Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/March 2019

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC) [1].

---

List of songs recorded by John Lennon

Nominator(s): BeatlesLedTV (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

After List of songs recorded by Radiohead, it's time for my next song list, this time by the great John Lennon. It covers the songs he recorded during his solo career (not with the Beatles), including with wife Yoko Ono, the Plastic Ono Band, among other miscellaneous songs he co-wrote or performed on, such as David Bowie's "Fame". As always, I'm open to any comments or concerns anyone might have. Happy editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Quick query - "miscellaneous songs he co-wrote or performed on" - this implies that there might be songs included simply because he co-wrote them. As the title is "List of songs recorded by John Lennon" there should not be any songs on the list that he didn't himself record. Can you confirm.......? -- 08:56, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude So according to the liner notes for Starr's albums, Lennon wrote some songs for him and performed on them. He also co-wrote "Fame" by David Bowie and performed backing vocals and guitar I believe for that so I think that qualifies as recorded, but again I'm not sure. I definitely think "Fame" should be in the list but I can remove some of Starr's songs, except for "I'm the Greatest", which is verifiable that he performed on. Lennon actually performed on many of Yoko Ono's solo albums but I only included the only that are credited to the both of them. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think the inclusion on "List of songs recorded by....." lists of songs on which the artist in question was not credited and only did something minor like backing vocals is something of a grey area, but if they are to be included, then I think you would need to include all such songs, not just pick and choose a selection. In the case of Lennon, that would potentially involve going to the extreme of listing "The Bitch Is Back", on which he played tambourine..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude Yeah you're I think I'm trying to be too literal. I'll remove the songs that aren't his. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 03:13, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Further comments
  • As "Instant Karma!" ends with an exclamation mark, I don't think you need the full stop as well.
  • "more calmer" => "calmer". It's not possible to be "more calmer", as "calmer" is already a comparative adjective.
  • "an attack on former bandmate Paul McCartney" - avoid Easter egg links. Better to say "an attack on former bandmate Paul McCartney in the song....."
  • "a covers album of late 1950s and early 1960s rock songs, included covers of songs" - "covers" used twice in very quick succession - maybe change the second one to "versions"

• I just removed it to say "included songs such as" as you're right, it reads weird.

• • A handful of released songs have no producer listed - is the info unknown?

• So for some songs: "Free as a Bird", "Now and Then" and "Honey Don't" were recorded as home demos and don't have producers listed for them in liner notes or in sources I've found. Other live songs that don't have producers I can't find specific one for those specific songs; overall producers for their respective albums are listed on their WP pages but not for the specific songs, can't seem to find them in liner notes either. So I left them blank.

• Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude All done. Thanks very much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• I just spotted a few other little things (sorry!)
  • In the lead, the two refs after the word "suffering" are the wrong way round
  • Notes c and e are complete sentences, so need full stops
  • Conversely, note k is not a full sentence so shouldn't have one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

• ChrisTheDude All done. Thanks again! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Fix this green link.
• Period missing from the lead image's alt text
• Make sure all the images have alt text

Yashthepunisher (talk) 10:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yashthepunisher All done. Thanks very much! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support this nomination. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support - all good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Nice work! Damian Vo (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Giants2008 PresN The Rambling Man This one good to go yet? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 20:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC) [2].

