Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by XR228 (talk | contribs) at 03:00, 20 June 2024 (→Nominations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

This star, with one point broken, symbolizes the featured candidates on Wikipedia.

Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria.

Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and another review process at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and Hey man im josh, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved in a timely manner; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached after significant time; or
  • reviewers are unable to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the process focuses on finding and resolving problems in relation to the criteria, rather than asserting the positives. Declarations of support are not as important as finding and resolving issues, and the process is not simply vote-counting.

Once the director or delegate has decided to close a nomination, they will do so on the nominations page. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived, typically within the day, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure
  1. Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived.
  2. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list.
  3. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page.
  5. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary.
Reviewing procedure

Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this. Supports are weighted more strongly if they are given alongside justifications that indicate that the list was fully reviewed; a nomination is not just a straight vote.
  • To oppose a nomination, write * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. Please focus your attention on substantive issues or inconsistencies, rather than personal style preferences. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed, and nominators are encouraged to use {{reply to}} or other templates to notify reviewers when replying. To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it.
  • If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so, rather than striking out the reviewer's text. Nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page.
  • Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews

The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so:

Source reviews needed

The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago:

Nominations

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, 11 August 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of SB19 live performances

Nominator(s): – Relayed (t • c) 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I have nominated an article/list, but here I am with another, List of SB19 live performances! This list documents the live performances that the Filipino boy band SB19 have done since their debut, including tours, one-off concerts, awards shows, television, and more. I began revamping this list last February, but only progressed much later in May, and I finally finished it this week. This has to be the hardest list I have got my hands on revamping; sorting their performances, working with multiple sources, and the size of the article is definitely a pain.

The revamping of lists like this is part of my efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of SB19, hopefully getting them to have their featured topic soon! I believe I have improved the list pretty significantly from its previous state with the criteria in mind, and I think this list is deserving to be promoted as a featured list. I would be happy to address all your concerns, suggestions, and feedback; they are much appreciated. I sincerely thank the reviewers in advance who will put their time and effort here. – Relayed (t • c) 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and accessibility review
  • All images have alt text
  • All images are in public domain or appropriately licensed
  • All images are relevant to the article
  • All images are captioned appropriately
  • All of the tables meet MOS:DTAB, along with the infobox.

Support on image and accessibility review. 48JCL 14:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and for being here, 48JCL! – Relayed (t • c) 14:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vaughan J.

Placeholder. Full table review coming soon! — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 10:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{N/A|—}} → {{N/A}} – The template has the dash "—" already applied. Ditto for the next few sections.
    Done; thanks for spotting that!
  • Would it be better to add rowspans? Except the show numbers. See List of Regine Velasquez live performances. Ditto for the next few sections.
    I prefer avoiding rowspans for this list because I think the extra cell borders make it easier to read information row-by-row, especially since there is a lot of similar information in the tables, which can be quite difficult to navigate if rowspans are in place. Also, I use some of the "Virtual" cells with notes for additional information as to where the footages of their performances were recorded.
  • {{Abbr|Ref(s).|Reference(s)}} → {{Abbr|Ref.|Reference(s)}} per this and this review. Ditto for the next few sections.
    Done

That's all the concerns I have for this review. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 10:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being here, Vaughan J.! I have addressed your concerns. Let me know if you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 18:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Everything else is sorted. For the second concern, that does makes sense, so I'm crossing that out. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 07:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, Vaughan! – Relayed (t • c) 08:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "They also attended several virtual music festivals" - "attended" makes it sound a bit like they were in the audience of just hanging about. Suggest changing to a word which makes it clear that they actually performed.
  • "Additionally, SB19 have also performed at the 2023 Asia Artist Awards and became a featured act at several music festivals" => "Additionally, SB19 have also performed at the 2023 Asia Artist Awards and been a featured act at several music festivals"
  • For things like the UP Fair: Hiwaga, I would put "unknown" under "songs performed", as the dash makes it look like they performed no songs
  • "Dunkin' Presents: SB19 was initially scheduled for March 19, 2020, with the title Dunkin' Presents: Give in to SB19,[35] until postponed to April 23, 2022" => Dunkin' Presents: SB19 was initially scheduled for March 19, 2020, with the title Dunkin' Presents: Give in to SB19,[35] but was postponed to April 23, 2022"
  • That's it I think - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, ChrisTheDude! Thanks for having a look! I have addressed all your comments. Let me know if you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 11:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support! – Relayed (t • c) 11:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyCat

I was offline in July- sorry for missing your message! Happy to review now that I'm back MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The band co-headlined another online concert, Forte: A Pop Orchestra Concert, with 4th Impact in October 2021, for the benefit of music scholars - not sure what "for the benefit of music scholars" means
  • the Aurora Music Festival 2024 in Pampanga and two outside the Philippines, the Round: ASEAN–Korea Music Festival 2023 in Indonesia and Pistang Pinoy sa Korea 2024 in South Korea. - I don't think "two outside the Phillipines" is needed, just "the Aurora Music Festival 2024 in Pampanga, the Round: ASEAN..." would suffice

I see nothing else of concern, great work as usual MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MyCatIsAChonk! Glad you made it! It's alright. I apologize for making you review as soon as you have returned. Thank you for reviewing BTW. I have addressed all your concerns. (I have been busy lately, which is why I was not able to take action on them sooner.) Let me know if you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good, happy to support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, MyCatIsAChonk! – Relayed (t • c) 07:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 13:41, 10 August 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1966

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another list of the number ones on the chart for songs that the parents of the rock and roll kids liked :-) In this year, the chart was dominated by "Ol' Blue Eyes", one of the most respected song stylists of the 20th century, yet the biggest-selling single of the year (of any genre) was by an actual serving soldier..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • All sources with a link are live and/or have an archive link
  • Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for
  • Assuming good faith on sources I do not have access to

Feedback:

  • Consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|June 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been
  • Ref 9 – Add |publisher=[[Associated Press]] and |url-access=subscription
  • Ref 12 – Inconsistent formatting with refs 3 and 5. Recommend changing publisher to work.
  • General works cited reference 4 – Joel Whitburn should be wikilinked here since they're wikilinked in the previous two works cited

Good stuff ChrisTheDude, as always. Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: - all done I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, support! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

Image review: Passed

Aoba47

  • I do not think "at number one" is necessary in this part (before being replaced at number one by Al Martino's "Spanish Eyes") as it can be easily understood from the overall context of the sentence. That and it would help with some of the repetition of the "number one" phrasing around this part.
  • For the Staff Sgt. Barry Sadler, I think it would be best to spell out Sergeant instead of using the shortened version.

Wonderful work as always. I only have two very minor and nitpick-y comments, and once both are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: - both done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Botswana

Nominator(s): 48JCL 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC) and Tone 15:21 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I am nominating this bcus it meets the criteria. JK this is another world heritage site. Thanks Tone for the format and letting me use it for consistency. Currently, WP:BW has no FLs so this would be really great to have. Took a long time to write. Third time here. All other times many FLCs fail, but of course third time’s the charm. Botswana has seven sites on the tentative list and two world heritage sites. yeah 48JCL 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

MPGuy2824
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
    • Done
  • Try to incorporate some of the first sentence of the Tsodilo article into the description here.
    • Done
  • Wikilink quartzitic, endorheic
    • Endorheic done, quartzitic is a duplink
  • Add a centered emdash when an image isn't available.
    • Done
  • For every entry, the description should tell us why it is on the list. Ideally this happens in the first sentence. e.g. Why is Toutswemogala different from every other elongated flat-topped hill? The same issue exists with Gcwihaba Caves and Tswapong Hills Cultural Landscape to take two more examples.
    • Done
  • "The area is resembled through its stone age historic sites." What does this mean?
    • Resolved
  • One ref is missing an archive link.
    • Oops, done
  • That's it for now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:46, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add a centered emdash when an image isn't available. This isn't done yet.
    • "of kgosi (king) Khama III" - Should kgosi be capitalised? I'm in two minds.
    Please ping me here when you are done with these. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are never using emdash in these lists when there is no image. I prefer to keep that consistent. As for kgosi, the article uses not capitalized but italic, which I will fix now. Tone 08:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824, kgosi should not be capitalized (since it is merely a word, you do not say "so there is a King", you say "so there is a king") and as Tone mentioned above, the emdash is not used in lists where there is no image. 48JCL 12:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EN-Jungwon
  • Some references use |website=UNESCO World Heritage Centre and some use |publisher=UNESCO World Heritage Centre. I checked other world heritage site FLs, and they use the publisher parameter. So I suggest changing all the |website=UNESCO World Heritage Centre to |publisher=UNESCO World Heritage Centre.

done

  • |language=en is unnecessary for english sources.

Removed per other flcs

Keeping it is not an issue and I'll support this list either way. -- EN-Jungwon 13:55, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- EN-Jungwon 01:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ah, you already nominated it, I thought you were planning to do it a bit later. Let me go through in a couple of days to check if there are any further tweaks from my side. As a side note, my typical cutoff for nominations are three sites on the main list, but maybe we can go to two because there are several tentative sites. --Tone 15:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from CMD

  • This is a short list, but is complete. The prose on the main list reads well. Taking a close look at the description for the two primary entries, they are written in their own words despite only having one source. The lead is short, but that is likely related to the small size of the list and it defines the scope and inclusion criteria.
  • On the tentative list, there are a few noticeable prose issues. I am not sure where "who coexist peacefully with the nature" comes from and it reads as reductive. "roam the place" does not read that professionally. It should not be implied that the "tuli elephant" is a species. I would also not pipe Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape, as the redirect does not help that much and an article could be (should be, probably) created there. The description for Gcwihaba Caves should probably be rewritten. I can't figure out the meaning of "The area is resembled through its stone age to historic sites. The region includes Acheulean tools, along with middle and late stone age tools". All said however, there are not part of the main list, so I'm not sure whether to give them equal weight, so tentatively support. If they could be given similar care to the main two entries, that would make it a clearer pass. CMD (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still going through the prose of the tentative sites, give me a couple of days ;) Tone 06:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the UNESCO database it is called the Mapungubwe Cultural Landscape 48JCL 12:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the text to accurately describe what is the point. It is a proposed extension to the already listed site which is in South Africa. I will fix the remaining descriptions very soon, and then the article should be fine ;) Tone 13:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, all text is fixed, please continue with the review. Tone 22:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, great improvement. I can see how the lead might be longer ala Madagascar, and am not sure about the emdash use mentioned above, but those may be improvements beyond the FLCR, changing to support. Best, CMD (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review by Fritzmann

  • File:Animals Rock Art Tsodilo.jpg is a credible own-work that is properly licensed.
  • File:Okavango Delta.jpg is a credible own-work that is properly licensed as CC4.0.
  • File:Gnus zebras chobe national park.jpg is a credible own-work in the public domain.
  •  Done File:KubuIsland 02.jpg is an import from Flickr listed as GNU Free License, but a look at the Flickr page says All Rights Reserved, and the image was not released under GNU or CC. I don't think this is licensed correctly on Commons. I recommend replacement with File:Baobabs on Kubu island, Botswana.jpg, which is properly licensed as CC2.0.
  • File:Okavango Delta.jpg is a credible own-work that is properly licensed as CC3.0 and GNU Free.

Just one image with an issue, please ping when you have seen and responded. Thanks! Fritzmann (message me) 14:46, 15 July 2024 (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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC) [4].[reply]

List of European cities by population within city limits

Nominator(s): Lionel Cristiano? 13:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a very good list, I don't think there's anything missing. Lionel Cristiano? 13:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Lionel Cristiano? 13:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lionel Cristiano: Why have you pinged me? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Lionel Cristiano? 13:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drive-by comment - images need alt text. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

  • The lead is far too short and does not provide an adequate summary of the article
  • Per MOS:BOLD, bolding should not be used to identify items meeting a certain criterion. Use a colour and symbol instead
  • Why do a handful of entries have no number in the first column? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Dajasj

  • I would recommend putting the map in the top right corner. It does not need to be that big in the bottom and it gives more context in the top than an image of Istanbul. If you keep it there, I would suggest changing the width to 960px (which is the default width voor Vector 2022). Dajasj (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! City becomes !scope=col | City. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | [[Istanbul]] becomes !scope=row | [[Istanbul]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. In your case, you're using a table class to create a first column, so I'm not sure how you would make that the row header, but since you also skip numbers for some rows I guess the city name cell should be the header.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 21:35, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mattximus

  • Featured lists no longer use self-referential sentences: "In this article, cities are sorted by official population." That sentence can be removed. As with "The rankings". Just needs a bit of a rewording. If you do need to refer to the list itself it can go in notes at the appropriate part of the list.
  • Much of the lead is framed towards explaining caveats of the list and not actually summarizing the list itself. This is a major issue with this page, you need to summarize the list in the lead.
  • I'm confused at the inclusion criteria, why is Greater London included (not City of London) but Greater Paris isn't?
  • And we need to distinguish somehow the population estimates versus actual census counts. Estimates can vary wildly from actual population counts.
  • Note for Istanbul should be a sentence and not point form, and should have a reference.
  • What exactly is "official population"
  • Capital cities in bold should be in legend or note as a colour and symbol.

Oppose for now, lots of issues found but not insurmountable. Mattximus (talk) 16:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, main contributor is blocked. I have a feeling that As some cities have narrow boundaries and others wide ones, the list may not give an accurate view of the comparative magnitude of different places, and the figures in the list should be treated with caution: for example, Paris is the second most populous urban area in Europe, but the strict definition of the administrative limits of the City of Paris results in a far lower population shown in the table. should be copyedited and I also highly doubt the section Map needs a heading. 48JCL 22:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the lead is insufficient for an FL, which I would expect to have much more prose. "some cities have narrow boundaries and others wide ones" is too vague. The only city mentioned in the lead is Paris, for no good reason. The list could be much longer, since I'm pretty sure data is available for a great many cities below the one million mark. Also, the nom is CU-blocked. Toadspike [Talk] 14:37, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the lead a little to fix some of the poor wording, but I still oppose this nomination, since greater improvement than some drive-by copyediting is needed. Toadspike [Talk] 14:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: I'm not aware of the standard policy in these types of situations, but the nominator has been checkuser blocked by Bradv. Would a closure of this nomination be appropriate, given the circumstances? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Yep, nominator being blocked typically means we close the nomination, unless someone immediately steps up to take it over. In this case, with multiple opposes on top of that, I think we can call this done. --PresN 18:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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) 00:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [5].[reply]

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1965

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief detour to the world of higher education, I'm back on the trail of number one songs. In 1965, Billboard changed how they compiled their easy listening chart to make it completely independent of the Hot 100 for the first time. While the pop charts were being ruled by the likes of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, the middle of the road listing was dominated by old Elvis songs...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

Image review

Sgubaldo

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • No dead links
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

  • Ref 2 – add |via=[[Google Books]]
  • Consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|June 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been

I'm confident you'll make the change to 2, so I'll just go ahead and support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And indeed I have :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EN-Jungwon
  • Ref 10 seems to require a subscription.

That's all I could find. -- EN-Jungwon 10:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon: - parameter added -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EN-Jungwon 14:15, 17 June 2024 (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) 12:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC) [6].[reply]

List of cities in Luhansk Oblast

Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 04:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given my current FLN List of cities in Donetsk Oblast is effectively ready and will likely be promoted in the next day or two, I'm going to go ahead and start this one. Most of the list content is copied over from the stuff I created at the Donetsk Oblast list, which was already reviewed during that article's FLN, so I'm guessing there won't be any major issues to resolve with this one. In any case tho, excited to get this one through and continue the series! Cheers, Dan the Animator 04:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

  • Do the raions cover the whole oblast or just part of the oblast? This should be explicitly mentioned in the second paragraph.
Fixed? Yup, I reworded it to say The eight raions that make up the oblast are Alchevsk... and Svatove raion but let me know if additional rewording is needed.
  • "War in Donbas" should be changed to "war in Donbas".
Fixed
Fixed
  • I don't think linking City in the table is necessary as it's an everyday word as per MOS:OVERLINK.
Removed link
  • The space before reference 15 should be removed as per MOS:REFSPACE.
Fixed
  • Why is Luhansk in italics in the table?
Luhansk is the oblast capital so I though I'd put some distinguishing feature on it similar to how other list of cities articles put an asterisk on capitals. If it helps tho, I don't mind taking it out... I didn't really expect it to be an issue.
It's just that without a key, readers might not know why Luhansk is italicised. Also, as per MOS:TABLEKEY, I don't think italics is considered accessible. A symbol is needed instead and a key used. Given that Luhansk is already mentioned as the capital in the lead, you could just do away with italicising/using a symbol in the table altogether. Otherwise, a key and symbol are needed.
Fixed I just took it out.

Steelkamp (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steelkamp thanks for the edits and reply! Let me know if there's anything else left to do. Dan the Animator 04:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Steelkamp (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In addition to the above.....

  • Can't see any reason for the former names of cities to be in italics
Removed italics
  • None of the image captions are complete sentences, so they should not have full stops.
Fixed
  • Most of the image captions contains facts (eg "Popasna, a major railway city heavily damaged during the invasion") which are not mentioned anywhere else in the articles, so these will need to be sourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added sources


  • Maybe it's my browser, but there is no black line between the header and the first row (as is between all other rows).
The table looks alright on my end (I'm using the desktop version on a Dell laptop) so could be your browser?
  • I believe the columns with numbers should be aligned to the right, so it is visually easier to compare the numbers.
I aligned the two population columns and the pop. change column to the right but it leaves excessive whitespace imo. I'll leave it on for now so you can take a look but if its alright I think its actually easier to compare the numbers with center-alignment since there's less space separating them (alternatively, if there's a way to decrease the width of the columns to get rid of at least some of the empty space, that would also work for me).
  • The images are great on desktop, but on mobile, it is simply more to scroll past before I get to the table (which is the most important thing in this list ofc). So I would recommend limiting the number of images (maybe only in the introduction).
Fixed? I didn't remove any images since I really think five images is fine (also there's no space in the intro/lead so that's not feasible) but I added in a link on the top of the images in the list section that mobile users can click to skip (jump to) the table directly, bypassing the images. Also tested it myself on mobile and it works fine! This type of link is usually used on other similar types of list articles too with images so this should solve the issue but let me know if there's anything else to do!
  • It think the table should make clear that the Ukrainian links point to another Wikipedia language version.
Fixed? I don't disagree but I can't figure out a good way to do this. I changed the title of the column to "Name (in Ukrainian Wikipedia)" but is this be too ambiguous? (e.g., some users might be unsure whether the name is actually displayed in the Ukrainian language or if the Ukrainian names are correct (since Wikipedia, in any language, is not WP:RS)). Interested to hear your thoughts about this!
  • The Commonscat template can be moved to See also, to minimize whitespace.
Fixed I just moved to the External links section instead in-line with how a lot of other articles do it.
Dajasj (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions Dajasj! Let me know if there's anything else I can do with the article (also fyi I'll also be applying any suggestions here to my other FLN List of cities in Donetsk Oblast. Cheers, Dan the Animator 01:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies!
  • I am now on another laptop, and there is no issue with the top line any more, so it was my problem...
No worries! Good thing it fixed itself! ;)
  • The column could be "Name in Ukrainian (Link to Ukrainian Wikipedia). It is a bit long, but that's not a big issue because other column names are also long.
After careful consideration and testing out a few different things, and also realizing that apparently there's an English Wikipedia page about the Ukrainian Wikipedia, I settled with: Name (on Ukrainian Wikipedia). My thoughts behind this: the link to Ukrainian Wikipedia says in its first line in the lead that it is a "Ukrainian-language...online encyclopedia" and its already implied that the name is in Ukrainian since its coming from the Ukrainian Wikipedia so the "in Ukrainian" part is redundant imo; the blue highlighting that Wikipedia projects use to indicate links to other pages already implies that the links go to the Ukrainian Wikipedia and the word "on" is sufficient for this too I think. Let me know if this title is alright with you but just to let you know, I feel strongly that this is the best choice after thinking about it quite a bit the past few days.
  • Aligning to the right looks perfect on my current screen and on mobile. You could set a "width" to these columns, so there is a max width to these columns on wider screens (where it tries to write "Population" on one line). That should limit the whitespace. Dajasj (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dajasj! After testing out the width parameter markup, turns out its better just to keep it as-is with the right alignment and no additional markup.
@Dajasj: And I think that should covers everything! Let me know if there's anything else I can do/if the article's alright now and thanks again for all the suggestions! :) Dan the Animator 04:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Dajasj: its been a few days now so please let me know if there's still anything holding up your support. Hope all's well! Dan the Animator 21:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support, sorry for my late reply. Regarding Mattximus point below, I won't oppose if the jump link is removed, because I see this often in (featured lists), but multiple images is nevertheless annoying for mobile users (which nowadays is most of our readership). Dajasj (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Np and sounds good! I'll rmv it based on Mattximus' followup. Thanks for the support!!! :) Dan the Animator 17:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Not sure why there is a jump to table link, that can be removed (from both this table, and the one in Donetsk).
Earlier in the review, Dajasj suggested removing images due to the need to scroll a bit on mobile. I think the number of images is perfectly fine and works really well on desktop so to address those concerns, I added the jump link. I don't have a strong preference for keeping or removing the jump link so if Dajasj's alright with it, I can take it off.
  • This article is quite good, but the image captions need a bit of work. The cities are not smallest, or largest, as the areas are not given. They are the most populous, or have the smallest population, or some other wording.
Fixed
  • Citation for 2001 census broken for me.
Fixed? applied the same changes I made with the Donetsk list so if that one's alright now then this should be fine too.
Thanks Mattximus!!! :D Let me know if there's anything else I can do! Dan the Animator 16:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CMD Hello, a few comments and questions:

