ano-genital gonorrhoea
Ceftriaxone		Core	Powder for injection: 250 mg; 1 g (as sodium salt) in vial Do not administer with calcium and avoid in infants with hyperbilirubinaemia. a>41 weeks corrected gestational age
Cloxacillin		Core	Capsule: 500 mg; 1 g (as sodium salt) Powder for injection:500 mg (as sodium salt) in vial Powder for oral liquid:125 mg (as sodium salt)/5mL
Phenoxymethylpenicillin (penicillin V)		Core	Powder for oral liquid: 250 mg (as potassium salt)/5mL Tablet: 250 mg (as potassium salt)
Procaine benzylpenicillin		Core	Powder for injection: 1 g (=1 million IU); 3 g (=3million IU) in vial Procaine benzylpenicillin is not recommended as first-line treatment for neonatal sepsis except in settings with high neonatal mortality, when given by trained health workers in cases where hospital care is not achievable.
Cefotaxime		Complementary	Powder for injection: 250 mg per vial (as sodium salt) Third generation cephalosporin of choice for use in hospitalized neonates
Ceftazidime		Complementary	Powder for injection: 250 mg or 1g (as pentahydrate) in vial
Imipenem/cilastatin		Complementary	Powder for injection: 250 mg (as monohydrate) + 250mg (as sodium salt); 500mg (as monohydrate) + 500mg (as sodium salt) in vial Listed only for the treatment of life-threatening hospital-based infection due to suspected or proven multidrug-resistant infection Meropenem is indicated for the treatment of meningitis and is licensed for use in children over the age of three months.

Now, I suggest the above as an example only: you may want to do things differently. Perhaps you can think of another column or two that might be useful to include. Perhaps you think the bolding is unnecessary. Maybe you have ideas for better images that could be used. Maybe you'd like to include appropriate use of colour in there somewhere (e.g. to differentiate between Core and Complementary, perhaps). But a layout similar to the above would, I believe, be more representative of Wikipedia's best work, and would therefore make this article a better candidate to be featured. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do not typically include dosing information per WP:PHARMMOS for a number of reasons (1) we do not consider mediawiki a stable enough platform and (2) it is more than general knowledge.

Also not a big fan of putting all our content into tables. One issue with tables is they format poorly on mobile, and most of our readers are on mobile (look at your suggestion on mobile, pictures are so small, you need to scroll side to side, the list becomes way way long). The other is that they are harder to edit which makes updating more difficult.

Some medications or complementary in their entirety while for others only certain formulations are complementary. We already use "α" to indicate that a med is complementary. Is that point significant enough to give it more emphasis? I am not convinced.

By the way the list currently formats very nicely on mobile. This is something the FA process need to take into account to a much greater degree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may say so myself, this list satisfies all six of the criteria for Featured List status- you have my Support vote. @Doc James: If you could spare a bit of time to review Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Alien characters/archive1, it would be greatly appreciated! DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 19:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Giants2008, USer:PresN, and User:The Rambling Man was hoping to have a health related list on the main page for World Health Day on April 7th. The review has run slower than I had hoped but wondering your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For us to schedule it now, this FLC would need to be promoted in the next day or two. I can't edit the TFL blurbs in the final couple of days before a main page appearance because I don't have the necessary admin tools. Colleagues, do you think a consensus has been achieved here? Giants2008 (Talk) 23:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am heading to the mountains tomorrow and likely will not be able to address any further issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment huge list, more like a glossary, one thing that struck me was that all the footnotes are unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does this work[27]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

•  Done "The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines (EML), proposed by the World Health Organization (WHO), contains the most effective and safe medicines needed to meet the most important needs in a health system." I think "published" would be better than "proposed", and "contains the most effective..." implies that WHO is infallible. Maybe "lists the medicines considered most effective..."
•  DoneI assume the list includes drugs under patent as well as generic ones, but I think it would be helpful to spell out the position.
•  DoneI am not clear what the list includes. You refer to a main list and an adult list as if they are different, but you say that all medicines in the children's list are in the main one, which implies that there is no separate adult list.