---

List of Celebrity Big Brother (U.S. TV series) houseguests

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is a comprehensive list of the material and would be a great addition to Wikipedia's featured lists. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comments
  • No need for the hatnote, as the title clearly states it relates to the celebrity version. If you must link to List of Big Brother (U.S. TV series) houseguests, put it in a "See also" section.
  • In the article "HouseGuest" is repeatedly shown like that, but in the title it has no capitals at all - any reason why?
  • I would move the photo of Winokur to the top right and lose the logo
  • "Celebrity Big Brother is the second spin-off of the United States version of Big Brother and American adaption of Celebrity Big Brother which premiered on CBS on February 7, 2018." => "Celebrity Big Brother is the second spin-off of the United States version of Big Brother and the American adaption of Celebrity Big Brother. It premiered on CBS on February 7, 2018."
  • "The series is hosted by Julie Chen Moonves with executive producers Allison Grodner and Rich Meehan" - as it is written, this states that all three of them hosted. Is that actually correct?
  • "The first season concluded twenty-six days after the start of the season on February 25, 2018" => "The first season began on [whatever date] and concluded twenty-six days later on February 25, 2018"
  • "The second season lasted for twenty-nine days when Tamar Braxton won in a unanimous vote" => "The second season lasted for twenty-nine days and ended on [whatever date] when Tamar Braxton won in a unanimous vote"
  • Name column should sort by surname, not forename
  • Where guests have two professions separated by a slash, no reason for the second to have a capital letter
  • No need for capital on Host against Mathews
  • No need for capital on Running against Williams
  • "Ottawa, ON, CA" - Canada should be written in full, otherwise this is highly confusing given all the usages of "CA" to mean "California"
  • "12-Time Olympic medalist swimmer" => "12-time Olympic medal-winning swimmer"
  • When sorting the penultimate column, Scaramucci's "Left Day 6" sorts right at the bottom - it should sort first (exactly as if it was "evicted - day 6")
  • What is actually sourcing the table?
  • Don't see any reason for the second table to exist
  • Date formats in the refs are inconsistent - some are (eg) 2019-02-13, others are February 13, 2019
  • Works/publishers are highly inconsistent in the refs - you have Entertainment Weekly both italicised and not. Some refs have "www.ew.com/. Entertainment Weekly." and others don't have both (you don't need both). Some works/publishers are linked, others are not.
  • Some refs have no work/publisher at all
  • HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your comments, all are fixed, to answer your two questions, "houseguest" in the title I believe is either per Wikipedia naming conventions or per widely accepted long-term consensus, "HouseGuest" is per WP:BIGBRO; as for the host, only Julie Chen hosts the series but I've fixed that. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47

• What do you think about using a similar structure to the List of The Apprentice (U.S.) candidates list, where images of the contestants are placed by the table? It just seems a little odd to me to have only have an image of Marissa Jaret Winokur for the list. I would imagine an image of Tamar Braxton (the season two winner) would also be appropriate here. However, this is up to you. Just wanted to ask you about it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Aoba47: What are your thoughts on how it looks now? Due to this being the celebrity and all but one of the HouseGuests having photographs I've limited the images to just the significant ones so that the article doesn't drag on forever. TheDoctorWho (talk) 22:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• I think it looks better. I agree with you that it is best to keep the number of images limited, but I will leave that up to your judgement as you probably know better than me. I will add more comments momentarily after I read through the lead and the table. Aoba47 (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

*For this sentence (Celebrity Big Brother is the second spin-off of the United States version of Big Brother and the American adaption of Celebrity Big Brother.), I would add put this phrase (the American adaption of Celebrity Big Brother) first as I misread the sentence as meaning this show was the second spin-off of being the things identified in the sentence.

• For this part (The series is hosted by Julie Chen Moonves and is produced), I would add a comma after "Moonves".
• According to the main Julie Chen article, she only uses the "Julie Chen Moonves" sign-off for the show's second season. Do you think there should be a note about it? I do not think it should be added to the prose of the lead as it would seem out of place, but do you think an endnote/footnote may be appropriate? I understand if you disagree, but I just wanted to raise your attention to this, as it was a controversial move on her part.
• For this part (as the winner and runner-up of the season respectively), there should be a comma after "season".
• For this part (On May 5, 2018 CBS renewed the series for a second season), I would add a comma after "2018" and "season".
• For this part (when Tamar Braxton won in a unanimous vote over Ricky Williams who was declared the runner-up), is the "who was declared the runner-up" part really necessary? Couldn't it be assumed that if one person wins over another in a contest, that the loser would be declared the runner-up be default?
• I am a little confused by how numbers greater than ten are represented in the lead. For the second paragraph, you stick with representing numbers in words (i.e. "twenty-six", "twenty-nine", and "twelve"), but in the third paragraph, you represent numbers with numerals (i.e. "23"). Make sure to consistent with one way or another throughout the lead.
• I have two comments about this part (competed in Celebrity Big Brother, however one contestant was later declared to be a fake HouseGuest as part of a twist). I would use the word "but" here rather than "however" as it sounds a little off to me. I am also uncertain about "later" as it pretty vague. I would either drop it altogether or add a footnote/endnote about it to clarify what is meant here.
• For this part (Mathews and Jaret Winokur later received their own spin-off show entitled Off the Block with Ross and Marissa), I would say the year that the received the spin-off rather than just "later" as that is rather vague.
• I have never seen the show (reality shows are not really my thing tbh), so apologies if this is really obvious. I do not understand what is meant by this sentence (In addition, a number of first season contestants returned in the second season as special hosts.). Do the contestants do something similar to Julie Chen, do they host challenges? It is unclear what "special hosts" means in this context.
• Is it really necessary to include the country in "Ottawa, ON, Canada" in the table? The United States is not included in any of the other participant's hometown so it is inconsistent. It should be clear from the wikilink that it is Canada so I would just remove it.