  • The moving back and forth in chronology in the lead is a bit jarring (2022, 1977, 2020, 2014, 2022, 2016). Not suggesting strict chronology is needed, but I do think a bit more would be beneficial.
While I don't full disagree, after trying a lot of different rewordings and restructurings, I think its best to keep the arrangement mostly as-is. I did switch out the 2022 estimates with 2001 census stats per below so hopefully that helps a bit but for the rest of the lead, I think its important and more helpful for the reader to keep it organized topically/thematically (e.g. keep the sentences about military occupation from 2014 and 2022 next to each other rather than divide them with the admin. reform from 2020). With the current order, it really helps save on words while still being specific/detailed on which cities were occupied by separatists (if the admin reform is moved after, it becomes necessary to either say vaguely "most cities in the south of the oblast" or list out each city occupied individually, which is not ideal imo). Also, whatever ordering is decided here should likely be applied more or less to all the other oblasts lists so best also to take a look at those articles (like my other current FLN for List of cities in Donetsk Oblast) and consider those lists too. I'm definitely open to any ideas/changes about this tho if its decided and wouldn't be fully against the needed changes for this (I just don't think making these changes are ideal for now).
  • Unclear from the lead if the "cities of regional significance" are part of the 37 count, and the exactly relationship between city settlements and raions.
Fixed? I expanded/reworded the lead a bit with more clarifying details and specifics so let me know if its more clear now.
  • Probably helpful to include in the lead an explanation that the 2001 census is both the most recent and only census in independent Ukraine, although given both the Oblast and the lead stretch further into the past, is there a reason older censuses could not be included? (It would for example, give context to the 1977 change.)
Fixed added that bit about the 2001 census into the lead and switched out the 2022 estimates with the census numbers to make it flow better (I don't think this switch should be a huge issue tho since the 2022 estimates are still on the list anyways and many sources opt to use the 2001 stats, like WashPo apparently and the UN and others).
About including older censuses, I based my limiting it to two on my thorough checking of other similar FLs (an earlier reviewer Mattximus's userpage is especially helpful for this (not linking here so not to bother them)), which almost all have only two population columns, the Ukrainian language versions of these lists, most of which are already featured content and also use two pop. columns, and the recent successful FL for List of cities in New Brunswick where it wasn't an issue. I'm open to adding additional statistics if there's a compelling reason for it but I think having three pop. columns would possibly mess up the pop. change column and wouldn't be too helpful anyways (about the 1977 change for Almazna, its city status was given solely because of its importance to the local mining industry, not its population (and this is already suggested in the lead since Almazna has less than 10k ppl and falls into the "economic significance" sort of cities)). Also, I think the 2022 estimates, even if they're estimates, are still really helpful and shouldn't be replaced or considered subpar to the census data (in case it helps, this Atlantic Council piece does a great job imo saying why the estimates are alright).
  • Why are the city names being implied as being sourced to Ukrainian Wikipedia (not a reliable source) when the main source for the list [7] gives Ukrainian names?
I'm guessing this is referring to the Name (on Ukrainian Wikipedia) column name. Earlier in this review, Dajasj suggested changing the then column title Name (in Ukrainian) to indicate that the Ukrainian names link to the Ukrainian Wikipedia articles. After trying out a few different titles and weighing them, I settled on the current one. Check my reply above in After careful consideration [...] the past few days to see my main reasoning behind choosing this wording and why I think it should be alright. If it helps, I'm open to adding in the 2022 estimates ref next to the column title.

CMD (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CMD for the suggestions and great to see you here! :) Let me know if there's anything else I can do and what you think about my replies/follow-up edits. Dan the Animator 14:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: pinging in case my earlier reply didn't get through (sorry for the bother!) Dan the Animator 18:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed replies. I am unfamiliar with the way other featured lists of this type are done, if it's normal to just list one or two of the most recent then no need to challenge that consensus here. I do think the reference should be duplicated; I don't know if I understand this presentation of interwiki links, but if it is to be used the article needs to be as clear as possible that a wiki is not being used as a source. The city/raion wording is much clearer. What are your thoughts on creating a new paragraph starting from "Following the Donbas war..."?. It doesn't seem related to the first parts of that a paragraph, and at least would reduce the jumping around within paragraphs. CMD (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicated the reference per above but also changed the name again, this time adding a note which hopefully should address your and Dajasj's earlier comments (I brought the column title back to its original but I also added a note which says that the names link to Ukrainian Wikipedia articles). Take a look and let me know if this would work for everyone.
For the lead organization, thanks CMD for the suggestion! :) I tried out having it separate but it felt a bit off having four separate paragraphs in the lead (especially for this article's size) so I opted to do some more lead rewording/reorganizing to keep it at three paragraphs. It still has some time jumping within paragraphs (mostly just the middle one where it goes from the 2020 reform to the 2016 renaming) but I think the new ordering's an improvement (for the lead overall now, the chronology from start to finish is roughly 2001, 1977, 1991/2020, 2020, 2016, 2014, 2022, 2016/2020 (I don't think this last one really counts tho since it's referring to earlier parts of the lead)). Let me know if its better or if there's anything else I should do. Dan the Animator 18:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead seems improved, a bit more thematically coherent. I still do not really understand the interwiki link usage here, but looking at the MOS I can't actually find much on it, so I don't think it causes an issue with the FLCR. Aside from no alt text on the first map, the FLCR appear met with the changes. Best, CMD (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed (assuming google translate is not wildly misleading me); promoting. --PresN 00:28, 20 July 2024 (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) 00:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Rock-climbing equipment

Nominator(s): Aszx5000 (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this is a comprehensive list of equipment for the discipline of rock climbing. While individual elements of rock climbing equipment will change/evolve, the essence is quite stable. Rock climbing is now a new Olympic Sport, so I think this area will get even more attention in the future. I had proposed it as a GA but the recommendation was that the article was more of a list, which is correct, and that it would be a good suggestion as an FL per Talk:Rock-climbing equipment/GA1. thank you. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

This review will take me a little while – feel free to ping me if I go more than a few days without following up.

  • Images need alt text
Done.
  • "And finally" → "Finally,"
Done.
  • The lead lists modern devices with the older devices they replaced – where is this information supported in the body? For instance, I see no mention of chockstones after the lead.
Done., I have mentioned chockstones in the body, where they were replaced by nuts.
  • Not technically wrong, but the list has a tendency to overuse parentheses; some of them can be reworked
    • Example: Under Type of climbing, "and its X variant" doesn't need parentheses
Done., hopefully that is better now.
    • Another example: The second paragraph of Ropes (starting with "Some climbers will use...") has 4 sets of parentheses in one sentence. This ends up feeling really choppy.
Done., and agree, hopefully better now.
  • Per MOS:ACRO1STUSE, write out acronyms where they first appear: UIAA, CEN, OSHA, maybe CE marking?
Done., CE marking is the actual name here.
  • "in lieu CEN" → "in lieu of CEN"
Done.
  • "which are (circa 7–8 mm)" – misuse of parentheses
Done.
  • "(or 'tape')," – no comma needed
Done.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted that you are willing to help @RunningTiger123. This is (clearly) my first attempt at Featured article status. I have a few GAs under my belt and I think I am writing at a reasonable GA standard, but have little concept of FA stardard, but if you are up for it, I would love to learn and happy to spend time on this with you at whatever pace you prefer. thanks again :) Aszx5000 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "European European Committee for Standardization" – redundant
Done.
  • "e.g. the asymmetric/offset D-shape is the most common" – misuse of "e.g."
Done.
    • "e.g." means "for example" – if you substitute "for example" in place of "e.g." and it doesn't make sense, you're using the wrong phrase
understand thanks,
  • "(and materials used)" – no need for parentheses
Done.
  • "e.g. they require little in the way of gear-carrying loops" – another misuse of "e.g."
Done.
  • "e.g. to fit around heaving winter clothing" – same thing
Done.
Done.
  • First paragraph under Belay devices is unsourced
Done.
  • "e.g. a static rope that is hanging from a fixed anchor" – another "e.g."
Done.
  • "Petzel Traxion" – typo for Petzl
Done.
  • "Petzel Micro Traxion, and Camp Lift" – no comma needed, also same typo?
Done.
  • "SCLDs" – should be SLCDs? (occurs twice)
Done.
  • "like a Hex" – use lowercase for consistency
Done.
  • Don't hyphenate "bolt-hangers" for consistency
Done.
  • "stands one on aider" – I think this should be "stands on one aider"?
Done.
  • "Rock climbing hammers are mainly used..." – bullet point doesn't follow the same opening format as all of the others
Done.
  • A lot of bullet points under Miscellaneous equipment are unsourced
Done., I also added one extra item, the Knee pad, which is a commonly used piece of equipment
  • "is used by all rock climbers" – all is a strong word, so it either needs to be clearly sourced or removed
Done., changed to "is very popular amongst rock climbers"
  • Remove comma after parentheses for medical tape
Done.
  • Suggest archiving web sources (see WP:IABOT)
checking this.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123, thanks for those comments. I have made all of the changes but I am not sure I understand the last one re WP:IABOT? My understanding is that that bot runs automatically, or am I meant to run it? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can run IABot on demand here – it's not required but it can be nice to include. Also, I think you missed the "e.g. a static rope..." comment above, but I don't think it's worth waiting to support over that. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, have fixed the "static rope" now, and I will run the IAB. Thanks so much for your help and comments on this. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just ran the IABot as well - wasn't aware of that. Thanks again. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo_fan2007

General
  • Be conscientious of your use of "where", which is often not the best word for what you are trying to say.
done, good point and have reduced the # of where's to 3
  • I'm not sure of Wikipedia's policy on "e.g."... Ill try to see if I can find something.
I found MOS:ABBR, and while there is no mention of "e.g." it does use the term a lot?
  • You use a lot of parentheses; not necessarily bad but it is best to try to word sentences in such a way that this isn't needed as much.
That is a fair point. I have taken out most cases where they are used outside of when it is an "(e.g. )" or "(also known as..)" situation.
Lead
  • Why is "rock-climbing" hyphenated in the title and the article? Rock climbing isn't.
I am not sure about the grammar of whether combining the word "equipment" necessitates the hyphen. I have found books with/without the hyphen. I am happy to do either way but would need admin support to remove it as it was originally moved from the existing rock climbing equipment in 2011?
When this FLC is done, it should be moved. I've never seen the hyphen before and don't see any grammatical necessity for it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you link "climbing" as climbing in the first sentence?
done
  • Bouldering needs the least equipment outside of shoes and chalk and optional crash pads. replace the first "and" with a comma.
done
  • Finally, aid climbing uses unique equipment (e.g. aiders). - add to assist the climber in upward movement (e.g. aiders) or something similar
done, said ".. to give mechanical assistance to the climber in their upward movement (e.g. aiders)"
  • done manually, and with greater control (in all conditions) and less effort delete the first "and"
done
Use and certification
  • Equipment is limited to climbing shoes and chalk (with chalk bag). add "generally" before "limited" as neither shoes nor chalk are technically actually required to climb
done
  • variant, adds a rope, harness, and belay device, but no general climbing protection outside of that which is used to create the anchor point at the top of the climb from which the top rope is hung (which is usually done with carabiners, slings, and/or cord) run-on sentence. Recommend a full stop after "belay device"
done
  • Recommend replacing "in-situ" with on-site or linking in-situ
done, replaced with on-site
done, should not be hyphenated
  • every pitch needs to be solo climbed (SLDs) what is "SLDs" referencing here? SLDs is later defined in the article as "self-locking devices"
done, expanded to self-locking device and added "using"
  • At least link "Brexit" or explain. Like "After the United Kingdom left the European Union, it adopted the UKCA certification in place of the CEN.
done, used your wording which is better
  • UKCA needs to be defined
done, linked to the UKCA marking article
Ropes and slings
  • Some climbers will use a single full-thickness climbing rope of circa 9–11 mm circa -> approximately. mm should be defined ({{Abbr}})
done for both
  • both shouldn't be italicized
done
  • "Circa" again, just use the more common "approximately"
done it for the full article
  • Where two thinner ropes are used that are both clipped into each protection point (i.e. it is not to reduce rope drag, but instead to have a backup rope for long climbs), it is known as twin roping add in the 7-8 mm thickness after "tinner rope", like two thinner ropes, typically 7-8 mm in thickness, are. Also, it would sound better to just start with Twin roping is...
done all suggestions
  • Climbers use webbing that has been sewn using a certified standard of reinforced stitching into various lengths of closed loops called "slings" (or "runners"), which can be used in a wide range of situations, including wrapping around sections of rock (e.g. for abseiling, or creating belay anchors, or as passive protection), or tied to other equipment—often via carabiners—to create a longer version of a quickdraw or even a makeshift lanyard. long run-on sentence. Find somewhere to split into two.
done.
  • "Circa" again
done, replaced for full article.
  • Cord loops (also known as "cordelettes") serve a wide variety of functions in rock climbing including creating friction prusik knots for ascending or gripping fixed climbing ropes, usually using thinner circa 5–6 mm cord, or for attaching to, and equalizing forces across, multiple fixed anchors points,[15] such as when setting up abseil or belay anchors on multi-pitch climbing routes, usually using thicker circa 7–8 mm cord. long run-on sentence again. Split.
done
Rope devices
  • You define "SLD" multiple times in the article. You also link the second use of the term. You should really link and define at the first instance. Maybe move the SLD section up above descenders?
done, per above, I have now linked to it at its first mention in the "Type of climbing" sub-section. Given that, have not moved the SLD section above Descenders, and left in alphabetical order?
Protection devices
  • This section is the only one where you introduce the term with a full stop immediately after (e.g. Hexes. instead of Hexes are...). Recommend changing to be consistent.
done, have changed to be consistent with the rest of the article
  • Tricams are typically cheaper and lighter than SLCDs, and are less in use today. and -> but and no comma needed
done
  • Similar to the previous section, you use SLCD before you define it. Maybe move "Active" before "Passive"
done, swapped
  • is attached into which carabiners (and quickdraws) can be clipped. no need for the parentheses.
done
  • decade, but have a finite, comma not need
done
  • protection of choice, but are still, comma not needed
done
  • Define or link "crag"
done, linked to crag (climbing)
Aid equipment
  • "aid" to the aid climber in ascending, no need for the second "aid"
done
  • which are a central part of the technique of aid climbing where they are normally used in pairs some rewrite needed as it is confusing. Is it a central part of aid climbing only when used in pairs? "where" is probably not the right word either (when is more appropriate)
done, split sentence and re-worded to ".. and are a central part of the technique of aid climbing. They are normally used in pairs .."
  • Like aiders, daisy chains are also a central part of aid climbing where they link the harness to the aider (see above); not sure what you mean by "where they link the harness to the aider" nor do I understand what the "see above" is referencing.
done, re-worded to "Like aiders, daisy chains are also a central part of aid climbing. They are used to attach the harness to the aider. Care has to be taken ...."
  • Copperheads are only used in aid climbing and their low strength means that they can only handle the "static bodyweight" of an ascending aid climber, and will likely fail where the climber makes a dynamic fall. the first and should be a "but" and the comma before the second "and" isn't needed
done
  • These are steel hooks of various shapes (e.g. bat hook, talon hook, grappling hook, etc.,) that are hung from cracks and flakes (e.g. the fifi hook and skyhook). Mostly used in aid climbing, but they have been used in extreme traditional climbing routes as a last resort (i.e.hook placements may not withstand a dynamic fall). -> Steel hooks of various shapes (e.g. bat hook, talon hook, grappling hook, etc.,) are hung from cracks and flakes (e.g. the fifi hook and skyhook). They are mostly used in aid climbing but have been used in extreme traditional climbing routes as a last resort (i.e. the hook placements may not withstand a dynamic fall). Note that in my update, I fixed a missing space between "i.e." and "hook"
done, and merged sentence with the heading of "Hooks", per earlier changes.
  • These are mainly used by aid climbers to hammer in various types of pitons while ascending routes; note that clean aid climbing does not allow the use of hammers as all clean aid equipment must only be inserted on a temporary basis. -> A type of hammer made insert various types of pitons whilee ascending routes; clean aid climbing does not allow the use of hammers because all clean aid equipment must only be inserted on a temporary basis.
done
Clothing equipment
  • The anchor link to belay glasses doesn't work for me (i.e. it doesn't go to the specific term in that page)
done, linked to the Belay glasses article
  • Belay gloves are used to protect the hands when doing lots of belaying (especially on big wall climbing routes), and their construction from leather or other hard-wearing materials, generally improves grip with the rope, which lessens the risk of a failure of the belay system. I would recommend deleting ""when doing lots of belaying" as an obvious statement. Then add a full stop after the parenthetical.
done
done
  • "edging", and softer delete the comma
done
  • particularly where the falling lead climber is flipped over. where -> when
done
Misc equipment
  • This is the only section without an intro sentence. Recommend adding one for consistency.
done
  • , which could cause ankle or back injuries. -> leading to injury.
done
  • that has been dangerously worn down delete "dangerously" as editorializing
done
  • Nut tools should be singular or "are" should be used
done, made singular
  • climbers even use toothbrushes to clean the smallest holds without damaging them -> toothbrushes may be used to clean the smallest holds without damaging them
done
Training equipment
  • A narrow flexible (e.g. it can be rolled up) all-metal, or PVC/webbing, ladder that, too many consecutive adjectives. Reword to something like A narrow and flexible ladder, typically capable of being rolled up, made from metal, PVC or webbing that
done
  • that may be climbed up and down without the aid of the feet. replace "may" with "is typically"
done
  • the "hangboard" is focused on change to "was developed to focus on"
done, re-worded the two sentences to say "is related to the campus board and was developed to focus on building static arm and finger strength;"
See also
  • The Wikimedia commons box goes in the "External links" section per its documentation
done
Images
  • All photos are appropriately licensed, captioned and have alt text. All do a good job of helping the article.