• Fixed

•  Done You use the α symbol to indicate a complementary item, but you say some are only in the complementary list and some are in both, and it is not clear whether the symbol covers all complementary or those only in the complementary list.

• For those ONLY on the complementary list. Will clarify. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You say in the notes: "An α indicates the medicine is a complementary item, for which specialized diagnostic or monitoring or specialist training are needed. An item may also be listed as complementary on the basis of higher costs or a less attractive cost/benefit ratio. The following is supported by:" I think these comments should be in the lead (or a note at the beginning of the list) as it is needed by the reader at the start. Eg (for the last part) "The list and notes in this article are based on the 2015 edition of the WHO main list."

• Have adjusted some. Let me know if that works. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The use of header levels is confusing. For example, you have a four dash level for Antiretrovirals, five for Protease inhibitors, and six for Fixed-dose combinations, but these all just show as identical bold text to the reader. You need to delete all levels below four or use some other method of distinguishing lower levels such as indentation.

• I remember something in the MOS that one should stick with headers.Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility#Headings I do not really understand the exceptions User:Dudley Miles What do you suggest? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:52, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not know but I do not see any point in header levels which are indistinguishable to the reader. You could try asking for advice with a ((helpme)). Dudley Miles (talk) 09:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley Miles (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks will go through these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to finally get this closed one way or another- @Dudley Miles: other than that header issue, are you fine with Doc James's changes? {[re|Doc James)) it appears that the headings are messed up in the Estrogens section- you have a level 3 followed by other level 3s? Or is it that Estrogens is an empty section (in which case, why is it there?).

As to the use of level-5/6 headers, and their visual similarity to level-4 headers- yeah, I think something has to be done here. You're eschewing tables, and that's fine- I'm not sure what relevant information you could put in the table that isn't covered by the "subsection" the drugs are in already- but by using a list instead of a table you're also dropping the big advantage of the table, which is that it makes structured data, especially hierarchical data, easy to parse. If you're going to lay that all on the subsection headings... then they have to be able to do the job. And they're not right now- you can't tell the difference between the bottom 3 levels, so it becomes a muddled mess. Example: Antiviral medicines; it goes Antiviral medicines->Antiretrovirals->Protease inhibitors->Fixed-dose combinations, and there's literally no way for a non-medical reader to know that's the hierarchy, because the last 3 headers look identical. And they don't seem to even be used consistently- the next level-4 section, Antihepatitis medicines, uses bare text as a psuedo level-6 header instead. I'd recommend just making all level-5 headers italicized (to distinguish them from level 4), and all level-6 headers bare text, so that at least there's some visual distinction. --PresN 16:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to support if the header issue is fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dudley Miles and User:PresN Does this work[28] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm okay with it, but I'm good with small text- @RexxS: what do you think? While using 'small' tags in a heading is generally frowned upon as per MOS:FONTSIZE, it does give us the advantage here that Doc James can keep the text in a level-6 heading instead of breaking it out into bare non-heading text. --PresN 01:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having headings is pretty valuable for screen readers, so please don't use pseudo-headers (formatted/bare text without the header markup). The problem you see is because the MediaWiki CSS chooses to display <h6>...</h6> as 100%; <h5>...</h5> as 108%; and <h4>...</h4> as 116% of normal font size, which seems to be insufficient difference for you to distinguish between them. This is a problem common to all Wiki software, not just English Wikipedia, and certainly not just this list. The solution really should be to alter our MediaWiki:Common.css so that heading levels 4 to 6 become more distinguishable. For now, Doc James' work-around (small for h5 and small-italic for h6) seems a workable solution. It doesn't result in any text smaller than 85% for old folk like me, and the small/italic markup won't be noticed by most screen readers. Given what we start from, it's likely the best compromise. --RexxS (talk) 11:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that italics for level 6 works as showing a lower level, and I would much prefer a hierarchy of indents, but I see no point in pursuing the matter further. I support this first rate list. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I there a way to indent a true heading? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]