Overall, the list looks in good shape, and I was be more than happy to support this when my comments are addressed. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments on my current FAC. Either way, have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Thank you for your comments, all have been addressed. I should have time to take a look at your FAC soon! TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support - think all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Allied45

• All images need ALT text (see WP:ALT)
• "aftershow show" could just be "aftershow"
• Table needs scope cols and scope rows per MOS:ACCESS (see MOS:DTAB)
• I would suggest adding a table caption "Table of Celebrity Big Brother houseguests" where you can attach the citations that you repeat in the "Name/Age/Hometown/Profession" column headers (this would avoid the duplication of citations)
• I am not sure the "Status" column is even necessary, it is already explained in the lead that contestants are evicted. I think the "Finish" column is adequate for this information.
• Move the citations used in the "Finish" column to a seperate column titled Ref(s) – it just looks cleaner in my opinion
• "TV personality" links to different articles in the table "Celebrity" and "Reality television" (also maybe expand to "Television personality" like one contestant is listed as)
• "TV host" -> "Television host"
• "Host" -> "Talk show host"
• Add citations to the image captions to make it easier for readers to see winners and "America's Favorite HouseGuest" etc.

Allied45 (talk) 09:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

@Allied45: All done except the status column, when the HouseGuests are evicted is pretty prominent within the series so I recommend it's inclusion. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Support – that's fine by me (I just made the Ref. column unsortable for you) Allied45 (talk) 07:17, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; it's a little odd that the cites for the evictions don't actually say the eviction day, but they do say the calendar day so I guess it's workable if you know when the season started (as per the lead). So... promoted. --PresN 20:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• 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) 00:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [3].

---

List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 1994

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because 21 of these lists have been promoted to FL in recent months. Here's the proposed #22...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Looks great as always. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• Just two minor things I noticed:

• The third instance of Neal McCoy in the lead can be shortened to "McCoy"
• The caption for the image of Mary Chapin Carpenter could be reworded as "had her only number one in 1994" kind of sounds like her career is over and she won't ever achieve number one again (and it looks like she is still active, so you never know!)

Allied45 (talk) 10:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the comments - both done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Support – awesome as always! Allied45 (talk) 11:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Support – Lirim | Talk 23:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Support: Wonderful list as always. Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Source review pass, promoting another! --PresN 16:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [4].

---

List of Hot Country Singles & Tracks number ones of 1990

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because 21 of these lists have been promoted in recent months and one other currently has multiple supports and no outstanding issues. Here's the proposed #23..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z;

• Are you even stopable?
  • :-)
• The lead looks weird to me. Having such a big first paragraph doesn't seem to fit. It looks strange on 1920x1080 and on every other resolution I tried. I would suggest to split the first paragraph and most of the information to the second one. "When Randy Travis spent four ..." to the second paragraph.
  • I've re-arranged the lead - see what you think
• "title Hot Country Singles through the February 10 issue and Hot Country Singles & Tracks thereafter" Source for this?
  • Added
• Ref 7: AllMusic not Allmusic.
  • Done
• --Lirim | Talk 21:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comments -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support Ready for the next list ;) --Lirim | Talk 09:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• For this part (At the start of the year the number one song on the chart was), I believe there should be a comma between "year" and "the". A similar comment for this part (Three months later Whitley's widow), where I believe a comma is required between "later" and "Whitley's".
• For this part (in 1990 thirteen songs), I would add a comma between "1990" and "thirteen". Apologies for all of the super nitpicky comma comments. I just never feel comfortable doing edits on an article up for review, otherwise I would have added them myself.
• For this sentence (At the start of the year the number one song on the chart was "Who's Lonely Now" by the group Highway 101, which had been at the top of the chart since the issue of Billboard dated December 30, 1989.), I would say "Highway 101's "Who's Lonely Now" " instead as the dependent phrase should be attached to the song as it is the subject. I am also uncertain if the descriptive phrase "group" is necessary. The wikilink should clear up any confusion, and I do not believe you use descriptive phrases for any of the other artists, aside from Lorrie Morgan (which I think is necessary for context).