Nice work! Aszx5000 Please ping me when you are ready. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gonzo fan2007 - only just back from my travels over the last few weeks but will get to work on the above shortly. Much appreciated! Aszx5000 (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007:. Thanks for all your great input and comments listed above, all of which I have now hopefully incorporated into the article. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, really nice work on what is an atypical and challenging list Aszx5000. I made two small copyedits in the article, hope that they are ok with you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes are great and your support is very much appreciated! Aszx5000 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:37, 21 August 2024 (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) 00:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [9].[reply]

List of Jacksonville Jaguars seasons

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my third nomination of an NFL team season list and I believe it meets all of our criteria. The format is based on past successful nominations of List of Detroit Lions seasons and List of New Orleans Saints seasons. As always, I will do my best to respond quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

Comments

  • "The Jaguars are one of four teams to have never played in a Super Bowl" - I'd change this to "The Jaguars are one of four current NFL teams to have never played in a Super Bowl" as there are plenty of other teams that have never played in a Super Bowl.
  • "Despite never having played in a Super Bowl, the team has played in the AFC Championship Game on three occasions (1996, 1999, and 2017)" - I'd be tempted to reframe this as "The team has played in the AFC Championship Game on three occasions (1996, 1999, and 2017) but lost each time"
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Took your advice on both, done! Thank you very much for the feedback :) Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • "The team plays its home games at EverBank Stadium in Central Jacksonville." The ref after this does not support this statement. Also, it should probably be "central".
  • Wikilink the first instance of "playoffs".
  • Is there a reason that the 1995 row is set to sort at the top?
  • Sorting by the "Finish" column leads to some weird stuff happening with the "All-time regular & postseason record" columns. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824: I prepped this list so long ago and I clearly should have given it a better lookover since I prepped it when I Was much less experienced than I am now. All of the sorting issues have been resolved and I've added a wikilink at the first instance of playoffs. I've also actually updated their location to "downtown Jacksonville" with a reference. Thank you very much for the review and feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the keys (T-#, Pct, ‡Super Bowl champions and *Conference champions) aren't applicable to this team/list and can be removed unless you are keeping them in for consistency with other similar lists.
    • Is "at" a common abbreviation for "against" in the Hand Egg world? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I hid those portions of the key, thanks for that suggestion @MPGuy2824. The "at" is a standard descriptor in most North American sports from what I'm aware of. It's meant to represent that the game was not a home game. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dajasj

  • Do the bottom three rows (the Totals) really need to be double bold?
  • I understand why you do it, but I think it would be simpler if you only link to the page of the team of that season, and not the season page (so skip the first column). A reader can still reach it through the team page and it makes the table smaller which is great for mobile.
  • I also understand why you included League and Conference, but I would only do that when there are different values. Now it makes the table more complex (and I expect a row to be different).
  • It might be too late to change the format, but I would prefer the postseason in a seperate table. Right now, it makes the table unnecessary long (so I can compare less on my desktop screen), while only adding info to one column. Same point for Awards btw.
  • I believe the Head Coach can be made sortable, so you can sort to get the season with the most wins for a head coach.
  • I have not used it myself so I am not sure of the downsides, but excluding the final rows from sorting would be great. Dajasj (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dajasj:
    • Do the bottom three rows (the Totals) really need to be double bold? – I hadn't noticed they were doubled. It doesn't really affect anything, but it's been removed.
    • I understand why you do it, but I think it would be simpler if you only link to the page of the team of that season, and not the season page (so skip the first column). A reader can still reach it through the team page and it makes the table smaller which is great for mobile. – You say easily, but when you navigate to the season pages there's no direct links to the season themselves in many cases. I don't think this would be an improvement to the table or better serve our readers in any way.
    • I also understand why you included League and Conference, but I would only do that when there are different values. Now it makes the table more complex (and I expect a row to be different). – I disagree. The league and conference are relevant and can and have changed for a number of different NFL teams. This is part of the standard format for lists of NFL team seasons for that reason and it would be odd to have this page follow a different format than the rest.
    • It might be too late to change the format, but I would prefer the postseason in a seperate table. Right now, it makes the table unnecessary long (so I can compare less on my desktop screen), while only adding info to one column. Same point for Awards btw. – That may be your preference but I would find two separate tables, one for playoffs and one for the seasons, to be much less informative and to just be a split for the sake of splitting, not to actually make any sort of improvement. The awards column is also reserved for major awards only and isn't bulky or overwhelming in any sense.
    • I believe the Head Coach can be made sortable, so you can sort to get the season with the most wins for a head coach. – This list is focused on the seasons as opposed to the head coaches themselves. While it's not included there, it may be more appropriate for List of Jacksonville Jaguars head coaches. The difficulty in making these tables sortable be sortable in the way you suggest is that coaches sometimes have partial seasons which are split with another coach.
    • I have not used it myself so I am not sure of the downsides, but excluding the final rows from sorting would be great. – That was the intention, and it's been implemented, as per the comments in the section above.
    Thank you for the feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the second point, maybe it makes more sense to merge the first column (Season) and the third (column) League? For example linking NFL to 1995 NFL season. That way you won't have to duplicate the years, and you can add a link to the NFL text that is useful. You won't lose any information. Dajasj (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dajasj: The history of the NFL involves a couple of mergers (List of Los Angeles Chargers seasons, List of New England Patriots seasons) teams joining from other leagues (List of Los Angeles Rams seasons), and several teams being independent prior to their joining of the NFL (List of Chicago Bears seasons, List of Green Bay Packers seasons). These examples are just some of the lists for seasons that have already been promoted to featured lists, but this is why these are two separate columns. That's why the information is there and why it's useful, even if to just state that they started as an NFL franchise and have been for the entirety of their existence. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm no longer suggesting complete removal. But what if we do it like this (see the link in the second column)? If I'm not mistaken, we don't lose any information, while avoiding duplication in the Year & Team column? Should also work for all teams, or I am then still missing something? Dajasj (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dajasj: You are suggesting removal of a column though. I think your proposed version is also an WP:EASTEREGG, given that you'd expect that shortcut to lead to National Football League. If you want to propose changes to all 32 team lists you'd be better off doing so at WT:NFL because, even if I agreed with the proposed changes, I don't feel comfortable making that sort of wide spread change on all of these articles without proper discussion. Especially considering 16 of them are already featured lists and utilize this format. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dajasj: Do you have any more feedback? Hey man im josh (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, that's it :) Dajasj (talk) 11:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, thank you for your review and feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

  • Why the use of {{clear}}? Seems to just create white space, regardless of the screen size.
  • They have made the playoffs a total of eight times. I would recommend two changes here: get rid of "a total of" as just fluff words, and then I would really recommend moving to the beginning of the paragraph, so it would say something like The Jaguars have made the playoffs eight times, although they are one of four current NFL teams to have never played in a Super Bowl, along with the Cleveland Browns, Detroit Lions, and Houston Texans. This way the paragraph opens with what you are then going to talk about.

I got noting else. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:05, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Thank you taking a look over this nomination! I agree, I've removed the clear template and made the changes you've suggested. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:30, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 13:27, 10 July 2024 (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) 00:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC) [10].[reply]

List of Taylor Swift live performances

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list covers the live performances of Taylor Swift, who has recently become the first artist to headline a $1 billion-grossing tour. Kudos to Medxvo for assisting with removing NONRS. Ippantekina (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would this still qualify for deletion to quality despite that the person who nominated it for deletion was the FL nominator? 48JCL TALK 20:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus at the AfD was keep so I really don't see the issue. Ippantekina (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

  • Swift's sixth studio album, Reputation (2017), was supported by negligible television performances -- suggest an alternative wording for negligible, or perhaps since she did little TV performances, you can lead into the Reputation tour directly.
  • It is the first concert tour in history to surpass $1 billion in box score revenue. -- maybe some wording here can be piped to List of highest-grossing concert tours, since it is a notable record and one she currently tops.
  • In the "Concert tours" table, I don't think we need to link the countries/territories (per MOS:OL)
  • In the reference column for all your tables, I would update the abbreviation to "Ref(s)" since it is written as "Reference(s)" when hovered.
  • Great to see this is finally on FLC. Nice work. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Pass

Hi @Pseud 14: I've addressed all of your comments except the links to countries. I think while it makes sense to not link "common" countries like U.S., England... there are also "lesser-known" ones like Wales, Northern Ireland... so I decide to link them all to avoid potential demographic biases. Ippantekina (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. Maybe just a minor nitpick but not a deal-breaker. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

  • For the lead's first sentence, shouldn't it be (American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift) rather than (The American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift)? Something about the use of the determiner seems off to me, but I could be wrong though.
  • For the lead's second sentence, I do not think "various" adds much and can be cut as the focus seems to be more on the different venues where she has performed.
  • This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance but I would use "television" rather than the acronym in this part (as well as on TV and radio). I would do the same for the "TV shows and specials" section heading.
  • The lead makes a point that The Red Tour was her last tour as a country artist, but it does not specify what genre she transitioned to after that for her subsequent tours.
  • I doubt that the countries need to be linked in the tables as most readers would be familiar with these areas. This kind of thing is brought up in MOS:OVERLINK. Also, since the table is sortable, there are instances where the first time the country appears is not linked. I would limit the links more so to cities and more specific areas like that. I respectfully disagree with your above "potential demographic biases" argument.
  • The linking for the tables is inconsistent. The award shows, such as the American Music Awards, are linked in every instance, but the television shows, like Good Morning America, are only linked on the first instance. On top of that, since the table is sortable, readers may encounter an unlinked term before getting to the actual link. To account for that, I would think that everything would need to be linked. Other examples of this would be Rascal Flatts being only linked once in the "As opening act'" table or the song titles only being linked once.
  • Apologies for that, and thank you for your clarification. I should have checked the awards links more thoroughly. That being said, my other point still stands. Since the tables are sortable, it cannot be controlled which entry a reader may encounter first. Things like songs are currently linked on only the first instance if no sorting is done, but if a readers does sort, they may through multiple, unlinked entries before getting to the link. As I said above, I would think that every item would have to linked in each instance to account for this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes sense as WP:DL does say that duplicate links are allowed in tables. I'll implement this shortly! Ippantekina (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the One World: Together at Home part, I would include a note that it was done virtually and also include where she filmed her performance if it is known.
  • I would be consistent with either using title case or not in the citation titles.
  • Citation 27 (here), Citation 28 (here), Citation 31 (here), Citation 32 (here), Citation 33 (here), Citation 35 (here), Citation 49 (here), Citation 138 (here), Citation 227 (here), Citation 255 (here), and Citation 265 (here). are no longer active. The CMT ones in general seem to have issues as most just redirect to the home page.
  • Citation 55 (here) should specify that it is in Japanese.
  • I would avoid putting words in all caps like in Citation 71 (here).
  • For Citation 79 (here), I would use the press release citation formatting instead.
  • Citation 121 (here), Citation 123 (here), Citation 133 (here), Citation 154 (here), Citation 220 (here), Citation 247 (here), Citation 248 (here), and Citation 275 (here) are missing the authors. I would honestly check all of the citations without author credits for this. I also believe that Citation 275 should be Time not Time Magazine.
  • Citation 163 (here) is still active for me so I do not think the archived version needs to be used. Same for Citation 166 (here) and Citation 274 (here).
  • The archive for Citation 224 (here) does not support the information provided. Also, the song title should be in single quotation marks as it is presented in the citation title.
  • Citation 231 (here) requires a subscription. That should be noted in the citation template. I would make sure any other instances of this are noted as well.

I am sorry, but I oppose this list for promotion, primarily because of errors in the citations. I have also noticed inconsistencies with how linking is handled in the tables, which would not be as big of an issue by itself. Apologies again, and I would be more than happy to revisit this review once my comments are addressed. You have always done great work so I hope that this does not come across as too harsh or anything overly negative. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Aoba47:, I believe your points are actionable and will act on them. In the meantime I've replied to some of your points above. Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Take as much time as you need. I have replied to your responses above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Aoba47: for the refs. could you kindly specify the article revision that you reviewed so I could better keep track of them? Ippantekina (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not including this earlier. I honestly did not think of doing that, but it makes sense as things will likely change during revision. I believe this version was what I was looking at during the time of this review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Thank you for your patience. I believe I've addressed all points that you raised above :) Let me know if anything remains unsatisfactory. Ippantekina (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding to everything. It all looks good to me. My only remaining point is that the citation for the first Nova's Red Room performance does not support the songs. The archived citation (at least for me) goes to an overview of different articles on the site. I do see a link to an article about her performing "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" there, but that does not appear to be archived. Once that has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find a replacement ref anywhere so I'll remove that until a reliable source is found... Ippantekina (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I had a feeling that would be the case. I tried to either get access to a better archived version of the original source or to find a different citation, but I did not have any luck with either. Removing it would be the best option. I approach this kind of list as containing all of the notable live performances of a particular artist, rather than being an exhaustive list so since I think that it is okay that this performance does not make it due to a lack of a citation. I did not look through newspapers so maybe that would help, but I think this is the right choice for now.
Apologies for the long response, but I do support this FLC for promotion based on the prose and I have struck my oppose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did look through Newspaper.com, ProQuest for potential news sources to no avail. I'll try to continue looking for a replacement ref anyways. Thanks so much for your constructive feedback :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am just glad that I could help. Thank you for your patience with my review. Best of luck with finding a replacement reference. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (ec with last editor)

  • "She has additionally performed in various festivals, awards shows, benefit concerts, and sporting events" - unless usage in US English is different, I would suggest this should be "She has additionally performed at various festivals, awards shows, benefit concerts, and sporting events". Certainly in the variety of English spoken in my neck of the woods, one does not perform "in" a music festival. But, as I said, maybe US usage is different......?
  • "which supports all of the albums in Swift's discography." => "which supports all of the albums in her discography."
  • "to surpass $1 billion in box score revenue." - box office revenue surely, unless this is a US usage of which I am unaware
  • Tour names starting with "The" should sort based om the next word in the name
  • Any particular reason why the first three tables have the name of the event first and the dates second, and then suddenly it switches to the other way round?
  • I followed other examples like List of Lady Gaga live performances, and if I rationalize that myself, each concert tour (the content of the first 3 tables) is a combination of various concerts and hence the tour names being listed first makes more sense; plus dates are presented in rage so including them first is confusing imo. Meanwhile other events (TV, radio, awards) are one-off events so it makes more sense to sort it chronologically by including the event date first. Ippantekina (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did she not perform any songs at "Trails West!" and some of the others, or is it just unknown what she performed? If the latter, I would suggest putting "unknown" or similar, as the dash honestly looks like it means "none"
  • Is there any value in that songs column being sortable given that it will only ever sort based on the first song listed?
  • TV show titles starting with "The" should sort based om the next word in the name
  • Why are some of the benefit special titles in italics and others not? For example, Children In Need (a UK telethon) is in italics but Stand Up to Cancer (also a UK telethon) is not

Source review

Most sources in the article are reliable. Some are acceptable primary sources (i.e. iHeartRadio source to confirm a show at the iHeartRadio Music Festival). Some are long-established local newspapers related to the city where Swift played. However, there are some sources that don't appear to be reliable at a first glance.

  • I haven't done spotchecks, but I checked one source, [37], and it doesn't confirm the August 18, 2007 date.

Skyshiftertalk 21:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll get back to you asap. My preliminary comments are that while Bustle, Us Weekly are not the most reliable for BLP or commentary, in this usage as reports of popular culture they should suffice. Ippantekina (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Ippantekina. No rush, just following up on a number of FLC comments at the moment. Just pinging to see if the concerns have all been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: @Skyshifter: hey, I've responded above. Let me know if anything needs further adjustments :) Ippantekina (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Skyshifter didn't do spotchecks, I used a random number generator to check 10, and found some consistent problems:

  • 23, 67, 218, 236 - good
  • 72, 125, 155, 189, 248 - does not explicitly state the date
  • 48 - does not explicitly state the date, does not say it's part of the Fearless tour, implies she sang more than the two songs listed

I do believe that the information given is accurate; why wouldn't it be. But over half of the randomly selected refs don't actually say the date for the event they're citing, as far as I can see, which I feel is problematic. Please see what you can do to address this in general (presumably this is an issue for more than just these specific refs). --PresN 00:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally news coverage of awards shows/TV like 72, 125, 155 are published pretty much immediately after the events happen; of course articles that explicitly mention the dates do exist so I hope to find alternatives asap. 48 does imply she sang more than the 2 songs listed but since it doesn't say more, why would we include more; plus the "Part of the Fearless Tour" is cited by ref 35. Ippantekina (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: update, I'm running through all refs again to make sure they mention the exact dates. For refs that fail this verification and there are no replacement news/articles/reports, I use {{Cite episode}} or {{Cite AV media}} which are a little on the nose but the second best thing we can go for.. Will update you once it's done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: I've conducted a run-through of the references (phew!) Let me know if it looks better now :) Ippantekina (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, promoting! --PresN 20:40, 12 August 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [13].[reply]

List of Vegas Golden Knights draft picks

Nominator(s): The Kip (contribs) 22:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having been inspired by @XR228, I've decided to nominate this for FL. After expanding the lead with prose and making some accessibility additions, I believe it successfully meets all FL criteria. The Kip (contribs) 22:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

The article shouldn't be started off with "This is a complete list of...", per MOS:THISISALIST. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Kip (contribs) 23:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead image should not use forced pixel size, instead use the "upright" parameter, potentially with a multiplier e.g. "upright=1.3"
  • I feel like ice hockey should be specifically mentioned/linked somewhere. Maybe mimic the opening of List of Seattle Kraken draft picks, also currently at FLC
  • "2017 second-round pick Nicolas Hague has played the most games for Vegas of any draft picks" => "2017 second-round pick Nicolas Hague has played the most games for Vegas of any draft pick"
  • "Wins, losses, ties, overtime losses and goals against average apply to goaltenders" - there's no column for ties.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All taken care of. I'd removed ties from the chart a while back as VGK was founded long after their demise, but forgot to remove from that descriptor. The Kip (contribs) 18:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

  • Use "background-color" instead of just "background" for the column headers. If you do not do so, the sorting icon is missing, which makes the page below what we expect for accessibility. You also have an extra exclamation point in the column text, just before "scope", that should be removed.
  • The table needs a title for accessibility reasons
  • It should be called out in some way, even via note, that the source uses "T/O" whereas you don't include ties. I understand the reason why, but I think it's good to call this out in some fashion.
  • Change 2017 NHL Entry Draft to 2017 NHL entry draft in the lead and in the images where it's linked.
  • Ref 10 – Add The Hockey News as the source
  • Ref 6 – Wikilink Las Vegas Review-Journal
  • General ref 1 – Change from publisher = <code>|publisher=The Internet Hockey Database</code> to <code>|website=[[HockeyDB]]</code>, based on the fact the Wiki page is called that
  • You switch back and forth between referring to the team as Vegas or the Golden Knights, pick one and be consistent in the prose.
  • If this is meant to be the entirety of the team's picks, why are the picks from the 2017 NHL expansion draft not included?
  • Add {{Use mdy dates|June 2024}} to the top of the article under the short description so that dates in the references remain consistent if more are added and so they're auto formatted.