Aside from these relatively minor comments, everything looks really good. You have really gotten this down to a science. If you have the time, I would appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a great week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• • All done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you! I support this for promotion. Have a wonderful week. Aoba47 (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Looks great as always. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 17:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support – Great list, up to standard. You also got the capitalization of AllMusic correct this time ;) --NØ 19:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Source review pass, promoting another! --PresN 16:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [5].

---

List of awards and nominations received by Dua Lipa

Nominator(s): Rodrigo1198 and NØ 17:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Rodrigo1198 and I are nominating this for featured list because we have collaborated on it and have concluded that it meets the featured list criteria. I've already effected all the feedback I got on my last FLC here, so this is pretty much ready. All input is welcome and appreciated!--NØ 17:38, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lirim.Z

• Dua Lipa is an English singer and songwriter who has won 26 awards from 103 nominations. I would change this sentence to something like English singer and songwriter Dua Lipa has won 26 awards from 103 nominations. I would also suggest that you use a note that, which says something like As of 30 January 2019.
• The lead is a little bit thin.
• Ref 19: Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Kosovo
• Ref 12, 13, 22, 28, 44, 47, 50, 55: |language=
• --Lirim | Talk 20:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Lirim.Z, thanks a lot for the comments! I made the changes. As for the lead I've kept it a bit shorter on purpose since Lipa is a new artist with just one album and the list is bound to grow. I'd be open to adding any other accolades you think are worthy of being in the lead though.--NØ 21:39, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Support --Lirim | Talk 21:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• "released her selftitled debut album" => "released her self-titled debut album"
• "Her song, "New Rules" " - no need for that comma
• "The song managed to win " => "The song won"
• Stray space between the full stop and the ref at the end of the lead
• Why is the "Sound of..." entry in with the Bs?
• Conversely, "The Beano Awards" probably should be with the Bs
• "Organizations without a Wikipedia page are not included in list of accolades." - as she is British, you should use the correct UK spelling of "organisation" ;-)

HTH -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the comments! Done, ChrisTheDude. :D--NØ 21:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support - all looks good now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
• Only question is why is the lead image so big? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I dropped the image size to 220px and made the caption small, BeatlesLedTV. Feel free to suggest any more changes!--NØ 05:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

• Still seems a little big to me, but maybe it's just me
• Ref(s) → Ref.
• Feel the grammy sentence in lead should be referenced

That's all I got otherwise. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. I've gone with 200px for the lead image because thats what I did for my last two FLs but am open to dropping it to a specific size if you suggest one.--NØ 15:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Looks good. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• Do you think the nominations for “One Kiss” should be addressed in the lead? There appear to be eleven nominations according to the table. Right now, the lead only mentions the awards for the songs “New Rules” and “Electricty”. The same question applies to “IDGAF”.
• I would specify in the lead that “Electricity” is a collaboration with Silk City.
• For Reference 12, “Vote Now” should not be in all caps.

Everything looks good. The above comments are relatively minor, and once they are addressed, I will be more than happy to support it for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, it was an interesting read. Just remember to keep it updated. Aoba47 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Glad to see you around, Aoba47! The lead actually looks much better with the IDGAF and OK nominations added, thanks for that suggestion. I'll definitely take a look at your FAC when I have more time. I already glanced a bit through that article and it looked great.--NØ 21:37, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• I support this, and thank you for addressing everything. I have somewhat lost track of current popular music so it is nice to read about a somewhat new-ish singer. I hope you are having a wonderful weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

• Remember to update the lead and award count after the Grammy wins. Aoba47 (talk) 15:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Drive-by comment What's with the note saying that organisations without a Wikipedia page aren't included in the list? I don't think I've ever seen that in a featured list before; it looks rather out of place. Have any other articles been promoted to FL with notes like that? Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

• @A Thousand Doors: I have seen some lists with it and some without it. I think that some lists include it if the subject has won awards outside of those discussed on Wikipedia, as a way to hopefully prevent those awards from being added if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to update everyone that MaranoFan is on a script-enforced wikibreak. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• • Have any of these lists been promoted to FL status? If they have then I'll leave it, but it does seem really odd to me to have what is essentially an editing notice in the middle of the article. Usually they'd be hidden comments within the source code. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 16:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @A Thousand Doors: I have seen a few awards list promoted to FL status with the note, and others without it. It is rather inconsistent for some reason. Here is one example (List of awards and nominations received by Matthew McConaughey) of a FL with a similar note (i.e. note C in the infobox). Maybe, some day in the future, there can be a discussion and a consensus on it. I always forget about hidden comments/notes, but that would make sense in this context (at least to me). Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Her article refers to her as a singer-songwriter, why not use that terminology here?
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
• Probably worth some introductory notes about her style, when she started etc, to put some context around this.
• "Her song "New Rules" earned ..." from the eponymous album.
• Last lead para is pretty awful, re-write needed so we don't see quick repeats of each of the three ceremonies.
• Where are the pending awards noted in either the lead, the totals or the infobox? Presumably since they're pending, they already count as nominations?
• Table and infobox have some discrepencies:
  • ASCAP Pop Music Awards vs ASCAP Awards.
  • Bambi Awards is linked to two different targets, albeit a redirect.
    • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Ditto BBC Teen Awards.
  • The Beano Awards aren't in the infobox in the same order.
  • Echo Awards are piped to two different things, one a redirect.
  • European Border Breakers Awards is linked to two different targets, albeit a redirect.
  • "Gaygalan" has no English Wikipedia page so I'm surprised by its inclusion.
  • Likewise the SCTV Awards.
  • GQ Men of the Year Awards is linked to both just GQ and the section in GQ's article dealing with this award. And shouldn't GQ be italicised?
  • Popjustice - table has one nomination, infobox has two. Probably therefore worth double-checking all the totals add up properly.
  • "Sound of..." doesn't appear in the infobox.
  • Swedish Gaffa Awards is linked differently. And shouldn't Gaffa be italicised?
  • "Choice Female Artist" is piped to a redirect.
• Since the table is sortable, all linked items should be linked every time since once re-ordered, no way of guaranteeing the linked item appears first.
• If you're doing the rowspan thing, shouldn't Herself be spanned across ASCAP and Bambi? And Glamour and Global? Probably worth checking all others for consistency.

That's probably enough for a first pass. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for listing these concerns. As was noted above, I (MaranoFan) am on a script-enforced WikiBreak due to examinations. It would be greatly appreciated if someone could get to these concerns in a timely manner, maybe Aoba47 if he has the time. It would be a shame to see this FLC fail after the overwhelming support. Thanks a lot in advance.—2401:4900:1984:15C7:DD24:D399:82C:57FD (talk) 14:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I do not have the time to take this on. Aoba47 (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Then I guess this will need to be closed. I'll leave it a week and then archive it if no action is taken. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

It seems that MaranoFan's wikibreak will be done tomorrow (at least according to the script) so they may come back to address your comments then. Aoba47 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If MaranoFan doesn't return in a timely fashion, I'm happy to help out (don't know if that would invalidate my support)..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

---

Many thanks to ChrisTheDude for volunteering to fix the list in my absence. The Rambling Man, I think I addressed all your concerns. Instead of overlinking the song names every time I just sorted the table according to every column and linked the first mentions. Do let me know if there's anything more that needs to be done.--NØ 10:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not overlinking, in a sortable table every linkable item should be linked every time. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Done, The Rambling Man.--NØ 11:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@MaranoFan:, you all sorted now.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my examinations ended today!:D--NØ 18:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; tweaked one sort and 2 links; promoting. --PresN 16:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 March 2019 (UTC) [6].

---

2017 AFL Rising Star

Nominator(s): Allied45 (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

This is my fourth instalment in a campaign to increase the number of Australian Football League FLs (there have been three successful promotions since August 2018). The AFL Rising Star is a prestigious annual award presented to a standout young player in the league. I hope that if this attains featured status, it can be replicated across a lot more lists across the project. Allied45 (talk) 09:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support - I honestly can't find anything to pick you up on......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • BTW, is it coincidence that no player was nominated in more than one round, or is there a rule that a player can only be nominated once per season? If so, might be worth adding that. I clicked on the ref about the 11 players who have been nominated more than once in history and they all seem to have been nominated in two different seasons, so I was wondering if being nominated twice in the same season was actually possible..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks ChrisTheDude! A player can only receive one nomination per season, therefore it is uncommon for players to be nominated in more than one season as few would meet the age/games criteria. I have added a line in the lead to clarify this :) Allied45 (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support Looks good to me. I was sort of expecting to see the 2017 AFL Women's Rising Star. It's just that time of year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye7, I am hoping to do that next and get the pair to FL-status! Allied45 (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• (Note: minor points, not a review, came here from WT:WikiProject Australian rules football)