That's what I've got for now. Ping me when you reply please. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:21, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh just a note that I’m away from my laptop for the next day or two, but I’ll let you know when I’ve got these taken care of. Thanks for the feedback! The Kip (contribs) 21:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: No worries, I typically don't edit on the weekend anyways. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh, I'll go through point by point:
  • 1 is done
  • For 2, I based it off the title from FL List of New York Islanders draft picks.
  • Added a note regarding 3 that Hockey Ref includes ties, but they're not in the chart as Vegas was founded after their abolition.
  • 4-7 are done
  • For 8, I chose to refer to them as the Golden Knights (again going off the Islanders FL)
  • Expansion draft picks aren't included with entry draft picks - this is more a precedence thing, and undoing this (either merging the two or renaming entry draft picks) would have to be a WP:IH-wide project (if not sports wikiprojects-wide - expansion drafts are universally treated as separate from "the" (entry) draft, as seen at Washington Wizards draft history or Jacksonville Jaguars draft history).
  • 10 is done.
The Kip (contribs) 05:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: That's funny you link Jacksonville Jaguars draft history, it's on my to do list and I was heavily considering and leaning towards including the expansion draft picks. While not the same, I did include the extra drafts in Detroit Lions draft history's sublists. Granted there was no expansion draft, so it's a bit of a different situation. Never the less, I'll accept that the expansion draft won't be included, even if I do believe it to be relevant to the subject.
I'm just checking with PresN whether you need exclamation points or not when declaring a scope, but otherwise, I think that's everything I've brought up addressed. I would like to see the second paragraph expanded a bit though.
Any thoughts on a separate goaltenders section, similar to List of Detroit Red Wings draft picks? For what it's worth, I have no issue with the cells having a line through them, I think that makes sense. I also had no issues with the images being beside the table, I think that's a pretty standard thing to do. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I thought so but confirmed it with PresN. Row scopes need to be declared with an exclamation point (! scope="row") to be accessible. | scope="row" is not acceptable for accessibility reasons. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh as for the second paragraph - I copied it from other draft pages. I'm not entirely sure how it could be expanded, as I feel it summarizes the draft/lottery process fairly well. I'm personally not a fan of the separate goaltender section, as in my opinion it takes away from being a comprehensive list of picks. I also agree that the images should be next to the table, but I'm still somewhat concerned regarding the issues raised by Dajasj - that said, if that problem is overstated I'd be happy to move them back.
Additionally, I'm having some issues regarding attempting to convert the table to ! scope="row" - I'm attempting to duplicate the styling found on the Lions page of only the draft year being bolded, but for some reason, no matter what I do the years are both off-center and not bolded. The Kip (contribs) 20:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: I'm on mobile right now but I wanted to give you a quick response about the issue. If you remove plainrowheaders (very first line at the top of the table) it should look like what you're aiming for when you add the exclamation point for the row scopes. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh Gotcha, all done now. Let me know if any other changes are needed, or if you think it's good to go! The Kip (contribs) 19:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • "Wins, losses, overtime losses and goals against average apply to goaltenders and are used only for players at that position." - why? Why not show winning/losing games for every player?
  • It is very confusing to see only a bunch of dashes for some players. I guess this means that they didn't play for the team at all. It would be good if this was explained somehow. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824:
    • Those statistics (and specifically W/L) are only recorded by the league for goaltenders, similar to how W/L are only recorded for pitchers in baseball.
    • The "Key" section indicates that dashes indicate "does not apply," effectively meaning they never played NHL games - however, that's something of a given, considering the note above the table stating that it shows each player's statistical totals in the NHL.
    The Kip (contribs) 05:36, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll have to make the player's name as the header cell of every row. Right now the draft year is set as the header cell, but that's not really unique across all rows. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:28, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 I'm not really sure if I follow. The Kip (contribs) 19:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hope the following tables make it clearer. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Current version
Draft Round Player Player stat
2017 1 Cody Glass 0
2017 2 Player Two 1
Suggested version
Draft Round Player Player stat
2017 1 Cody Glass 0
2 Player Two 1
  • @MPGuy2824:: There's no reason they can't use the draft column as the header cells, it's fairly standard and it's what I did in my draft related lists. They're welcome to change it up, as I know a lot of people do in various lists, but it's a personal preference thing from my understanding. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: MOS:DTAB states: Because the row header and column header may be spoken before the data in each cell when navigating in table mode, it is necessary for the column headers and row headers to uniquely identify the column and row respectively. One possible solution here is to have the draft year as a level-1 header with rowspans, and the name (or something else unique to the row) as a level-2 header. Possibly, the cells of the "Player" column can be styled to look like the other non-header cells. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 With all due respect, I'm not even sure if what you're asking to be done is possible for someone not overly well-versed in table coding. Especially considering many of the football lists promoted to FL in the recent past (such as the ones Josh has successfully improved), and while I'm biased as the nominator, this feels a tad excessive with respect to the FL criteria. The Kip (contribs) 09:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824, just following up - do you support otherwise? Again, I'm not sure that what you're asking for regarding the tables is possible, nor is it necessary for FL. The Kip (contribs) 19:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion 2 from MPGuy
Draft Round Player Player stat
2017 1 Cody Glass 0
2 Player Two 1
This can be followed up with whatever styling you want to add to the player name cells to make it look like a normal cell.
Necessary for FL: I quoted the relevant section from the MOS above. Next, to quote from WP:FLCR 5c, Accessibility. It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers. I don't see how I can support promotion unless this issue is taken care of. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 Just an observer here, I think I edited the table according to your specifications. Take a look at the markup and tell me if I did, feel free to revert otherwise. ULPS (talk • contribs) 17:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ULPS: Not quite, but I've fixed it. The problem is that you can't just use '!' to set a header cell when the whole row is defined on one line. There's a way to do it and stay on one line, but the easier thing to do is to put the header cell on its own wikitext line. Then you see the second problem- the header cell formatting overrides the css shorthands like bgcolor, so you need to call them out explicitly with css styles. It's a bit of a pain. --PresN 19:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info! I'll keep it in mind for the future. ULPS (talk • contribs) 21:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This can be followed up with whatever styling you want to add to the player name cells to make it look like a normal cell.
Again, this requires a level of knowledge of table formatting/programming that most users including myself simply do not have. As Josh has pointed out, plenty of recent sports articles have been promoted without that - I really do not understand why this one is being held to a unique standard. The Kip (contribs) 16:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weighing in here! There's a difference between this list and most other recent sports lists, and that's that the 'year' cell here is the same for multiple rows. For e.g. Josh's lists, there's one row per year. The reason this matters is for what MPGuy2824 said- the point of the row header cell is to "uniquely identify" the row. If every row is a single year, then the year uniquely identifies it. In this list, though, the year doesn't- the first year identifies 12 rows. Now, we don't always have to be strict on this- if it's still clear in context what's going on, then that's fine. But for this list, prefixing the audio of the table cells with the year isn't very clear. Now, do I strictly adhere to that? No, because it can be a pain to solve for non-technical editors in areas that don't put the unique cell as the first one in the row (like here, where we organize by year). But according to the letter of the rules, we should do better.

There's a few ways to do better! What a lot of areas do with tables like this is just make the unique thing be the row header- which in this case would be the player name. Even though that's not the first column in the table, it's allowed. You can also make a combination header that is unique- in this case, draft+pick, or draft+player. Of those two, draft+player is better, because "2017 61" doesn't make sense if you don't know that 61 is the pick number. The problem here, and one reason I use a light touch on pushing accessibility sometimes, is that making the player the header while preserving the formatting is a major pain. You need less-common table code formatting, and you need to have a bunch of raw css style code for every line. It's doable, but wikimedia could make the process simpler.

In any case, between ULPS and myself, it should be fine now. --PresN 19:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ULPS and @PresN, much appreciate your assistance. Hopefully this clears up any issues with the nom! The Kip (contribs) 05:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dajasj

  • The image don't fit next to the table on smaller screens or screens that use Vector 2022 max width by default. So on desktops this creates huge white space, while on mobile it creates a lot to scroll past. I would recommend leaving out additional images.
  • In the first column, the rows can be combined if they are from the same year right? It's confusing me, because I expect different links.
  • Could it be possible to leave out "—" in every cell and clarify that empty cells means this did not apply. I think it would make the entire table less cluttered (especially because four columns are nearly always empty).
  • Maybe it is my lack of knowledge on this topic, but the table suggests there are multiple goaltenders, yet the four right columns are empty for them and the introduction mentions only one? (Please ignore this if this comment was simply ignorant ;)) Dajasj (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dajasj:
    • I've converted it to a gallery at the bottom - my concern with removal entirely is that the list then falls below the expectation for featured content to be adequately illustrated.
    • They could be in theory - Ice hockey and basketball wikiproject precedence indicates they're individually linked though (see the Wizards and Islanders lists linked above). I assume it has something to do with accessibility.
    • Again a precedence thing, though I disagree here - I feel that empty cells make the table look incomplete.
    • All good, haha - Patera's the only goaltender to actually play for Vegas, hence the rest of the drafted goalies' stats being empty. Zhukov and Kooy never signed with the team, while Saville, Vikman, Lindbom, and Whitehead are all still prospects who haven't yet reached the NHL.
    The Kip (contribs) 05:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One option to deal with some of the long line of emdashes, is to replace them all with a colspan saying "Drafted but didn't play for the Knights" for every such player. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With the sheer amount of players on the chart that'd apply to, I feel like that wouldn't be visually appealing. The Kip (contribs) 19:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dajasj, just to clarify - do you support? The Kip (contribs) 02:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Dajasj (talk) 08:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EN-Jungwon

  • Archive all the sources
  • Ref 3 and 4 are dead

-- EN-Jungwon 13:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon I've done so. While 3 and 4's raw links are dead, they're successfully archived and accessible - I don't see why they can't be used as a result. The Kip (contribs) 02:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was rewieing this version of the page where the url status parameter of ref 3 and 4 were set to live. When I commented that those references were dead I was implying that the url status needed to be changed. I should've made that clear. But it looks like Hey man im josh already fixed that in this edit. Since my comments have been addressed I'll go ahead and support promotion. -- EN-Jungwon 02:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha, sorry for the misunderstanding and thanks for the support! The Kip (contribs) 03:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Dylan620

Because this listicle only has 12 sources, I decided to check them all.

  • Unless I'm missing something, ref 3 does not verify that the entry draft occurs in June of every year.
  • Per ref 2, a couple players' names are misspelled: Maksim Zhukov and Stanislav Demin
  • No other concerns with source-to-text integrity; all other refs verified.
  • Source titles should consistently be in either sentence case or title case; the listicle currently employs a mixture of the two.
  • There were a couple instances of {{cite web}} where National Hockey League is listed as a website instead of a publisher, which results in the NHL being incorrectly italicized. Other than this point and the one above, source formatting looks good.
  • All sources appear reliable.

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620:
  • Agreed, and I can't seem to find anything in text that specifies June - as such, I've changed it to "off-season," which I feel is general enough.
  • Corrected the names. Slava's been a common name in some sources, but I can't find enough to be definitive.
  • Fixed the sentence/title case for most refs - left title case in place for the "Draft History" or "Hockey Operations Guidelines"-type ones where it feels more natural, but changed to sentence for the others
  • Fixed the website/publisher discrepancy.
The Kip (contribs) 04:04, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me now – support! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:11, 28 June 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [14].[reply]

List of soricines

Nominator(s): PresN 22:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, mammal list #40 and the 5th and final subgroup of Eulipotyphlans: the subfamily Soricinae! It's... 150+ more shrews. They look identical to each other and to the ones in the previous shrew lists; turns out the smaller the mammal, the wider variety of species can coexist geographically, so there's as many minor variations on shrew species as there are members of every Carnivora family. They're pretty cute, I think, but not really super visually distinct from each other. If you've never seen one, it's because they're busy: shrews eat at least their own body weight in food every single day, so they're very busy vacuuming up all the bugs hiding under leaves on the forest floors. Unfortunately, this means they don't have a lot of time to pose for pictures, so, as in previous lists, the ones in Central America, southeast Asia, and the non-populated parts of China just don't have free-use pictures. As always, this list follows all the conventions we've built up over the last dozens of FLCs, and should be good to go. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:38, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

  • Nothing to quibble and I see the wikilinks on the ecosystems you had mentioned in your prior nomination applied. Happy to support for promotion. Although a very minor observation (which I may be unfamiliar with), in the "Scientific name and subspecies" column, is there a reason why some scientists are in parenthetical while some are not? Pseud 14 (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pseud 14: Yep, per binomial nomenclature, you do that when the original namer put the species in a different genus than it's currently included in - so e.g. the southern short-tailed shrew is currently Blarina carolinensis, but (Bachman, 1837) originally had it as Sorex carolinensis, and that's the official way to denote that, apparently. --PresN 00:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very interesting. Thanks for the explanation and insight into it. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AK
Hey man im josh
  • Source review:
    • Reliable enough for the information being cited
    • Consistent date formatting
    • Consistent and proper reference formatting
    • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
    • Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Looks good. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2024 (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) 00:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC) [15].[reply]

List of Intercontinental Cup (football) matches

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spent some time working on this article about a quirky former football competition to bring it up to featured standard and complete the UEFA club competition winners topic. Thanks in advance for your comments. NapHit (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "The Intercontinental Cup was disbanded" - I think "discontinued" would be a more appropriate word
  • "In its first eight editions, the competition's winner was decided on a points system" - the table shows nine
  • "determine the outcome in case of a tie" => "determine the outcome in the event of a draw"
  • "The most successful confederation is CONMEBOL, teams representing the confederation have won the competition 22 times" => "The most successful confederation is CONMEBOL, teams representing the confederation having won the competition 22 times"
  • Why are there flags by the two Japanese stadiums but not any other stadium?
  • Note o is missing its full stop -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824

Sgubaldo

I did a sweep with IABot, I hope you don't mind. I also added a url for the Vonnard source and changed the publisher to palgrave macmillan per the url. Feel free to revert if you disagree.

Only two comments:

  • The infobox image is under the |logo= parameter; it would benefit from being changed to the |image= parameter and from having a caption.
  • Statements about the playoffs vary slightly:
1. Peñarol won 2–1 in playoff at Estadio Centenario
2. Santos 1–0 in playoff at Estádio do Maracanã
3. Internazionale won playoff 1–0 at Santiago Bernabéu; Racing Club won playoff 1–0 at Estadio Centenario
I would make them all like 1 but add 'the' before playoff. So "Team won x-y in the playoff at Stadium".

Sgubaldo (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL

NapHit, alt text is needed for the only image. On prose, I got nothing. 48JCL 14:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, @48JCL:, I've added alt text to the image. NapHit (talk) 15:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support 48JCL 15:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review – All of the references appear to be reliable and well-formatted. The link-checker tool doesn't recognize the fact that the UEFA links have archived versions for some reason, but doesn't show any issues otherwise. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 13:27, 10 July 2024 (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) 20:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [16].[reply]

List of BBC National Short Story Award winners

Nominator(s): Il lupa (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a comprehensive list of writers shortlisted for the annual BBC National Short Story Award. It's the first list article that I've made but, as far as I can tell, it meets all the criteria for a featured list. Il lupa (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "(previously known as the National Short Story Award, 2006-2007)" - I think "(known as the National Short Story Award in 2006 and 2007)" would work better
  • "It is an annual short story contest in the United Kingdom which is open to UK residents and nationals" - I would move it to the first sentence i.e. "The BBC National Short Story Award is an annual....." and then move the bit about it being prestigious into the second sentence
  • "the winners receives" - this should be easier "the winner receives" or "the winners receive" but not what you have currently
  • Both notes need a full stop
  • That's all I got - great first nom! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback, I've made all the improvements you suggested Il lupa (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • Sorting the results column should put the runner-ups between the winners and the short-listed candidates.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 2001 becomes !scope=row | 2001 (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fixed the results column sorting and added column and row scopes. I'm pretty sure I've done it correctly but please let me know if I'm wrong! Il lupa (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your changes look good. Another issue: The last column in every table sometimes has multiple references. You can use the {{Ref.}} template for each of the column headers to take care of this. Please ping me here when you are done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 I have updated the headers. Il lupa (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - BennyOnTheLoose

Happy to discuss any of these points. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose Thanks for all your feedback! I've gone through and updated everything apart from two small things:
  • I agree that it would be better to change "Each year, the winner receives £15,000 and four shortlisted writers receive £600 each..." to "As of 2017..." but I don't technically have a source for the year, I can just tell by looking at past winners. Given that, I'm not sure if I should change the sentence?
  • I do not have a 2024 source for Sarah Hall.
If I've missed anything or made any mistakes, let me know. Il lupa (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Il lupa: Thanks, just a couple of points pending. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the two points you've mentioned above, I think MOS:NOW gives some helpful advice about rewording.
  • Lead has the BBC quote ""the most prestigious [award] for a single short story", but the more independent (London Met) has "one of the most prestigious for a single short story". I think it would be better to add the "one of" qualification, unless there is another good source.
  • "As of 2018, the BBC National Short Story Award has not had an all-male shortlist" - I think it should be "As of 2018, the BBC National Short Story Award had not had an all-male shortlist"

Source review

  • I made some changes suggested by scripts, including one for consistency in how dates appear. Please review to see if there are any issues with those changes.
  • ISSN is not required for newspapers, but if you are including it then it should be there for all citations, for consistency.
  • Some inconsistency in how sources are shown, e.g. first ref has BBC, but "Fifteenth BBC National Short Story Award shortlist revealed" has www.bbc.co.uk.
  • publisher=The Globe and Mail location=Toronto - inconsistent with other cite news templates used here. I think it's best to just use work (or newspaper).
  • Similarly, Belfast Telegraph should be either work or newspaper, not "publisher"
  • WP:RSN has "no consensus" for reliability of The Spectator. I think for what it's supporting here, it's fine to use that publication.
  • No concerns with the reliability and suitability of the other sources used, for the topic and the information supported.
  • The info in the Notes is cited in the lead. Personally I'd prefer that the sources were added to the footnotes too, but it wouldn't be grounds for a source review failure if they were not.
  • I think that the text Includes full text of story after the Creamer & Wood citation is fine, as there is no suitable parameter in the cite news template that I can see.
  • What makes the BBC itself a suitable source for "It has been described as 'the most prestigious [award] for a single short story"?
  • The quote in the previous bullet should be in double quotion marks. (MOS:DOUBLE)
  • Spot check on "the richest prize in the world for a single short story" - no issues (except "Richard Lea" should appear as "Lea, Richard")
  • "Rosemary Westwood" should appear as Rosemary "Westwood, Rosemary"
  • Spot check on "Each year, the winner receives £15,000 and four shortlisted writers receive £600 each" - supported by the source; but I wonder if it would be better to phrase this with something like "As of 2024..." given that later we find out that originally "while runners up received £3,000 and shortlisted writers £500 each". Also, the prizes might not always be the same amounts in future.
  • "£500 each.[5][4]" - some editors prefer citations in numerical order. Not necessary to swap the five and four, but you could if you wanted to. (Same with "[4][1]" and "[16][1]")
  • Spot check on "It was founded in 2005 and announced at the Edinburgh International Book Festival the same year" - no issues
  • Optionally, you could add an author-link= parameter for Aida Edemariam.
  • Spot check on "The BBC National Short Story Award has never had an all-male shortlist" - source is from 2018 so cannot support "never"
  • Spot check on " In 2009, only women were featured on the shortlist" - no issues
  • Spot check on "Sarah Hall, who won the award in 2013 and 2020, is the only writer to have won the award twice" - source is from 2020 so can't support info from after that. It's perhaps fair to argue that it is supported by the fully cited tables later in the article, but is there a 2024 source that confirms this?

General comments

  • Per MOS:£, £ should only be wikilinked, if at all, at the first instance.
  • "Canadian writer D. W. Wilson became the youngest ever recipient of the award in 2011" - consider adding the author's age at time of winning.
  • I think that If a book is locked there's probably a good reason for that, don't you think? and And the moon descends on the temple that was might need some extra capitals - please review MOS:TITLECAPS and let me know what you think.
@Il lupa: Just making sure you're aware that feedback has been provided. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tagging me! Il lupa (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose I believe I've fixed all the issues except for the fact that I don't have a source for when the prize amounts changed so I can't see how to reword it to be clearer Il lupa (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Il lupa: How about something like "Naomi Wood won the 2023 award for Comorbidities and received £15,000. The other four shortlisted writers received £600 each." ? (I realised that Wood wasn't mentioned in the intro.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose Does Wood need to be mentioned in the intro? If not, I would probably be inclined to leave the lead as it is. Il lupa (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Il lupa: no, so how about something like "In 2023 the winner received £15,000 and the other four shortlisted writers received £600 each."? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose I've switched up the wording and references slightly so it should now be clear and address your original concern. Let me know what you think! Il lupa (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Il lupa: Thanks! All looks good now. Great work. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 14:39, 27 July 2024 (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) 20:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [17].[reply]

List of Seattle Kraken draft picks

Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have gotten the lead of the article to a level that I think meets the criteria. Everything else should be good too. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

MPGuy2824
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • One cell in every row should be the header cell and it should begin with a "!" instead of a "|". You can also use rowspan for the years, since a lot of them are in common. You should change the scope to "rowgroup" if you do this. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

  • Since their creation, the Kraken have drafted 28 players, the 2023 NHL entry draft being the third in which they participated. – The juxtaposition from picks to the 2023 being their third draft is choppy and needs rewording.
  • You switch back and forth calling them Seattle and Kraken in the lead, pick one and stick with it.
  • Down case 2021 NHL Entry Draft to 2021 NHL entry draft
  • There's a lot of info that could be helpful that's not included in the second paragraph and I think it needs to be expanded to better explain the draft process a bit. A high level overview obviously, but this isn't as clear as I think it could be.
  • After the end of his rookie 2022–23 season, Beniers won the Calder Memorial Trophy as the League’s best rookie – Remove "end of his rookie" from the first part of the sentence. The second part explains the award clearly enough that this information is redundant.
  • ...managing 24 goals and 33 assists in 80 games. – Probably improved by replacing "managing" with "having accumulated".
  • The Kraken's second overall draft pick in 2021 was the highest they have ever drafted. – Could be reworded to be better I think. Something like, "The highest the Kraken have ever drafted was in 2021, when they had the second overall pick." or "The Kraken have never selected higher than in 2021, when they had the second overall pick."
  • Don't switch between using "second" in the lead and then using "1st-round pick" at the end. Be consistent, at least in prose, with the usage of words.
  • Ref 5 missing publisher date
  • Date format is inconsistent in sources
  • Usage of publishers not consistent in refs (Ref 1 and 2 use "National Hockey League" while ref 3 uses "NHL.com")
  • Inconsistent wikilinking of publishers, please wikilink publishers for consistency
  • Ref 4 needs to be marked as a subscription being required
  • The source uses combines the ties plus overtime losses columns. Is there a reason you've separate them out? It doesn't look like there's any sources linked that show these being counted separately.
  • Per MOS:NOTSEEALSO, the see also section should not be linking to their first draft.