• The club that garnered the most individual nominations this season was Carlton with five players nominated for the award across the season. (emphasis mine) One of the bolded parts could be cut without losing any information.
• Additionally Brisbane Lions player Alex Witherden, who received a nomination in round 17, was subsequently nominated for the award again in the 2018 season–becoming the eleventh player to ever be nominated twice for a Rising Star award. Is 'additionally' necessary? Either 'subsequently' or 'again' could also be cut. 'eleventh player ever to be' seems a more natural phrase than 'eleventh player to ever be', but that might just be personal preference.
• Andrew McGrath, winner of the AFL Rising Star in 2017 Why not 2017 winner Andrew McGrath or Andrew McGrath, 2017 winner?
• Alex Witherden, who received a nomination in round 17, was also nominated for the award again in the 2018 season. Cut 'also' or 'again'.
• table of nominees The header immediately above says nominations; it's clear that the list is a list of nominees without the need for a subheader. Same with 'table of voting' below, but that one is tricky to eliminate as there's no other clear place for the citation.
• Who publishes AFL.com.au? I have seen Bigpond, Telstra Media and AFL Media all used in articles as the publisher. My understanding is that AFL Media provides the content but Telstra Media publishes the site (previously under Bigpond branding). – Teratix ₵ 10:15, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Teratix for the comments, I have actioned them all except for the table headers, as it is my interpretation that the Manual of Style prefers captions on tables for accessibility. In regards to AFL.com.au, I have changed all publishers to Telstra Media (as per this report) – Allied45 (talk) 08:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comments by NatureBoyMD

• The infobox image is missing alt text; add using |alt=
• The existing alt text for the other images is a little lacking to my taste. Instead of using the player's name, which the caption provides, give a brief description of the image.
• The en dash (–) in the last sentence of the last paragraph should be an em dash (—).
• Everything else looks fine. NatureBoyMD (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks NatureBoyMD, I have fixed as per your suggestions, is the alt text now more descriptive? Allied45 (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Nicely done. NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 16:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [7].

---

List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Norfolk

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This is the latest in my lists of Sites of Special Scientific Interest and is in the same format as FLs such as List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Suffolk and List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Resolved comments from BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

;Comment from BeatlesLedTV Change all numbers in lead above 10 to numbers. Reading numbers as words like "one hundred and sixty-three" is a little off-putting. I know MOS:NUMS doesn't explicitly say you have to but I think you can just do that here since the numbers get big (especially since you use actual numbers in the table itself). I have changed the numbers in the second paragraph, not the third. I think it would look wrong having a mixture of styles in the same paragraph. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC) My only other comment is that this is a MASSIVE list, (almost 400k bytes). I'd love to see what other editors have to say about that but maybe you could separate it from like A–K and L–Z. Just a suggestion because it's so big. I would strongly object to splitting the list as it would make it much less useful. You could not, for example, so easily sort by area to see which is the biggest site or by location to see whether there are sites in your town. Great job on this! Must've taken a lot of work. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC) Thanks for the review. BeatlesLedTV. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support – Looks good. Great job! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• The lead should begin with information about SSSIs rather than a whole paragraph about the county irrelev vascular plantsant to the list. Population does not have anything to do with the sites, nor do the local governments, nor do bordering counties, so why are they there right at the top? The location column lists cities and towns, not district councils, so I don't see the purpose here.

• It is standard to have background information about the area in FLC candidates on lists of SSSIs and scheduled monuments. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• No, the lead should begin with what the article is about. The list is about the SSSIs so it should begin with background information about the SSSIs. Population, district councils, and bordering counties are completely irrelevant to SSSIs and do not provide any background to this list whatsoever. At the very least the list should start with the topic of the list! List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in the West Midlands does this well. List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest on the Isle of Wight is also nice, it actually discusses the county's geology! Reywas92^Talk 21:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
• If it said how many sites are in each district council like List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Bedfordshire does that would make more sense, but as it is, the first paragraph is just a bunch of facts about Norfolk. If readers wanted to know that, they can go to Norfolk, but this list isn't about the county, it's about the SSSIs.

• Background information about the county is generally considered helpful by reviewers. It is given in List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Kent, nominated at FLC by me, and similarly in List of local nature reserves in Somerset, nominated by Rodw. However, I will be happy to delete the first paragraph if other reviewers agree that it should be deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• No need to delete, seems to me a minor change of grammar plus swapping the first paragraph with the third would fix this, and also would neatly reflect the title, 'list' of 'SSSI' in 'Norfolk'. Mramoeba (talk) 11:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for your comment Mramoeba. I put the second paragraph first as it did not seem to work with the third one first. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• "123 are biological, 25 geological and 15 are both biological and geological." is not parallel

• This is almost universal in lists of SSSIs and I do not see the objection. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Parallelism (grammar): Should have "25 are geological" OR "15 both..." Reywas92^Talk 21:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

• There does not need to be a whole column to link the citation when it is already linked as part of the reference. Reywas92^Talk 22:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• This is useful to the reader and has been in a dozen SSSI FLCs without anyone objecting. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Then there hardly needs to be a duplicate reference when the citation is already linked in the table! Whatever, not a huge deal but not great form.Reywas92^Talk 21:08, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review but these points refer to features which are standard in SSSI lists I have submitted to FLC and I prefer to keep to the format which has been approved by previous reviewers. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed quite a few of these and each time I find fewer comments, the lists are excellent. Few quibbles:

• Sedge is unnecessarily capitalized in Beetley and Hoe Meadows, Woodlark in Breckland Forest

• Revised. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• I would link relict to Relict (biology)

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• "one species not previously recorded in Britain" doesn't really make sense without some time reference. Every species was not previously recorded until it was...

• Deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• "Invertebrates include two nationally rare dragonflies, and the marshes have several important breeding bird species and an internationally important population of wintering wigeon" and...and...

• Split into two sentences. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Capitalize Sphagnum, acanthophyma , hygrolycosa

• Done, Dudley Miles (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• "dry acid dune grassland, the latter of which is very extensive. " can be reworded to say " very extensive dry acid dune..."

• Done, Dudley Miles (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Sphagnum needs to be italicized twice.

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• 'a fine example of oceanic heathland' should have " "

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• ...by glacial meltwaters It is species-... is missing a full stop?

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• link coppicing

• Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• a rare amphibian and a rare butterfly... can you be specific?

• The source does not specify, probably because they forgot to cover amphibians and invertebrates in detail. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok I've done the A-G sites, and will have to work on part 3 later. Overall these are just minor quibbles and I'm happy to Support once they are addressed. Mattximus (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

All Comments addressed, nice work! Mattximus (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Phew I made it through the rest. It looks good, just a few minor points! Mattximus (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review Mattximus. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

• Nice work with this huge list. Two comments:
  • A map of Norfolk would better fit the top of the article instead of a random sunset photo. East Sussex uses a map, for example.

• I have used a picture of the site in the previous 11 SSSI county lists I have nominated for FLC and I think it is more relevant than a map for an article on SSSIs, whereas a map is more relevant for the article about the county. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• • What is a "common"? Many places are named so, and then the text says "The common has ...". I guess it's Common land? A link somewhere would help. --Tone 13:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Added links in each case where common is referred to. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks for your review. Tone. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Minor ce., water dropwort has a page on Wikipedia, but as it is a common name is it the same? You have reedswamp as one word, should it not be two? I would wikilink vascular plants for those of us who have to look these things up. Wigeon can also be wikilinked as the other birds are. Hopefully I will have more time to read through later. Mramoeba (talk) 14:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Water dropwort - this is the name of the genus, which is also used of species in the genus. I have linked to the species according to Natural England, but it is a red link.
• Reedswamp. OED agrees with you that it is two words. Changed.
• Vascular plant. Linked.
• Wigeon. Linked.

• Thanks for your comments Mramoeba. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• " by Natural England as "finest " -> as the "finest..."

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• "This area of spring fed fen" shouldn't that be "spring-fed"?

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Quaternary till, " sea of blue.

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• " grassland, and it has a " no need for "it".

• It reads better to me with "it". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• No need, honestly. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Be consistent on how you refer to the IUCN Red List.

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Dersingham Pit is important " the entry is called "Dersingham Bog"...

• Clarified that Dersingham Pit is part of Dersingham Bog. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Shouldn't "Scots pine" be capitalised?

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Neolithic flint-mines " don't think that needs to be hyphenated.

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• "LNR[224] Ramsar,[8][68]" needs a comma.

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• "This is the best site displaying" needs attribution.

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• " The Devil's Punchbowl is " this is called "Stanford Training Area"...

• Clarified that The Devil's Punchbowl is part of Stanford Training Area. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• "is the Type locality for " no need for capital T.

• Changed. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 1 seems to be in trouble.