That's what I've got for now, though I think on a re-pass over I'll probably find more. Please ping me when you respond. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You missed a few, but this is the feedback I have:
  • Ref 4 – add |subscription=required
  • The source used combines the ties plus overtime losses columns. Is there a reason you've separate them out? It doesn't look like there's any sources linked that show these being counted separately.
  • Paragraph two could be improved, there's information that could be useful, such as the fact that, based on the source, it doesn't seem as simple as just being 18 to be drafted. There's also more info I'm sure those unfamiliar with hockey could find useful.
  • The images need alt text added for accessibility
  • ...Ryker Evans, Ryan Winterton, and 2022 fourth overall pick Shane Wright. – Remove the part about his pick. It's not specified for others so it's not necessary for Shane Wright.
  • General ref 2 – Add <code>|website=[[Hockey-Reference.com]]</code>, publisher can stay since they're the parent company
  • The table currently has a table title of "caption text"
  • Second image uses "first" and "4th", switch it to "fourth" for consistency.
  • This page is pretty light on SIGCOV, with only 7 sources, three of which are from the NHL and two of which are from sports databases. This could be improved upon.
  • Use "background-color" instead of just "background" for the column headers. If you do not do so, the sorting icon is missing, which makes the page below what we expect for accessibility. You also have an extra exclamation point in the column text, just before "scope", that should be removed.
  • If this is meant to be THE entirety of the team's picks, why are the picks from the 2021 NHL expansion draft not included?
That's what I've got for now. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the changes. The 2021 expansion draft was selecting players from 30 of the already existing teams, so it isn't the same as an entry draft. XR228 (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XR228: There's a number of points you have failed to address, some of which this is the third time I'm mentioning:
  • Ref 4 – For the third time, add |subscription=required to the reference, as a subscription is required to access the source
  • The source used combines the ties plus overtime losses columns. Is there a reason you've separate them out? It doesn't look like there's any sources linked that show these being counted separately. Needs to be called out or explained in some way.
  • Paragraph two could be improved, there's information that could be useful, such as the fact that, based on the source, it doesn't seem as simple as just being 18 to be drafted. There's also more info I'm sure those unfamiliar with hockey could find useful.
  • This page is pretty light on SIGCOV, with only 7 sources, three of which are from the NFL and two of which are from sports databases. This could be improved upon.
Further feedback:
  • General ref 1 – Change from publisher = |publisher=The Internet Hockey Database to |website=HockeyDB, based on the fact the Wiki page is called that
  • Draft picks are draft picks. I don't see a reason not to include other players that were drafted by this team.
  • Add the {{Use mdy dates|June 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description for consistent date formatting
As mentioned, ping me when you respond. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I've made the changes. Also, there is a difference between an ENTRY draft and an EXPANSION draft. The FL List of Atlanta Thrashers draft picks does not have any selections from Atlanta's expansion draft. XR228 (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XR228: I understand there's a difference between entry and expansion drafts. I'm heavily involved with NFL articles, particularly draft list promotions, and we have had expansion drafts as well. @The Kip: has discussed the issue of the expansion draft with me at his nomination for the Vegas Golden Knights. I don't love the exclusion of it, and I genuinely believe it's relevant, but I'm willing to let it slide and not use that as a reason to oppose promotion of these lists.
  • Prior to the 2005–06 season, the NHL instituted a penalty shootout for regular season games that remained tied after a five-minute overtime period, which prevented ties – Close, but might be a bit too wordy. What about something like "As of the 2005–06 season, the NHL implemented new tiebreaker procedures, making ties no longer possible."?
  • "Entry Drafts" should be lowercased.
  • Row scopes need to be declared with an exclamation point (! scope="row") to be accessible. | scope="row" is not acceptable for accessibility reasons.
I fixed the general reference myself. Again, please ping me when you respond. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh, @PresN, any other changes that need to be made? XR228 (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh I have made the requested changes. XR228 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MrLinkinPark333 (verification and copyvio check)

  • Table:
    • Individual references for Beniers, Evans, Winterton and Wright are needed to show their entire NHL career was with the Kraken.
    • Janicke (2021) was Left Winger.
    • Jackson (2022) was Centre.
    • Needs a reference to show the nationality of all of the players.
  • Lead:
    • The entire first paragraph is uncited. All of the content should be cited like at List of Atlanta Thrashers draft picks.
    • "Kraken have participated in three drafts and selected 28 players." -> four drafts and selected 36 players.
    • "The NHL entry draft is held each June" - not mentioned at the NHL guidelines.
    • "exceptions being players...age 18, 19, or 20." - this long sentence copies and closely paraphrases the four points from NHL operations. This quoted part should all be removed.
    • "order determined by the number of points earned by each team" - this part should be reworded a bit to meet WP:LIMITED to avoid similar wording at Entry Draft Order points at NHL operations.
    • "weighted lottery for the 16 non-playoff teams" - new updated source needed as the 2013 NHL Draft lottery source has 14 teams, not 16.
    • "four of the Kraken's draft picks have gone on to play with the Kraken" - Condor 2024 doesn't mention Shane Wright. Need an extra citation here.
    • "The team with the fewest points has the best chance of winning the lottery," - New source needed as the NHL operations guidelines don't mention a lottery.

Oppose Based on the copyvio from NHL operations, I will have to oppose for now. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @XR228. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Hey man im josh. I didn't see this. My bad. I'll get to this as soon as I can. XR228 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrLinkinPark333, I have made the requested changes. XR228 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. There's a few leftover points to go through:
  • The entire first paragraph in the lead needs citations.
  • order determined by the number of points earned by each team" - needs rewording to avoid close paraphrasing of NHL Operations.
  • allowing the winner to move up to the first overall pick" - This isn't 100% correct. Only the top 11 teams can win the #1 pick (#1 can't move up anymore, #2-#11 can move up 10 spots to #1) per NHL.
  • Table references for Benier, Evans, Winerton and Wright neeeded to show they only played with the Kraken. Otherwise, the shades and key can be removed
MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrLinkinPark333, I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kraken compete in the National Hockey League (NHL) as a member of the Pacific Division of the Western Conference and began play during the league's 2021–22 season," - Not verified by NHL 2018 as the team was not named yet, that they competed in the Western Conference/Pacific Division nor their first season was in 2021. An overall source about the Kraken's playing history and division/conference can work here.
  • making them the second newest team in the NHL" - The 2018 NHL source says they were scheduled to debut in 2021, while the 2024 NHL source does not mention Seattle was the 2nd newest. A different source is needed that shows the 2 newest teams are Seattle (2021) and Utah (scheduled 2024).
  • "Since their creation, the Kraken have participated in four drafts and selected 36 players" - Thank you for rewriting. This now needs a source.
  • "any of the top 11 teams to move up to the first overall pick" -> " any of the top 11 teams to win the first overall pick" (since the #1 team can't move up anymore)
MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrLinkinPark333, I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost there. "as a member of the Pacific Division of the Western Conference" -> "as a member of the Pacific Division" (as HockeyDB doesn't say Western). Once that's adjusted, you'll be good to go verification wise! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrLinkinPark333, I have made the change. XR228 (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrLinkinPark333 can you change this to "Support" XR228 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thank you for the changes! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Staraction

  • All images relevant to the article - perhaps include more if appropriate? Please ping me if you do.
  • All images have proper licenses
  • All images have alt text - perhaps change them to specify a particular format of image? ie. "Photograph of the Kraken's first ever draft pick, Matty Berniers"
  • All images have captions

Support on images. Thanks for your work @XR228! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Support! XR228 (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 01:19, 25 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [18].[reply]

1986–87 snooker world rankings

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you've seen any of the earlier Snooker world rankings articles and wondered how they could make the system even more complicated and unfair, the answers lie within. Ranking points, comparison of performances in the most recent year, merit points, "A" points and frames won are all in the mix. Steve Davis topped the list once again, by a considerable margin. As always, extracts from relevant sources are available on request to reviewers. All improvement suggestions are welcome. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "He noted that WPBSA chairman Rex Williams was ranked 16th instead of John Parrott who had the same number of ranking points as Williams but more merit points," => "He noted that WPBSA chairman Rex Williams was ranked 16th instead of John Parrott, who had the same number of ranking points as Williams but more merit points,"
  • "in the 1985/1986 season top 16 players were" => "in the 1985/1986 season the top 16 players were"
  • "Williams has been ranked 27th the previous season" => "Williams had been ranked 27th the previous season"
  • "Other Ranking Tournaments" => "Other ranking tournaments"
  • "If player were still equal" -> "If players were still equal" (in three places) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

  • Neal Foulds, ranked in the top 16 for the first time for 1986/1987, moving up to 13th from 23rd place. -- I think it should be a verb here as in moved up to 13th from 23rd place following a supplementary information in between.
  • That's all from me. Great addition to your series. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text.
  • Images are appropriately licensed (AGF on self-published work)
  • Images have succinct captions and are relevant to the article. Suggest italicizing "(pictured in [year])" in the captions. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a review, unrelated comment

@BennyOnTheLoose:: Just noting that I've renamed and tweaked the nomination based on the recent move discussion for this series. Hopefully you don't mind, and I apologize in advance if I've overstepped. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh all good. I copyedited this one so the body is consistent with the new title format. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

Assumed good faith on the sources that were inaccessible to me. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2024 (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) 00:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [19].[reply]

List of Johnson solids

Nominator(s): Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time nominating FL, and I hope this meets all the criteria of FL. One reason I am nominating this for the featured list is because it is a complete list of Johnson solids, along with the surface area and volume, as well as the symmetry. As for the background for someone who does not comprehend mathematics, especially in geometry, the Johnson solids were in the list proposed by Norman Johnson, and he conjectured that there were no other solids, after which was proved by Victor Zalgaller. I think I can give three examples for the exhibition:

There are actually 92 of them, but I would not exhibit them a lot here. I hope this could be the next FL of WP:WPM, and it could be the first FL of sister WikiProject, WP:3TOPE. Anyone, including someone interested in it, can review this. Many thanks for the comments and suggestions. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense

Claiming a spot here, since I think it's a great article and I still want to properly go through it like I promised. Remsense诉 07:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo

@Sgubaldo. I think I have complete all of the suggestions above. Let me know if there are any remaining missing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, I'll have a full read-through later. In the meantime, I've added some urls/other missing author links myself. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and made some copyedits. Feel free to revert an edit you're not happy with it.
Here are some more commments:
  • The passage
    These solids may be used to construct another polyhedron with the same properties, a process known as augmentation; attaching a prism or antiprism to those is known as elongation or gyroelongation respectively. Some others are constructed by diminishment, the removal of those from the component of polyhedra, or by snubification, a construction by cutting loose the edges, lifting the faces and rotate in certain angle, after which adding the equilateral triangles between them.
is a bit confusing to read because I'm not sure what 'those' is referring to. I'm reading it as you attach the prism/antiprism to any of the first six Johnson solids, but it's not very clear.
  • Is defining area and volume necessary? I'm specifically taking about the sentences "An area is a two-dimensional measurement calculated by the product of length and width, and the surface area is the overall area of all faces of polyhedra that is measured by summing all of them. A volume is a measurement of the region in three-dimensional space." I understand you have to consider WP:TECHNICAL but perhaps you could just include how the volume and surface area are calculated for a polyhedron and remove the definitions themselves.
  • Is the sentence "one case that preserves the symmetry by one full rotation and one reflection horizontal plane is of order 2, or simply denoted as " also necessary? You already explain the group and this is just one example
Sgubaldo (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "defining area and volume necessary": This is on purpose to make readers (for non-mathematicians, students, or anyone who is interested in it) recap the meaning of area and volume. If it does not exist, readers may search them on the previous wikilinked. I am aware that one problem here is our articles is somewhat technical, making readers even much more confused. Take an example of Surface area, stating that "a measure of the total area that the surface of the object occupies". This is not only to help readers to understand the definition, but rather to give the meaning of the object specifically. Here, I wrote the surface area of a polyhedron specifically as the total area of all polygona faces. So to put it plain, this is intended to summarize them specifically about the polyhedron's characteristics. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern was more whether the sentences "An area is a two-dimensional measurement calculated by the product of length and width" and "A volume is a measurement of the region in three-dimensional space." were necessary, but if you think they are per WP:TECHNICAL, then I'm fine with their inclusion. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr Anyways, final comment on this part: "The volume of a polyhedron is determined by involving its base and height (as in pyramids and prisms), slicing it off into pieces after which summing them up...." – I'm slightly unsure as to what 'involving its base and height' means here. Could you clarify? Sgubaldo (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is just like saying that volume of a prism and pyramid is the product of height and its base, with an exception that pyramid is one-third of it. The inside bracket is meant to show the merely examples. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr, could you rewrite the sentence a little to clarify that? I think it's still hard to understand in its current state. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to say that volume of a polyhedron can be calculated in different way. Take examples as in the prism and the pyramid. The volume of a prism is the product of base and height . The volume of a pyramid is one-third of the product of base and height . From all of these examples, their calculation only involves the base and height . Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr. Thank you, I understand now; these will be my final comments then, after which I can support.
  • What do you think about tweaking the relevant part of the sentence mentioned above to something like: "The volume of a polyhedron may be ascertained in different ways: either by decomposing it into smaller pieces, such as pyramids and prisms, calculating the volume of each component, and then computing their sum, or......"
  • When you say "meaning their construction does not involve both Archimedean and Platonic solids", is that intending that it doesn't involve both Archimedean and Platonic solids at the same time or that it involves neither of the two. If it's the former, then it's fine. If it's the latter, I think it should be changed to "meaning their construction does not involve neither Archimedean nor Platonic solids"
Sgubaldo (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "tweaking": What? This means something different. My interpretation is that you pointed the polyhedrons such as pyramids and prisms can be defined their volume by decomposing it into smaller pieces.
What I meant about those facts is that every polyhedron's volume is different to finding them. One example that I already explained is involving the produvt of base and height. However, not all the volume of polyhedrons can be done in that way. We can see an example of Triaugmented triangular prism in which constructed from a triangular prism by attaching three equilateral square pyramids onto its square faces. To find its volume, we need to slice it off into a triangular prism and three equilateral square pyramids again. Finding their volume, and then add up the volume again, and the volume of a triaugmanted triangular prism is total of those. But this method is not working for sphenomegacorona, and the alternative way is by using root of polynomial, as described in OEIS. That is what I meant also in the previous copyedit. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "elementar": The definition by not involving Platonic and Archimedean solids was copyedited from the previous meaning in several articles of Johnson solids. However, Cromwell and Johnson gives different meaning, so I'm going to copyedited the rest of them. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgubaldo Update. This was already discussed after I changing the definition; you can see my talk page. Feel free to ask. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel really silly, I was misreading the sentence about finding the volume and couldn't see there were three different methods. The changes to the definition look good. There were a couple of minor prose issues I had, but to not enter a WP:FIXLOOP, I tried making the changes myself. Please do check and revert if you disagree with anything.
Support promotion, I hope this becomes one of the few mathematics-related FLs. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "": Not expert in symmetry here. As far as I'm concerned, the symmetry is explicitly stated in the source [20], consisting of identity and mirror plane, and this can be denoted as . Is there something wrong? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert either. What I was trying to say was that you explain the symmetry group with the sentence "The symmetry group of order preserves the symmetry by rotation around the axis of symmetry and reflection on horizontal plane", but then also go into specific detail about , which seems to be a specific case of . My concern was whether this was necessary, since no other examples of a symmetry group are explored in the article. Is it because it needs to be shown that is denoted as ? Sgubaldo. It is a mirror symmetry, merely. (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles says it is involution group symmetry, as it is shown in List of spherical symmetry groups,. The notation is in Schoenflies notation. If it's possible, let me ask this in WP:WPM to gain more precise meaning ensurely. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm happy with this part now. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "these solids". It means that the first six Johnson solids can be used to construct more new Johnson solids by attaching the uniform polyhedrons (as it is included in the article), and those constructions are already mentioned above, with some exceptions that snubification does not need them basically. Some of the Johnson solids cannot be constructed without them. I think I will fix this one, but I have to be careful my writing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I've made some minor edits here too and I'm happy with this part now. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Solid name becomes !scope=col | Solid name. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1 becomes !scope=row | 1. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 21:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Implemented them all. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

This is already 20 days, almost three weeks, and there are no responses from the reviewer. Pinging @Sgubaldo, @Remsense, and @PresN. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ping you with my last reply, but I supported above. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will have remarks by the end of tomorrow, apologies. Remsense诉 14:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense: Just pinging to see if you're still planning to follow up with a review. Ideally, a source review would be very much appreciated if you're at all familiar with the subject matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sending a ping again to @Remsense. Please at least just let us know if you're no longer interested in doing a review. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw, as I don't think I'm presently qualified for this. Deep apologies. Remsense诉 15:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense. That's fine. I merely waited for someone reviewed the article; otherwise, the nomination would start over again because of inactivity by reviewers. @Hey man im josh. Do you mind if you can review the article? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this isn't an area I'd be comfortable reviewing. One thing not to clear me, at a passing glance, is what verifies what's actually in the table? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh. Sorry, I can't comperehend your words. Can you clarify? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind @Dedhert.Jr. I was asking what verifies the formulas in the last column, but I missed that there was a reference in the column header. Though, if you were referring to the first part of the comment, I'm not comfortable enough with the subject matter to review it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh Well, I'm now worried that this nomination will expire. I am tired of repeating nominations in the same situation. I already saw this when I looked up the FAC. Should I ping members on related topics WikiProject, or are there alternative ways? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to share your nomination at a relevant WikiProject, but we're pretty patient with nominations. There are currently 8 people nominations that are older than yours and I promoted one yesterday that was over two months old. For a source review, I think someone from a relevant WikiProject would be excellent. Perhaps a message asking if anybody is a subject matter expert and could provide a source review at the nomination? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh That's a good idea. Thank you. But how long does the nomination will be expired? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hard established hard deadline. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. I have invited the members, but I doubt that some of them will ignore it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dantheanimator

  • "The points, lines, and polygons of a polyhedron are referred to as its vertices, edges, and faces[,] respectively" <- add in comma (shown in brackets)
  • "they do not share the same plane, and do not "lie flat"." <- I think the comma here can be removed
  • "the faces are regular and they are vertex-transitivity" <- from my non-expert understanding/reading of this sentence, I'm guessing it probably should be reworded as "the faces are regular and the vertices have vertex-transitivity"
  • "they are the Platonic solids and Archimedean solids, as well as prisms and antiprisms" <- the way I read it, it sounds like these are examples/types of uniform polyhedra right? If that is the case, I think a better way to word this sentence would be "A uniform polyhedron is a polyhedron in which the faces are regular and have vertex-transitivity; examples include Platonic and Archimedean solids as well as prisms and antiprisms."
  • Since the nationality of Zalgaller is mentioned, for consistency, "after mathematician Norman Johnson (1930–2017)" should be reworded as "after American mathematician Norman Johnson (1930–2017)"
  • "create two small convex polyhedrons" <- shouldn't it be "create two small convex polyhedra" since its plural?
  • "The Johnson solids satisfying this criteria are the first six—equilateral square pyramid, pentagonal pyramid, triangular cupola, square cupola, pentagonal cupola, and pentagonal rotunda—as well as the tridiminished icosahedron, parabidiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, tridiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, snub disphenoid, snub square antiprism, sphenocorona, sphenomegacorona, hebesphenomegacorona, disphenocingulum, bilunabirotunda, and triangular hebesphenorotunda." <- this should probably be divided up into at least a few sentences (e.g. keep it as "The Johnson solids satisfying this criteria are the first six—equilateral square pyramid, pentagonal pyramid, triangular cupola, square cupola, pentagonal cupola, and pentagonal rotunda" and then have the next sentence saying something like "The criteria is also satisfied by eleven other Johnson solids, specifically the tridiminished icosahedron, parabidiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, tridiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, snub disphenoid, snub square antiprism, sphenocorona, sphenomegacorona, hebesphenomegacorona, disphenocingulum, bilunabirotunda, and triangular hebesphenorotunda." (would be great to divide this second sentence more but I'm not sure what the best way to do that would be (maybe group them up by their Johnson numbers (e.g. "satisfied by eleven other Johnson solids, with [insert name] and [insert name] in the Johnson number range 60 to 70, [insert name], [insert name], and [insert name] in the Johnson number range 70 to 80, ..." (I didn't actually check the numbers for how many elementary polyhedra there are in each Johnson number range so don't copy my sample verbatim)
  • also, just a note, the reason I think some additional, probably not too helpful, text should be added to the above sentence is due to MOS:SEAOFBLUE
  • "in various processes" <- this might be completely wrong but would "through various mathematical procedures" be a better way to phrase this?
  • "Augmentation involves attaching them onto one or more faces of polyhedra" <- for clarity, recommend replacing "them" with "the Johnson solids"
  • "prism or antiprism respectively" -> "prism or antiprism[,] respectively" (add in comma)
  • "may be composed in a group, alongside the number of elements, known as the order" <- not sure if this is necessary/beneficial but would it be a good idea to rewrite this as: "may be composed in a group, alongside the group's number of elements, known as the order"
  • "In two-dimensional space, these transformations include rotating around the center of a polygon and reflecting an object around the perpendicular bisector of a polygon." <- also not sure if this is needed but might help to clarify whether the rotation and reflection are based on same polygon or they can be different polygons
  • "known as the axis of symmetry, and reflection relative to perpendicular planes passing through the bisector of a base" -> "known as the axis of symmetry, and the reflection relative to perpendicular planes passing through the bisector of a base" (add "the")
  • Consider adding a See also section with links to similar lists/articles (maybe Table of polyhedron dihedral angles?)

Well that's everything I have! The table looks perfect and the article is just overall really well done! Thanks for bringing this to FL Dedhert.Jr and excited to see this get promoted! :) Dan the Animator 21:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dantheanimator I have accomplished most of your comments, but not of them.
  • Re "in various process": to be honest, what I meant that is those Johnson solids can be constructed by literally attaching them. I think there is no guidance procedure of how to construct by attaching mathematically unless it describes the construction with Cartesian coordinates.
  • Re "in two-dimensional space": it was intended to describe the cyclic group and dihedral group in two-dimensional space, to understand the analogy symmetry in three-dimensional space.
  • Re "See also": I don't mind that, but I'm aware that the table has already had many problems if I looked at it. Will think about it later.
Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dedhert.Jr! Everything looks great now though for the See also, don't worry about choosing that article! I just spotted it from a cursory glance of Category:Polyhedra and thought it look/sounded similar to Johnson solids. Feel free to chose any article/list you know of with an English wiki article that isn't already linked in the article that you think would be helpful for readers interested in Johnson solids. If it helps, here's the link to the guidelines with tips for making see also sections. Many thanks again for your work on this list! Dan the Animator 06:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, almost forgot... I now fully support promoting this nom and think once its source review is completed, it should be ready for FL! Dan the Animator 06:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:54, 5 August 2024 (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) 00:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [21].[reply]

List of Line of Duty episodes

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second and final stop at FLC for a good topic I'm working towards. Still waiting on quite a few GA reviews before I can get there (plus two articles I still need to do some expansion on), so I thought I'd get this FLC going in the meantime. This is the episodes page for a popular UK television series. It has set quite a few records in terms of viewership so there were enough sources to write a pretty engaging lead so I spent a few hours tonight expanding it. I look forward and thank you all in advance for any reviews! :) TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "directed towards BBC Two[3] which" - I would recommend a comma after Two
  • "in over ten years[12] leading" - also a comma after years
  • "The series has been nominated for several awards[29] also gaining" - comma after awards
  • "Additionally, Craig Parkinson,[45] Jessica Raine,[46] Jason Watkins,[47] and Anna Maxwell Martin[48] also star" - I don't think you need to say both "additionally" and "also". Is there a way to reword this?
  • "special mini-episode written by the Dawson Brothers" - our article says the group is called Dawson Bros.
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You strike again as my first reviewer!
    I fixed the first four comments.
    For the fifth: I considered listing them as Bros. based on our article, but the source I cited the credit to lists them as the Brothers (specifically "The virtual pantomime has been written by the Dawson Brothers, the comedy writers behind this year’s hilarious Line Of Duty Sport Relief Special [...]") The mini-episode didn't actually have any credits, which is what we list ours from most of the time. That said, I don't have any objection whatsoever to changing it if you still think it should be changed, I just wanted to mention my thought process first?
    Thanks again, TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824

Dantheanimator

  • For all the Series tables, I think a ref should be included in the Directed by and Original air date column headers
  • The Line of Duty image next to the lead has no caption/borders/anything. Not sure if this standard but thought I'd comment on it just in case
  • Consider adding a See also section with links to similar lists/articles (maybe List of police television dramas?)

Just a quick pass for now, probably will put any additional suggestions later today if I'm feeling up for it... Dan the Animator 21:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Series three surpassed viewership of the first series" -> "Series three surpassed [the] viewership of the first series" (add "the")
  • "Around this time, a restructuring of BBC television networks occurred causing BBC One and BBC Two to now be controlled by the same person." is "this time" referring to around the commissioning of the new series in April? (would help to specify for clarity imo) who's the "same person" who gained control of both BBCs? (would be helpful to name them, especially if they have a wikipage); also would recommend rewording the sentence in general to something like "Around the time of the commissioning of the new series, a restructuring of BBC television networks occurred, causing ownership over BBC One and BBC Two to become consolidated under [businessman/insert profession name] [insert person's name]."
  • "The decision was made to promote" -> for better flow imo: "Following these changes, the decision was made to promote"
  • The article for Sport Relief has it italicized but here its left in normal text. Would recommend italicizing it in all instances if that's how it should be
  • "The series has been nominated for several awards, also gaining a cult following and becoming the subject of critical acclaim" -> one way it can be reworded: "The series has since been the subject of critical acclaim, receiving nominations for several awards and gaining a large cult following"
  • "as AC-12 officers Steve Arnott and Kate Fleming" -> "as AC-12 officers Steve Arnott and Kate Fleming[, respectively]"
  • "be in a large conspiracy" -> "be [involved] in a large conspiracy"
  • Optional: For the Line of Duty : UK viewers per episode (millions) table near the bottom, add a note/footnote/something briefly indicating what "–" means (I think its fine as-is tbh but I thought it was kinda helpful having a note about it in another FL I looked over recently)
  • For ref #73, I'm getting a: Cite error: The named reference Sport Relief Dates was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  • If it's possible, I recommend trying to consolidate refs #31-34 (next to "subject of critical acclaim") into one reference similar to how ref #55 is a "multi ref" reference; check out Mission: Impossible – Fallout for lots of good examples of how this is done using the note template (see the notes section in that article)

That's everything I got! Awesome work TheDoctorWho (talk)!! :) Dan the Animator 07:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference for the air date columns. I also added a border for the image in the article. The directors are credited within the episodes via on-screen credits, so I believe that this would semi-fall under the same guidelines as MOS:PLOTSOURCE (in that the information is sourced to the work itself). I can probably still put together for sources for it if it's absolutely necessary to gain your support. I do also question how well that link would serve readers in a see also section. In the parent article possibly, but from the list of episode page it doesn't quite feel as necessary. Similar to the last point though, I'd also compromise and add it if necessary for a support !vote. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and don't worry about it! I think the changes help but its perfectly fine not having the ref for the credits column! For see also, its completely optional so up to you if you want to add it! I like to suggest it though since most articles usually have other articles that aren't linked in the body but would be interesting for readers (also feel free to choose any relevant articles... definitely doesn't have to be List of police television dramas which I found through a quick browse in the categories). Please ping if I can help with anything and great work Gallifreyan! ;) Dan the Animator 07:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dantheanimator: I've addressed everything you left in your full review, bar the optional one. The "–" denotes that an episode with that number doesn't exist within the series (some series have more episodes than others). I started to add a note attempting to explain that, but it seemed to get confusing quickly when I say that episodes don't "exist" when they were never planned to be created in the first place. Thank you so much for the review! TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that was quick! Might as well reply now before I head to sleep... I support this being promoted and strongly believe its ready for FL! Thanks again Doctor for your great work (both on wiki and across the realm of timey wimey stuff :) Dan the Animator 08:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:54, 5 August 2024 (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 archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [22].[reply]

Lists of Green Bay Packers players

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With some precedence of alternative lists at FLC (see Outline of lichens), I am offering up a list of lists to FLC: Lists of Green Bay Packers players. This index list provides an overview of all the various player-related lists for the Green Bay Packers. This includes 16 different lists (noting that the All-Time Roster is split into 4 additional standalone lists due to length), as well as other pertinent information (the team's current roster, photos on Commons and relevant external links). Per FLC criteria, this list provides a full lead summarizing the relevant material and has 3 freely licensed images. As always, happy to discuss and resolve any comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment

@Gonzo fan2007 Excuse me if I am wrong, but why does the end of the lead say The following lists provide an overview of notable groupings of Green Bay Packers players. Is it supposed to be like that? Sorry, I’m dumb so tell me if I’m wrong. 48JCL • (📲/📝) 01:19, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL I'm not sure there is a right or wrong. I just thought it was a nice way to end the lead to clarify to the reader that the following are lists, not individual entries like a typical list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks for the clarification. 48JCL • (📲/📝) 01:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, 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, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [23].[reply]

Detroit Lions draft history

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My last 11 nominations have been based on NFL first-round draft picks, but given that that series is now all promoted or nominated, it's time to move on to my next project! I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria and as part of what I hope to be my first featured topic (this would be the subject of the topic, with 3 sub lists eventually). This list is based on Green Bay Packers draft history, which was promoted to featured list status on March 23, 2024. As always, I will do my best to respond quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo_fan2007 (Source review: Passed)

  • When you do complete the individual picks lists, are you planning to link them from the table, similar to Green Bay Packers draft history?
  • the franchise was relocated to Detroit and renamed to the Detroit Lions in, I think you could drop the second "Detroit" and just say "renamed to the Lions".
  • Billy Sims and 1950 NFL draft have duplicate links in the lead
  • Source review:
    • Reliable sources on what is being cited
    • Consistent formatting
    • Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for
    • Ref 10 and 44 are the same, should be combined.
  • Support on sources and overall! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the review @Gonzo fan2007!
    • If you view the table with source editor you'll see that I've actually got all the links in the table ready and commented out for when I move the individual pick lists to main space.
    • I think you could drop the second "Detroit" and just say "renamed to the Lions". – I'm hesitant to do this just for the reason that someone might mislead the statement to mean they were renamed to the "Portsmouth Lions".
    • Refs 10 and 44 have been combined.
    Aside from the comment about naming, I believe everything has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Awesome, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

  • With the eigth pick -- eighth pick
  • In addition to the 1984 supplemental draft, since 1977 the NFL has hosted an annual supplemental draft -- think it should work better if changed to: In addition to the 1984 supplemental draft, the NFL has hosted an annual supplemental draft since 1977...
  • The Lions have selected first overall in a draft four times, selecting Frank Sinkwich -- suggest switching variation on selected then selecting to avoid being repetitive
  • That's all from me. Great work as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pseud 14:
    • Fixed typo
    • Made suggested change
    • The Lions have selected first overall in a draft four times, selecting... -> The Lions have drafted first overall four times, selecting... – Does that work you think?
    I very much appreciate your feedback, thank you for the review! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes look good. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "In 1936, the Lions took part in the first NFL draft of college football players and have participated in every NFL draft since." => "The Lions took part in the first NFL draft of college football players in 1936 and have participated in every NFL draft since."
  • "except for the short-lived All-America Football Conference (AAFC) in the late 1940s" - does this mean that that league also had a draft? If so then "except for that of the short-lived All-America Football Conference (AAFC) in the late 1940s"
  • "special drafts have occurred. This included" => "special drafts have occurred. These included"
  • " the number of rounds and the number of picks has fluctuated significantly" => " the number of rounds and the number of picks have fluctuated significantly"
  • "The Lions participated in in the most recent draft in 2024" - duplicate "in"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In 1936, the Lions took part in the first NFL draft of college football players and have participated in every NFL draft since." -> "The Lions took part in the first NFL draft of college football players in 1936 and have participated in every NFL draft since." – Done, that does work better imo.
    • "except for the short-lived All-America Football Conference (AAFC) in the late 1940s" - does this mean that that league also had a draft? If so then "except for that of the short-lived All-America Football Conference (AAFC) in the late 1940s" – It did, I've made the change.
    • "special drafts have occurred. This included" -> "special drafts have occurred. These included" – Done.
    • " the number of rounds and the number of picks has fluctuated significantly" -> " the number of rounds and the number of picks have fluctuated significantly" – Done.
    • "The Lions participated in in the most recent draft in 2024" - duplicate "in" – D'oh, done.
    Thanks so much for the review and feedback @ChrisTheDude! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee V

EN-Jungwon
  • Ref 16 replace |last1=Rosdon with |last1=Risdon
  • Ref 25 replace |first1=Matthew with |first1=Michael

-- EN-Jungwon 07:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EN-Jungwon: I have made the changes. Thank you for catching these. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EN-Jungwon 13:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 18:54, 25 June 2024 (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) 00:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [24].[reply]

New York City scenic landmarks

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete, comprehensive list of scenic landmarks designated by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. Scenic-landmark designations are one of four landmark designations that the LPC is capable of granting, along with individual-landmark, interior-landmark, and historic-district designations. Though only 12 scenic landmarks have been designated in NYC, they range from world-renowned icons like Central Park to small neighborhood plazas like Verdi Square. After having given this list a once-over, I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 13:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 20 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

  • Ref 7 – Note as page 7
  • Ref 8 – Note as page 37
  • Ref 10 – Note as page 45
  • Ref 12 – Note as page 47
  • Ref 13 – Note as page 47
  • Ref 14 – Note as page 43
  • Ref 15 – Note as page 49
  • Ref 16 – Note as page 36
  • Ref 19 – Note as page 64
  • Ref 22 – Note as section M, page 1
  • Ref 24 – The source shows a publish date of July 16, 2008, but the reference lists August 15, 2016.
  • Ref 25 – I'm seeing a publish date of May 2 @ 8:07pm at the source vs the reference listing May 3. Did you mean to put May 3 as the date based on UTC time?
  • Ref 30 – I notice right under the text it mentions a copright for the Associated Press. Is this the agency in this case?
  • Ref 32 – Add Veronica Rose as author
  • Ref 33 – Remove "Bronx Times" from title. Should the publisher be Bronx Times-Reporter? Or should Bronx Times-Reporter possibly be moved to Bronx Times intead?
  • Ref 34 – Update website to "Norwood News" instead of "Norwood News – Serving Norwood, Bedford Park, Fordham and University Heights"
  • Ref 36 – Note as page 10
  • Ref 39 – I note that the publisher's article is at Smithsonian (magazine) and Template:Smithsonian Institution lists the article as "Smithsonian magazine". Should this title be downcased, or should the template possibly be uppercased?
  • Ref 44 – Note as section C, page 1
  • Ref 51 – Note as section 1, page 27
  • A number of the NYT sources need to be called out as subscription access
  • The first and fourth source under the sources section wikilink to the publisher, whereas the rest of the references and sources in the list do not
  • City Room as a source – I understand blogs are often, if not usually, considered unreliable. Is City Room treated as a traditional blog, or is the pulisher / platform more reliable because it being hosted / affiliated with the New York Times?
  • Should "The Bronx" be sorting as "Bronx" instead? Or is it synonymous enough that people would actually look under T first?
  • I think making the description and location unsortable would be beneficial since the sorts for those columns aren't actually helpful in this case
  • In the Old Croton Aqueduct Walk row, you wikilinked to Carrère & Hastings which actually redirects to Carrère and Hastings. Probably better to replace "&" with "and" to keep consistent with the article.

That's what I've got for now. Good seeing you at FLC EpicGenius! Please ping me when you reply and I hope to see you around these parts more ;)

Thanks for the review @Hey man im josh, and great to see you here as well. I've fixed almost all of these now.
  • For ref 30, yes, that is the agency.
  • I've fixed the page numbers for the NYT, and the publishers/works for refs 33, 34, and 39.
  • For "The Bronx", most people would look under "Bronx" first.
  • I think City Room falls under WP:NEWSBLOG, but the writers there are all NYT staff writers; for example, the writer of this piece was Sewell Chan, who worked at the NYT at the time. It was called a blog because, at the time, most NYT articles appeared in print before they appeared online, whereas the blogs appeared online first (or only appeared online).
  • I haven't changed the row headers to make these two columns unsortable, but I will do so shortly.
– Epicgenius (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh I see you can't change the columns to be unsortable. I'm satisfied with the answers and changes. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Scenic landmarks are city-owned sites [....] which is also at least 30 years old" - there's a grammar disconnect in this sentence
  • Can't see any particular reason for "Pulitzer Fountain" and "Giuseppe Verdi Monument" to be in italics
  • That's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review @ChrisTheDude. I have fixed both of these issues now. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Dylan620

  • Alt text is present for every image.
  • All images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
  • Sourcing for each image checks out.
  • All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.

The only thing I would fix is that the description pages for some images are missing the NRHP tags, but I can fix that myself after I hit 'publish changes'. Support on image review. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:20, 18 June 2024 (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) 00:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [25].[reply]

List of accolades received by Inception

Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My fourth list of accolades nomination. This time, we have another Nolan great, the 2010 film Inception.

Note: My Joker nomination has received four supports, so I am adding a second one. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

MPGuy2824

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:54, 25 June 2024 (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.

Older nominations

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) 00:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC) [26].[reply]

List of historic places in Kaikōura District

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of these Heritage New Zealand lists! Slowly but surely, the histories of the territorial authorities are getting covered by these. Kaikōura District is a rural, isolated region along the mountainous northeastern coast of South Island. Despite only having around 4,000 residents, it boasts ten different historic places — plus two former ones that have sadly been destroyed. I hope everyone enjoys! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:12, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

MPGuy2824
  • Does this pass WP:NLIST? It might be better to group these lists by NZ region, instead of by territorial authority.

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MPGuy2824: Most territorial authorities have 50+ historic sites; I'm just starting with the smallest. The largest (not counting Auckland and Dunedin, which feel like unfair comparisons here) would be Far North District, with 371. I feel it would simply be unhelpful to group these by region, as the regions would all be several hundred sites long. Canterbury and Otago would have 800. (And, I feel most important for NLIST, Heritage New Zealand lists these sites by local authority on their website.) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:10, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Tourism, alongside agriculture and cheesemaking, have become important industries in the area today" - this isn't grammatically correct. I suggest either "Tourism, agriculture and cheesemaking have become important industries in the area today" or, if the point is that tourism is new compared to the other two, then "Tourism has become an important industry in the area today, alongside agriculture and cheesemaking
    • Fixed. -G
  • "the eponymous district center of Kaikōura became a small and isolated fishing village after colonisation." - I am not at all familiar with spellings used in New Zealand, but is this mixture of US-style and UK-style spellings really correct? In contrast to "colonisation", later on we have "standardized" and "organized" (US-style) as well as "favor".
    • Oops, always forget to make sure these have NZ spellings. Fixed. - G
  • "Associated with the Ngāti Kurī hapū of the Ngāi Tahu iwi." - this isn't a complete sentence so it doesn't need a full stop
  • "Was occupeid by the Hailes family" - second word is spelt incorrectly
    • Oops. Fixed! - G
  • That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

  • I think you're missing "The Elms Farm Complex" from your former list
  • Could add an additional ref or two from other sources into the lead, possibly in the first paragraph, since the article is largely sourced to one source

That's the only criticisms I have. Good stuff! Ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: I think I made all the changes you asked! Added a new source to the lede. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up comments:
  • Down case "Former" to "former" in the Elms Farm Complex line added
  • Fix publisher link in ref 2 (you did not finish piping it apparently)
That SHOULD be in once that's fixed. When that's done please do ping me again @Generalissima. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: Oops! Fixed. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dajasj
  • I'm not sure whether this is something that can be addressed, because I see this often on Wikipedia. But I have a hard time enjoying the table, because there is one small column ("Notes") that is very long every row and all the other columns are mostly whitespace. On both mobile and laptop, I am not even able to see the entire first row on my screen. So I had three ideas:
    • Could the images be moved to a gallery? That leaves more room for the Notes column. Downside is that this might only work for a smaller table, while I read above that there will be longer tables in the future.
    • Do these historic sites meet the notability guidelines? The entire problem would be solved if the information is moved to separate pages.
    • Should the table perhaps be just a list? One would ofc lose the sortability, but there would be less issues with style. So the question is, is the sortability of these columns so important?
  • As I said, I can imagine ignoring all these ideas, but it might be some food for thought. Dajasj (talk) 07:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a perfectly normal and acceptable table format which I see no issues with. I personally find the images in-line and sortability to be helpful. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Dylan620

  • All images have suitable alt text.
  • All images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle (and are quite pretty, I might add).
  • All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
  • Sourcing for each image checks out.