• Fixed - I must have accidentally corrupted it when fixing another error. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• "Ludham - Potter Heigham Marshes" shouldn't that be "Ludham–Potter Heigham Marshes"

• That is how it is shown by Natural England. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Our article is Ludham – Potter Heigham National Nature Reserve and the lead starts "Ludham–Potter Heigham Marshes"... Some consistency would be appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• The list links to Ludham - Potter Heigham Marshes. I was not aware that there is a separate article on the NNR, although I should have picked it up. I think it would be best to change the NNR article to a redirect. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Probably, sounds reasonable, but ensure that en-dash is used, rather than a hyphen. I would have thought, ideally (and per MOS), that it should be an unspaced en-dash. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

• OK but I do not know how to insert an en-dash in a move. Can you advise please The Rambling Man. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your review The Rambling Man. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• No worries, a few responses above. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks The Rambling Man. Reply on Ludham - Potter Heigham above. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim riley

I shudder to think how much work has gone into this mightily impressive article. When I pasted a copy into Word to check it (easier that way I find) it ran to 57 pages. A most impressive achievement. Only one drafting point: at Kelling Heath something has gone awry in the fifth column, leaving a red formula showing. The article is comprehensive, neutral, well and widely sourced and beautifully illustrated. Clearly meets the FL criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 16:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim. It is the fifth largest county by number of SSSIs with 163. I shudder to think how much work Cumbria would be with 278! Dudley Miles (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from SN54129

It's an excellent example of what a featured list should look like and no mistake. @Dudley Miles:, as a purely stylistic question, have you considered making the "Other classifications" section two columns? Then all three would all sit flush on the top of the table? ——SerialNumber54129 16:38, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Serial Number 54129. I am afraid I do not understand your suggestion about making the "Other classifications" section two columns. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I had a go; but. @Primefac: who knows about these things  :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

SN means splitting the "Other classifications" list into two columns, but I think that would require either fake headers or nested column creation. Personally I'd say that since that section is twice as long as the other two, having the two-column setup is the best way to go. Splitting that list into two might make it a bit more convoluted. Primefac (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2019 (UTC) (please ping on reply)

Many thanks Primefac, that's exactly what I meant, and that sounds excessively complex for only a tiny return. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 16:29, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I am still lost. Isn't the section the whole table, which is the main part of the article? So what are the other two sections and what is the problem which you are trying to solve? Dudley Miles (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It's perfectly simple. I was suggesting a layout such as

, but Primefac as established that it would not be as easy as it looks, and probably not worth the hassle of attempting. Which is fine by me. See wot I mean? ——SerialNumber54129 17:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah I see now. I thought you were suggesting splitting 'Other classifications' in the sites section, but you meant in the list of codes. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed, in keeping with the rest of the series, promoted. --PresN 21:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC) [8].

---

List of Local Nature Reserves in Surrey

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

This is the latest in my nominations of lists of Local Nature Reserves and is in the same format as FLs such as Kent and Suffolk. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support – Looks great to me. Great job as always! Care to check out my new FLC? BeatlesLedTV (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support Looks good. A map might have been nice. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:04, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comments

• Ashtead Park - "and...and..." should just be comma and one "and".

• "Fauna include the broad-bodied chaser and emperor dragonfly and the common blue damselfly." The and...and is because the chaser and emperor are both species of dragonfly. Would it work if I changed to "Fauna include the broad-bodied chaser and emperor dragonflies and the common blue damselfly." Dudley Miles (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That works! Mattximus (talk) 02:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• "This site, which is managed by local volunteers, has grassland, a wildflower meadow, allotments, a butterfly garden and a community orchard where a local variety of apple, the Lingfield Forge is being grown." Could be two sentences (and a butterfly garden. A community orchard.... ) and then fix up the wording on the second sentence a bit, it might be missing a comma.

• Fixed. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• "The moth fauna is outstanding" is not very encyclopedic. Is there a better word?

• I am not clear what you think is wrong. Are you objecting to "fauna" or "outstanding"? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Outstanding sounded like a bitter of a hyperbole to me. Mattximus (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Mattximus how about "The moth fauna is described by Natural England as outstanding"? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• Otherwise looks good to me, these are just 3 small quibbles, and I will thus Support preemptively. Mattximus (talk) 17:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• Many thanks Mattximus. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Source review passed, in keeping with the rest of the series, promoted. --PresN 21:10, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

• 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.