Support on image review. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:30, 21 June 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [27].[reply]

List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2017)

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Explicit (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third Inkigayo list that I am nominating to become a featured list. The format of this list is similar to the previous two lists. Appreciate any feedback. -- EN-Jungwon 16:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

MPGuy2824
  • "since July, 2016" remove the comma.
  • Does Korea use the mdy system of writing dates?
  • Their singles "Knock Knock", "Signal" and "Likey" ranked number one for three weeks each and achieved a triple crowns in 2017, while "Heart Shaker" went on to achieve a triple crown the following year.
  • You can remove the row stating that '"—" denotes an episode did not air that week.' since this info appears in the 'key' table. Alternatively, you can make sure that it always sorts at the bottom.
  • 'Prior to her official debut, Minseo took her first award win for "Yes".' This is begging for more explanation.
  • That's all I got. Please ping me here after you are done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 all done. Majority of Korea related articles use mdy format. From what I can tell this seems to be the accepted format. For Minseo, there is a detailed explanation at Minseo_(singer)#2015–2017:_Pre-debut:_Superstar_K_7,_"Monthly_Yoon_Jong-shin" (last paragraph). It is also mentioned in the source. -- EN-Jungwon 16:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find anything specific in the MOS for dates in Korea-related articles. The date formatting seems consistent throughout the article, so ok.
  • Minseo's pre-debut debut: If you can manage to put the explanation in a few words and incorporate it in that the sentence, it would be great. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Korea uses YMD (e.g. 2024년 6월 6일 -> 2024 June 6). There is no established preference in the English language in Korea for MDY or DMY, although you'll often see MDY because Korea leans closer to the American side of the Anglosphere.
    My understanding is that we follow MOS:DATERET for articles without strong MOS:DATETIES (e.g. if the article is about UK–Korea ties then maybe DMY is more appropriate?). Whichever style the primary contributer to the article uses, we follow. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 I couldn't think of a good way to put an explanation there so I removed the mention of Minseo's pre-debut. I don't think it's that relevant to this list so it shouldn't become a big issue. Thanks for the review and sorry for taking so long to reply. -- EN-Jungwon 18:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824, in the Music Bank 2023 FLC you suggested that the date is the unique cell of every row and should be made into the header cell, instead of the episode number. I was thinking about it and wondered if something like this would be acceptable to make the column sort correctly. -- EN-Jungwon 10:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO somebody looking at the wikicode would be able to understand why those particular numbers are used. So, yes, your linked diff would be acceptable. Visually, (and for screen readers) the emdashes being the header cell in rows still seems weird to me. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I did some minor copyediting; feel free to revert. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Since all the sources are in Korean, which I can't read, I'll have to wait for a source review, but I'm expecting to support at that point. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Staraction

  • All images have alt text except for the one with Sunmi.
  • All images relevant to the text
  • All images captioned appropriately
  • All images sourced under appropriate licenses

Thanks for your work @Jungwon and @Explicit. Staraction (talk | contribs) 22:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Staraction, added alt text to Sunmi's image. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 12:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

  • Source review: Passed
    • Reliable enough for the information being cited
    • Consistent date formatting
    • Consistent and proper reference formatting
    • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
    • Spot checks on sources match what they are being cited for

Note that I assumed good faith on machine translations and made some changes to some of the references. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2024 (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) 00:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [28].[reply]

List of music released by Romanian artists that has charted in major music markets

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it offers a well-written and well-sourced overview over the most successful Romanian music released. It is the first list of its kind here on Wikipedia, but I believe it meets the required criteria. I am happy for any comment. Greets, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment - alt text is needed for the images in the article. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Staraction: Done. Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Unusual and very interesting topic for an article. Here are my comments:

  • "Over the years, several songs and albums released by" - first three words are a bit vague. Maybe "Since the 1970s".....?
  • "The first documented instance are the works of nai player Gheorghe Zamfir." - I doubt that there any instances which are not documented, so I would change this to "The first Romanian artist to chart in such markets was the nai player Gheorghe Zamfir."
  • "soprano opera singer Angela Gheorghiu started charting multiple albums" => "soprano opera singer Angela Gheorghiu charted multiple albums"
  • "and in a few other European countries" => "and in European countries"
  • "both of which stand as two of the " => "which stand as two of the "
  • ""Musica" (2011) by group Fly Project " => ""Musica" (2011) by the group Fly Project "
  • "as well as "I Need Your Love" " => "and "I Need Your Love" "
  • Notes: "This article lists all music releases, where there is at least one Romanian artist or act credited among the lead or featured artist(s)." => "This article lists all charting releases, where there is at least one Romanian artist or act credited among the lead or featured artist(s)."
  • "has annualy published" => "has annually published"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Many thanks for your comments! I solved them. Let me know if you support the nomination. Greets, Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

  • This is fairly nitpick-y, but I do not think "several" in this part, (several songs and albums released by), is needed. It comes across more as a filler word in this context and in my opinion, it does not add that much for the reader.
Removed
  • I would remove the links for studio albums and singles as I believe that they are examples of overlinking. The rest of the links look good to me so these are the only two that I would unlink as most readers would be familiar with both of these concepts.
Removed
  • I am uncertain about the wording for this part, (the only documented Romanian song to chart in Brazil). The "documented" part makes it seem like there are gaps in information about Brazil's music charts and that there may be other Romanian songs that could have appeared on the Brazilian, but they are just not "documented". Is that the intended meaning? Would anything be lost or changed by removing "documented" from this part?
"Documented" is needed here since Brazil is not a country that has an easily searchable chart archive. "Stereo Love" is the only song we can prove charted there, but my personal opinion is that at least the other big international hit "Mr. Saxobeat" charted there too (it's just we don't have the archives).

I am glad to see you back on Wikipedia! Great work with this list. This is an interesting topic, and I do not think that I have seen a similar type of list in the FLC space (although I have not been particularly active in the FLC process or with FLs or lists in general for some time now). I only have three comments, and they are rather nitpick-y. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this list for promotion. Hopefully, this review will encourage others to take a look at this FLC. Have a great rest of your day and/or night (whichever it is when you are reading this lol). Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you very much for your comments :) I'm here more rarely now and only for special projects. Thank you so much for your words as well :) Done everything, except for one comment I left. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I was able to help out with this FLC. Your reply about the Brazil chart makes sense to me. Best of luck with your future work on here. I hope everything is going well for you overall. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments & thoughts

  • There's a dynamic list template at the top of the article. Per #6 Stability at WP:FLCR, not sure if this is allowed but worth pointing out
I have seen other dynamic lists being promoted to FLC status, including my own List of certified albums in Romania. In my opinion, the status of being a dynamic list doesn't affect the stability. Even if this list is probably not complete (since I occasionally add entries I find out about), I would say the "content does not change significantly from day to day" since it already covers the majority of works that have charted.
  • "were certified multiple times platinum by Music Canada" -> should this be: "were certified platinum multiple times by Music Canada"?
This is how you refer to music recording certifications. For example, you would also say "It was certified two times/double platinum" rather than "It was certified platinum twice".
  • "in selected regions" -> maybe use different word (maybe "in a number of regions"?)
I ended up using "some"; "in a number of regions" implies it was successful in several regions, which is not the case.
  • For reference #47: "Dance Club Songs". Billboard. 3 October 2015. Archived from the original on 21 April 2022. Retrieved 4 July 2024.(subscription required), there's a parameter in the {{cite web}} template for source access level so a separate subscription template shouldn't have to be used
Done
  • Apply the above for any other refs if there are any other and in general go through the refs to make sure everything's consistently formatted, no unused params, etc. (I'm not too familiar with the way these refs are done so the final say with that's probably best left for the source reviewer
Unused parameters give off a warning when you try to edit the article; in this case, no warning appears, so this indicates there are no parameter problems. There was one more ref with a subscription template, which I have fixed.
  • Completely optional but I think it'd be good to add in the Inter-language links ({{ILL}}s) for the album and song titles where there isn't an English wikipage for the album/song already
Done
  • "She would go on to have two more top ten hits in Italy around the same time as group Akcent experienced moderate success in some European countries with their single "Kylie" (2005)." -> "She went on to have two more top ten hits in Italy at around the same time as the group Akcent" (personally, I also think the tone here might be slightly too informal but I'll leave it to others to decide on that)
Done
  • "would establish itself as part of the international mainstream over the course of the next few years" -> "established itself as part of the..."
Done
  • Go through lead and make sure that it uses the past tense when talking about the past (e.g. take out "would go on to")
Done. No other instance found.
  • "which stand as two of the most" -> maybe just say "which are two of the most"
Done
  • "Furthermore, Inna would go on to score two top ten hits" -> "Inna also scored two top ten hits" ("furthermore" isn't really necessary and doesn't fit with the tone imo)
Done
  • "The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has annually [...] throughout the years." and "West Germany until 1990" should have in-line refs like the rest of the notes
I don't think references are needed here. In the first note, I link to the List of largest recorded music markets, in which all the IFPI reports that have been published yet are sourced. In the second note, I link to West Germany, which sources the fact that Germany was "West Germany" until 1990.
Done

Well that's everything I have. Interesting list and many thanks for nominating it! :) Ping me on reply if I'm needed. Cheers, Dan the Animator 00:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dantheanimator: Hi there Dan. First of all, many thanks for spending time reviewing my nominee. I have answered all your comments. Let me know what you think. Greets, Cartoon network freak (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cartoon network freak!!! :) Everything looks good except for the references on the IFPI & West Germany notes, which only needs a ref that verifies "annually published the ten largest recorded music markets...[since] 1996" and a ref that verifies West Germany became Germany in 1990.
In general, while it's true that many readers would just click on the links if they wanted to verify the info, I think in the spirit of WP:V, it's always better to make it as easy as possible for a reader to verify non-obvious info (especially specific details like years which most people don't know/remember), which is easiest when that source is linked in a footnote next to the claim and which is why a lot of FA and FL articles will duplicate refs throughout the article to backup different info and data (so a reader doesn't have to sift through to figure out which ref is backing up which source).
Also, its best imo to assume the average reader doesn't know any specific details like years or data. Really recommend taking a look at WP:ORIENT which although a wiki essay, does a much better job than me explaining why adding footnotes for these things is a good idea. Once the refs are added, I'll add my support for promoting this to FL. Cheers, Dan the Animator 01:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dantheanimator: Thank you again for your further comments. I have in the first case linked to the 1996 and 2024 IFPI reports, while in the second case, I have linked to the 1990 treaty that united West and East Germany to what is now Germany. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cartoon network freak! The refs work great and it looks like that covers the last of it! Support promotion to FL status. Awesome work! :) Dan the Animator 00:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:55, 5 August 2024 (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) 20:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [29].[reply]

United States congressional delegations from Arizona

Nominator(s): Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second congressional delegations nomination from me, the first being United States congressional delegations from Connecticut! Other featured lists in this vein include Utah, Indiana, and Hawaii. Lots of what I've written is of the same style as the Connecticut article. Thanks for taking a look, and I appreciate any and all feedback y'all give! Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Each state elects two senators to serve for six years, and varying members of the House" - obviously each state elects varying members, they don't all elect the same ones. I think what you mean is "Each state elects two senators to serve for six years, and varying numbers of members of the House"
  • "The current dean, or longest serving member, of the Arizona delegation is" => "The current dean, or longest serving member, of the Arizona delegation, is"
  • "of its two senators, one Democrat and one independent, and its nine representatives: 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats." - odd that you write all the numbers as words and then suddenly switch to digits at the end......
  • "Of those, Martha McSally and Kyrsten Sinema have been the first and only women" - I think "the only women" would suffice, as if they are the only ones than by definition they were also the first
  • "such that each election, around one-third of the seats in the Senate are up for election" => "such that at each election around one-third of the seats in the Senate are up for election"
  • "Following 1940 census" => "Following the 1940 census"
  • "Following 1960 census" => "Following the 1960 census" (and so on for all the others)
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! Thanks for your feedback! I've done everything except for the second bullet point. Wouldn't "or longest serving member" be a parenthetical clause; thus removing it leaves "The current dean of the Arizona delegation is" vs. "The current dean of the Arizona delegation, is"? I feel like the first option makes more grammatical sense. Let me know if I'm missing something or if there's more. Thanks again for reviewing! Staraction (talk | contribs) 04:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, ignore that one, I don't know what I was thinking there. One thing I didn't pick up on before, though: "Seven women have served Arizona in the House, including Kyrsten Sinema and Martha McSally, who are the only women who have served Arizona in the Senate" - doesn't that sentence contradict itself? Seven women have served in the House, including two who served in the Senate? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a little bit weird to phrase and I don't think it came out properly. Sinema and McSally both served in the House prior to serving in the Senate, and they are the only women to have ever served in the Senate. Is there a better way to phrase that? Thanks! Staraction (talk | contribs) 14:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


MPGuy2824
  • "The first woman to serve Arizona in the Senate was Isabella Greenway." - House of Representatives, not Senate.
  • the current senator table is missing colscopes. Also its first header needs to be made into a table caption
  • In the full senate table, you don't need to bold the Congress since that is a header cell in every row. This should be checked for the other tables as well.
  • There is also no need of setting the height. The height anyway expands to more than 2em when there is less space. This probably holds true for other tables as well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 Hi, thanks for your feedback! All should be fixed. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support on prose and table accessibility. I fixed a few minor accessibility issues in some of the tables. You can keep those in mind when you prep your next FL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 @Staraction Sorry, I reverted these edits because the table wasn't displaying terms right. In my experience the 2ems are needed because otherwise mid-term changes don't show correctly, though I don't know if there's a better way to fix them. I'll put the other changes back once I have more time though. Emk9 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support

Some suggestions...

  • "the Cook Partisan Voting Index, a determination of how strongly partisan a state is" -> recommend replacing "determination" with "measure"
  • "14 people have served as a U.S. Senator from Arizona." -> Could expand this to say "Since its first congressional delegation in 1913, 14 people have served as a U.S. Senator for Arizona" (make sure to also copy the citation from the lead for the 1913 claim)
  • "rotating through each class such that [in] each election[,] around one-third of the seats in the Senate are up for election" <- add in the stuff in the brackets
  • "One member of the House of Representatives is sent from each district via a popular vote." -> this should be reworded (ex: "Each district uses a popular vote to elect a member of Arizona's delegation in the House of Representatives.")
  • "Arizona has had nine congressional districts since districts were redrawn in 2013 as a result of the 2010 United States Census." -> this should be reworded (ex: "Since its districts were redrawn in 2013 according to the results of the 2010 census, Arizona has had nine congressional districts")
  • "For six years, the seats were elected at-large statewide on a general ticket." <- doesn't at-large and statewide mean the same thing? (recommend taking out at-large if possible or rewording for concision)
  • 1912–1943: 1 seat, 1943–1963: 2 seats, 1963–1973: 3 seats, 1973–1983: 4 seats, 1983–1993: 5 seats, 1993–2003: 6 seats, 2003–2013: 8 seats, & 2013–present: 9 seats <- make sure all the prose-text in those subsections have in-line references
  • All the tables under the United States House of Representatives section are missing refs and should have some sort of ref/citation added either in the column/row headers or as a table footnote
  • For the 2022 U.S. representatives from Arizona table, the "Incumbent since" column should have a ref in the header if possible (like CPVI (2022) header next to it already does)
  • "Arizona's current congressional delegation in the 118th Congress consists of its two senators, one Democrat and one independent, and its nine representatives, six Republicans and three Democrats." should also have an in-line ref
  • "Senator Kyl was appointed by governor Doug Ducey to fill the seat of John McCain, who died in office." -> recommend rewording to "Senator Kyl was appointed by governor Doug Ducey to fill the seat of John McCain after McCain's death in office."
  • Not completely sure whether this is required per MOS:DTAB but I'd recommend adding |+{{sronly|}} for each of the tables (this template is used by screenreaders as a sort of title/caption for the table to my knowledge)
  • Just a thought but I feel like this sort of list would benefit from a brief infobox where the current map & caption are kept and additional basic info (e.g. year of first delegation, current number of districts (as of which census), numerical party control/distribution of the delegation, dean of the delegation, etc.)

I'm not particularly familiar with these types of lists so not sure what's considered standard or not but I'd strongly recommend adding at least some refs to the tables imo. Otherwise, this is a great list for a great state! :) Many thanks Staraction for nominating this! Please ping on reply if needed. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like most of the suggestions were applied and after taking another quick read through of the page and making one very minor edit, I think it's ready to be promoted. Support for FL status and thanks Staraction for the quick followup! Dan the Animator 20:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the comments & the fast response! I was unable to reply to you yesterday before I had to attend to something important in real life but your comments are very appreciated :D Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

EN-Jungwon
  • Archive all references
  • Ref 1, 6, 12news.com → 12News
  • Ref 16 add date July 12, 2022
  • Ref 33 requires subscription
  • Ref 38 link author Alden Whitman
  • Ref 39 add via=Newspapers.com
  • Ref 41 requires subscription, link author Nicholas Fandos
  • Link websites for the following. If you don't want to link the same article in multiple sources you don't have to. For example "Ref 8, 10, 22, 23 link United States Senate" you can just link the first instance which would be ref 8. I'm fine with it either way.
Extended content
  • Copyvios shows no major issues.

-- EN-Jungwon 14:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you so much for the review! I believe I've fixed all the issues you've pointed out; if there are more please let me know! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EN-Jungwon pinging for convenience! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EN-Jungwon 08:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 14:37, 27 July 2024 (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) 00:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [30].[reply]

List of inventoried conifers in the United States

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Next up: US conifers. Licensing information for the images (there are a lot of them) will be up shortly on the list talk page. (Part of your reviewing work is already done here, since some rows are almost identical to the ones at List of inventoried conifers in Canada ... if you sort on the 3rd column, these rows will be displayed first.) Once again, there's some basic information here about some trees that are common in North America (and many are common in temperate zones around the world). Feedback is welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

MPGuy2824
@MPGuy2824: I've relied on IABot for this when I've been asked before ... I did the run and checked "Add archives to all non-dead references", and it claimed the run was successful ... but it found no references that it wanted to add archive links to. I'm not seeing any evidence here that the bot is having problems. Not sure what to do. - Dank (push to talk) 15:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(FWIW, it's very unlikely that https://plants.usda.gov is going to disappear without a trace anytime soon.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing support until I can go through the merged list again. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can rethink the "Key" section since the lists are now merged.
  • It seems odd that Abies concolor "Grows best, ... in the mid-latitudes of California's Sierra Nevada.", but its distribution doesn't include California.
  • Some of the "Uses" end with a full-stop, some don't. I think they should all be removed.
  • Wikilink "Mississippi River states".
Going with "except for ... states bordering the river".
  • "one specimen was found to be 1650 years old." It would be nice to get an online citation for this fact.
  • "sometimes living 500 years or more" add an online citation for this one as well.
  • "principle provider of timber" to "principal provider of timber"
  • Sometimes the "Uses:" sentence is a different paragraph, sometimes not. Please make it consistent.
  • Wikilink the first usage of "subalpine".
In a sortable table, either all need to be linked or none (although as a practical matter, that means it's best to find an excuse to link it once somewhere above all the rows of the table). There were two, I linked both.
@MPGuy2824: Thanks, all done, but you might want to wait until I add the eastern-only species before you take another look. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ping me here when you finish merging. I wrongly assumed you were done with that. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: Okay, that's done. If it helps: the rows that were added were copied from the current version of User:Dank/List of forest-inventory conifers east of the Mississippi. (Another way to identify them is: they're the ones with no distribution data on western states.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: Oops I saved the ping wrong. Repinging in case that didn't work. - Dank (push to talk) 19:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found it easier to go through a diff:
@MPGuy2824: Done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion of the merged list on prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My comments on List of forest-inventory conifers east of the Mississippi apply here as well. With the substantial overlap, the unusual limitation of the distribution within each list, and the fact that a division based on the Mississippi River does not appear to be in the sources, I would oppose these lists being separate FLs. List of conifers of the United States would make more sense as a title. Reywas92Talk 17:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Okay, that's done. For a discussion of the page title, see User talk:PresN#List of forest-inventory conifers in the United States. - Dank (push to talk) 19:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination has stalled out, it seems; I do think the combination of the east and west lists along with the new name are improvements. No concerns found to stop promotion, source review passed, so, promoting. --PresN 19:09, 17 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC) [31].[reply]

List of historic places in Gore District

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another one on my goal to (a long, long time down the line) get a list of the Heritage New Zealand historic places for each of the 67 territorial authorities of New Zealand. Poor Gore is one of the smallest districts by population, and it shows; there are only 6 entries in the district, while neighboring Clutha and Southland have 65 and 44 respectively. Nevertheless, this wouldn't make sense as part of anything else, so out of the interests of completeness, I bring it here! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby cmt and image review by Queen of Hearts

Is there any particular reason for a SFN to the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act? It isn't citing multiple sections and all the other cites are long. Thanks, Queen of Hearts (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did it that way on my other, but you're right that it's not strictly necessary. I'll change it to a long cite. - G

And I'll come back to try my best at an img review:

  • All images should probably have {{FoP-New Zealand}}
  • File:Cremoata (30746745724).jpg - From a fine-looking Flickr account, passed FlickreviewR, and NZ has freedom of panorama for 3D works; FoP-New Zealand and it'll be good
  • File:MA I836111 TePapa Presbyterian-Church-Gore.jpg - wouldn't {{PD-New Zealand}} be better? also add {{PD-US-expired}}
  • File:Fleming's Creamoata Mill complex Gore New Zealand.jpg - claimed own work by a well-established WPedian; FoP-New Zealand and it'll be good
  • Alts look fine

Queen of Hearts talk 18:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

  • Ref 1 – Add |via=Internet Archive
  • Change the column header from "Citation" to {{abbr|Ref.|Reference}}
  • Gore Presbyterian Church row – Partway through the paragraph the text starts on a new line. Not noticable until I try to sort the columns, but it is an issue.
  • Move the first image in the list below the use dmy dates template
  • I recognize the source may capitalize "(Former)", but it's not a proper name and should be downcased to "former".
  • You should run IABot to add some archive links
  • Ref 5 – Should the title be "Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014" instead of "Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act"? The source looks like it includes "2014" in the title.

Overall, I found no issues with the reliability or formatting of references. Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalissima: Note that I tweaked by feedback for ref 1 and an additional piece of feedback that was based on the bibliography that you converted to a reference. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: Okay, I think i fixed everything! IABot hasn't ran yet, but I told it to. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

@ChrisTheDude: Okay! Fixed :) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620

Disclosure: while I had already been aware of this nomination, I found out through a short interaction on Discord that this still needed another review. Images and sources have already been covered, so I'm gonna do a prose review. Some comments:

  • First settled by the Māori, European occupation began in the early 1850s, – I'm unsure of the way this part of the sentence is grammatically structured. It seems to imply that European occupation was itself first settled by the Māori, which doesn't make sense.
    • Rephrased to make it a bit clearer. -G
  • Additions, including a session house, were added by William Sharp in 1892. – Additions were added? I feel like this could be tweaked a bit.
    • Rephrased. - G
  • the church saw large scale repairs – Feel free to demur if this is a valid stylistic choice, but my instinct is that this should be hyphenated as "large-scale".
    • Yeah, good idea. Fixed. - G
  • Restoration work was taken on the church – I don't know if this is a valid grammatical application of the phrase "taken on". Maybe rephrasing to "the church was restored/renovated" would work?
    • Good idea, fixed. - G
  • Does railway windmill need to be redlinked? The phrase "railway windmill" should obviously stay, but I think shortening the wikilink to windmill would suffice.
    • Good idea. - G
  • Clematis Cottage description – This is a total nitpick, but linking the two sentences with a semicolon would flow better IMO.
    • Good idea. -G
  • Bank of New Zealand (former) description – It may be worth mentioning/clarifying that the building was constructed around 20 years after the Mataura BNZ became the third BNZ outlet in Southland.
    • Good idea! - G
  • There are a couple incomplete sentences in the bottom half of the 'notes' column that I feel could be tweaked for flow. Suggested revisions:
    • A new station was built the following year, designed by George Alexander Troup. Still in use as a freight station. → A new station, designed by George Alexander Troup, was built the following year and is still in use as a freight station.
    • Saw rapid expansion → The mill saw rapid expansion

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:43, 4 July 2024 (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) 00:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [32].[reply]

List of Boston Bruins seasons

Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some paragraphs to the lead of this article, which I think live up to good standards. All of the playoff information in the table itself is adequately sourced. This article should meet the Featured List criteria. Thank you. XR228 (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude, @MPGuy2824, @PresN, are there any other suggestions for this article? This conversation seems kind of dead. XR228 (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You have them for all but the 'Regular season' and 'Postseason' column headers. Since those two cover multiple columns, the column scopes should be added with a !scope=colgroup, e.g. !colspan="9"|[[Season structure of the NHL|Regular season]] becomes !scope=colgroup colspan="9"|[[Season structure of the NHL|Regular season]].
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |[[1924–25 NHL season|1924–25]] becomes !scope=row |[[1924–25 NHL season|1924–25]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 01:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PresN Sorry, I forgot to ping you. With the "@" thing. I've made all the changes. Do you Support? XR228 (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Accessibility looks good now. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 22:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. Thanks nonetheless. XR228 (talk) 01:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "with 2023–24 season marking" => "with the 2023–24 season marking"
  • "The Bruins would fare decently" => "The Bruins fared decently"
  • "They would make up for the drought" => "They made up for the drought"
  • " The Bruins would miss the playoffs in 1997" => " The Bruins missed the playoffs in 1997"
  • "finishing with the worst record of the season with 61 points" - source?
  • "ending a 29-year playoff appearance streak, the longest in NHL history" - source?
  • "Throughout the next nine seasons, the Bruins would face a rough patch" => "Throughout the next nine seasons, the Bruins faced a rough patch"
  • "The Bruins would start another playoff streak in 2008" => "The Bruins started another playoff streak in 2008"
  • "In 2011, the Bruins would defeat the Vancouver Canucks" => "In 2011, the Bruins defeated the Vancouver Canucks"
  • "but they would lose in the second round of the playoffs to the Canadiens" => "but they lost in the second round of the playoffs to the Canadiens"
  • "The next season, the Bruins' playoff streak would end at seven seasons" => "The next season, the Bruins' playoff streak ended at seven seasons"
  • "after failing to qualify by two points" => "after they failed to qualify by two points"
  • Also, what's the source for that "two points" bit?
  • "They would miss the playoffs for a second season in 2016, but qualify in 2017" => "They missed the playoffs for a second season in 2016, but qualified in 2017"
  • "However, Bruins would come out on top" => "However, the Bruins came out on top "
  • "They would lose in the second round of the playoffs to the Tampa Bay Lightning" => "They lost in the second round of the playoffs to the Tampa Bay Lightning"
  • "The 2022–23 season, would see the Bruins make history" => "The 2022–23 season, saw the Bruins make history"
  • Also, why did this make history?
  • "However, they would get upset in the first round of the playoffs" => "However, they got upset in the first round of the playoffs"
  • "after blowing a 3–1 series lead" - source?
  • "In the 2024 playoffs, they would lose to the Panthers again" => "In the 2024 playoffs, they lost to the Panthers again"
  • "From the 1926–27 season through the 1937–38 season, Boston played in the American Division." - don't think this needs to be a note as it's quite clear from the table. Maybe replace the text of this note with something like "with effect from the 1926-27 season, the NHL split into [however many] divisions because of [reasons]"
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Four of the unnecessary "would"s are still present..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed it. XR228 (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • The terms in the "Key of terms and abbreviations" table aren't necessary. You can just use the {{Abbrev}} template in the header cell. e.g. W, L, T. For some of the others a footnote would do.
  • Please fix "{{sronly|caption_text}}".
  • The "↑" symbol isn't necessary IMO since it is always mentioned next to text stating that they "won the Stanley Cup finals vs Opponent X".
  • In the result column, there is no need to mention multiple wins of the same season. Just the best win can be included. i.e. SF is better than QF, and Final is better than SF.
  • Making the table sortable would involve some work, but it would be useful imo.
  • That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel it is necessary to keep a full list of opponents faced in a season; all the other NHL season featured lists do it. Same goes for many of the other suggested changes. XR228 (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With regards to point 4 - virtually all season tablea across all sports have playoff progression, rather than just whatever the best result was. The Kip (contribs) 19:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have made the appropriate changes. XR228 (talk) 01:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you've added sorting to the table, I would expect the results column to show in the following order when sorted in descending order: all the Stanley Cup final wins at the top, followed by Stanley cup final losses, followed by losses at the semi-final stage, and so on. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 I have made the changes (it is almost 1:00 a.m. and I am ready to die). XR228 (talk) 07:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support promotion. If interest and time permit (after you get up), please take a look at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the Support. I think your nom looks good. XR228 (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No concerns found to stop promotion, source review passed, so, promoting. --PresN 19:09, 17 July 2024 (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) 00:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [33].[reply]

List of cities in Donetsk Oblast

Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did an overhaul of the article a few days ago and I think it's ready for the review process. The Ukrainian language wiki version of the list already has selected list status (which is their equivalent of FL) so don't see why this can't be promoted too. Expect there'll be a few things that can be added and some minor improvements but I'm confident based on the state of the article that I'll be able to get this promoted. Also hoping to use this article as a general framework for additional "list of cities in oblast" articles after the review. Cheers, Dan the Animator 20:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd put my thoughts about this in case it helps future reviewers. While the article as-is I think covers the subject well, I've been considering adding in a column for the establishment years of the cities (which both the Ukrainian and Russian wiki articles have). That said, the main List of cities in Ukraine just sticks with admin. subdivision and population and I also don't want to overload the table with too much info so not sure if this would be a good addition. Also was thinking of adding into the lead a few sentences about which are the oldest cities, that many were created as part of industrialization and are tied to the mining industry, and maybe also some comments about the current status of some of the cities (e.g. the fact that Bakhmut, Mariupol, Avdiivka, etc. have been mostly destroyed during the full-scale invasion) but not sure if it makes sense here since these already fall in the Donetsk Oblast article's scope. Feel free to let me know y'all's thoughts on these and hopefully they help with ideas but happy to make whatever improvements I can to the article! Cheers, Dan the Animator 21:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • No article should start with "this is a list". Take a look at some other FLCs and come up with a more engaging opening sentence.
Before nominating, I tried searching to see if there's other similar list of cities articles that're FL and found this: List of United States cities by population. Not the exam same type of article but it also starts off with "this is a list." If it helps though, I could take out that sentence and reword the next sentence to say: There are currently 52 populated places in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine, that have been officially granted city status...by the Verkhovna Rada, the country's parliament.
That list was promoted over 15 years ago and standards have changed massively since then. Your alternative suggestion sounds good for an opening -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed it based on the above. Thanks again ChrisTheDude! :) Dan the Animator 16:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of 1 January 2022, the largest city in the oblast is" => "As of 1 January 2022, the largest city in the oblast was" (2022 was two years ago)
Fixed
  • Other verbs in that sentence should also be in past tense
Also fixed
Thanks ChrisTheDude! :) Dan the Animator 21:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Drive by comments
  • Just like the first comment above saying no article should start with "this is a list", no article should have a reference to the list outside of the list itself. The sentence "The below list shows the English name, Ukrainian name, raion, 2001 census recorded population, 2022 population estimate, and population percent change for each city." does not seem to serve a purpose.
Fixed
  • "currently" not needed in first sentence.
Fixed
  • What do the numbers in the first column mean? Why is this column there?
Fixed? when overhauling this article, I tried to base it on conceptually similar articles, primarily List of cities in Ukraine and others like List of cities in Australia by population and List of cities in Kansas. From my understanding and the way I've always used it, the column is a type of number ranking which allows readers to sort tables and have number rankings for each row, which can be quiet useful for finding out things like what's the 10th largest city in 2001/2022, how many cities saw 10%+ pop. change, etc. In case it helps, I added one of the template's title options "#" on the top of the column with some extra table code. That said, I saw other list articles such as List of cities in Canada and List of cities in the United Kingdom don't use it so I don't mind taking it out. The template also allows for the title "No." but I think "#" works just the same. Let me know what you think about it though.
  • It's not common to have a link to a portal in the see also, would suggest removing both portals from the see also section.
Removed
  • Image alts could be more descriptive (for accessibility reasons)
Fixed? Tried to make them more informative but let me know if I should reword/shorten/expand them.
  • as could image captions (for example, "the largest city in Donetsk")
same as above
  • table completely unsourced, need refs for population columns in header.
Fixed 2022 column; for the 2001 census results, I'm currently searching for a Ukrainian gov. website to add to that column though haven't had luck with finding a gov. source that lists all of them. I'll make sure to send a follow-up update when I find it!
  • No need for external links subheading, just external links is fine
Fixed
Normally estimates would not be encyclopedic, but given the extenuating circumstances and lack of any recent census, I suppose this makes sense until the next census? Other than these points above, the article looks quite good! Many of them are vital before being promoted.

Mattximus (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the Next Ukrainian census doesn't seem like it's happening anytime soon and with the current war, I don't think the statistics would be as useful anyways since they've been changing a lot frequently. Let me know if there's anything else I can do and many thanks Mattximus for all the comments!!! :D Dan the Animator 05:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, just two outstanding issues. First, it is critical to have a citation for the 2001 census populations, it cannot pass without this. Second, I do like your change to alphabetize the list (that makes it easier to update when the next census actually comes out), but I think the table should not include the number column as it doesn't serve the purpose beyond a count. Since it is a list of cities, the cities column should be the same colour as the headings. Mattximus (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still working on the 2001 census citation but for the number column, I removed it. About the cities column shading, I haven't seen any table in a "List of cities" article that has it like that. I've looked through at least a dozen varied similar articles (also highly recommend checking out this to see how other articles do it) and they all use the same general shading (the only column that gets fully shaded in any of the tables I've seen is the number column (which I removed from this article per above) and not the cities column. Also don't think it would conceptually make sense to have that shading since both the English and Ukrainian name columns are both "cities columns" imo (and they both are exactly the same in functionality/formatting). Let me know though if I'm missing something and thanks again with the comments! :) Dan the Animator 21:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is a requirement for the nomination, I just checked all featured lists of cities have it. I clicked on one at random: Cantons of Costa Rica which was one I put up for promotion. I know this is a requirement because I was asked to do it many times. Mattximus (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus can you post a link to other, more recent past FLs of cities (as many as you know of)? I don't think the article for Cantons of Costa Rica is a good comparison to this article since the Ukrainian equivalent of that article would be List of hromadas of Ukraine (or Raions of Ukraine depending how you look at it). Would help to see maybe some of the other FLs tho, especially if they're more recent (I noticed your FLN for Costa Rica is from 2016 but was wondering if they'd changed it since then). Thanks!!! Dan the Animator 17:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this has been a policy for at least 8 years (it's in the MOS somewhere), common format for all featured lists in general. You can check out User:Mattximus and click on any of the 45 featured lists of cities/municipalities (the ones with a star beside them), there is also a more comprehensive list when you click on featured lists and scroll to find the cities lists. I clicked randomly to a whole bunch, and can't find any that didn't fit this standard, so I think it is a necessary change. Mattximus (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose just for now based on missing citation for the entire 2001 census column (the link failed verification as it has similar but not identical numbers as the table here). And the format for the table seems to be incorrect. Specifically ,city name should be same colour as headings, and tables needs captions (|+ <caption_text>, or |+ <caption_text> if that text would duplicate a nearby section header). Table captions allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables, without having to read all prior text to provide context.). Mattximus (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Completely fixed the table/formatting issues. For the citation, would either of these sources (source A, source B) be acceptable? It's alright if not but given the complete 2001 census data increasingly seems like its not available online (and thus would probably be a book citation) and the Ukrainian language wiki page (which has recognized article status) uses the former source (the mashke.org one) in their version of the list, I wanted to ask. Many thanks again with everything and let me know if there's any other issues I can fix (and if the formatting for the table is alright now). Cheers, Dan the Animator 15:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table is completely fixed, good work, but the one last citation problem remains. Is there anyone who can help find where these numbers come from? The links you provided give different numbers, and don't seem to come from any official document. But surely this document exists. Maybe another user has an idea? 19:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, Ymblanter, Mupper-san, Shwabb1, Yulia Romero, and Микола Василечко: pinging in case y'all have any advice about this (wasn't sure who to ping so sorry in advance for the bother!!!) Dan the Animator 00:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly well-versed in the discussion, so do forgive if this isn't what is being talked about, but given the fact that mashke.org has an unclear source and (at least according to Firefox for me) has an unsafe connection, I would personally use the numbers included alongside the currently-used sources, as they're official documentation. As citypopulation.de cites mashke.org, I also wouldn't include it.
Perhaps, it would be possible to e-mail Mr. Bespyatov (the owner of mashke.org, judging by the copyright at the bottom) and ask him for a source? Although I'm not quite sure.
Mupper-san (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mupper-san! :) I agree with the concerns for the two sources though the only official Ukrainian government source I could find lists the 2001 census results for only 28 of the 50+ cities in the oblast. Also, although my guess is he got the numbers from the physical records in Kyiv, I think contacting Mr. Bespyatov is a great idea! I'll send him an email in a moment and reply here if he follows up. Dan the Animator 04:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the 2001 census website. Go to Publications, download the file kl_2001.rar under "Кількість та територіальне розміщення населення України" (The number and territorial distribution of the population of Ukraine). Open the file 5.xls, you'll see the breakdown of population by raion/city/urban-type settlement. The data for Donetsk Oblast starts on row 552. Be aware that the names are before the decommunization laws (e.g., Artemivsk instead of Bakhmut). Shwabb1 (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Shwabb1!!!!! :D It worked perfectly and I accessed all the stats (only one of the numbers was off on the article thankfully tho). @Mattximus: I think that about finishes everything? Take a look and let me know if there's anything else to do. Dan the Animator 17:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall looks good, I only see two small mistakes: Krasnoarmiysk should be Krasnoarmiisk using official romanization (per WP:UAPLACE), and in the first citation "urban-type settlements" are mistranslated as "towns". Shwabb1 (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now I will strike the oppose. I think there should be a heading "notes" just like references below and the note can go there instead of floating kind of below the table. I think the format of the reference needs a bit of work (I believe you need filetype for something like a rar?), but nothing here to oppose over. Nice work! Mattximus (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mattximus and Shwabb1!!!! :) I think I fixed basically all the above suggestions! For the new reference's formatting tho, I wasn't sure exactly how much needed changing but I added the |format= parameter in with a link to RAR which hopefully helps (feel free to let me know if there's anything else I can do tho). Dan the Animator 01:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! [[City|City name]] becomes !scope=col | [[City|City name]]. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |[[Amvrosiivka]] becomes !scope=row |[[Amvrosiivka]], on its own line. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PresN: Done! The table should be completely fixed now. Let me know if there's any other formatting/other issues that I can fix. Cheers, Dan the Animator 15:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mattximus and PresN: after going through the article meticulously (with sourcing, formatting, and everything in between), completely addressing all the comments here and applying the feedback from my other related FLN for cities in Luhansk Oblast to this article as well, and considering that this list was nominated a month ago and hasn't received any new comments since June 11, I think it should be finally ready to pass. If there are any remaining issues with this article, please let me know but otherwise, I think its time to take this article out of the queue and promote it! Also pinging FL director for their insight @Giants2008:. Apologies all for the bother and many thanks for all the support! :) Dan the Animator 00:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the box at the top of WP:FLC: "The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegate, PresN, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus." This nomination currently has only a single support, which is not typically considered a consensus to promote. Unlike FAC, we don't typically archive nominations that don't get a lot of attention but instead let them stay a little longer, so don't worry, but please do be patient. --PresN 03:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks PresN for the reply! I was hoping when I pinged that you and Mattximus would give supports to this nom, which would bring the support count up to 3 which I think is the minimum needed for consensus? That said, I'm not too much in a rush; rather, since I have to take a semi-Wikibreak not long from now (in July) where I'll be able to edit but not too much, I was hoping to get this list as thoroughly checked and improved as possible so that when I nominate the remaining lists for this series, I won't have to make any major edits on those articles (they're all relatively similar too so whatever change I make one list likely would have to be made on the others, which is easier to do before those articles are created). I understand you all are busy so no worries about promoting but it would help a lot to know if I should expect to make additional changes. Cheers, Dan the Animator 23:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still getting an error on the citation for the 2001 census, is it just me? One more small change:
Fixed? I think I accessed it using the link about a week ago but you're right! Don't know why both the archived and normal link stopped working. I switched it with the permanent, webpage link and added instructions on the ref of how to access the numbers. Let me know if its good now.
  • The image captions seem to be incorrect, the are not the largest or smallest cities, as no land area was given. They are the most populous, least populous, have the second largest population, wording like that is more correct.
Fixed
  • That's it!

Mattximus (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mattximus! :) Let me know if that fixes everything! Dan the Animator 16:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things look great, but I still can't access the source for the 2001 statistics. I do believe this article needs a source review so whoever does that will give the go ahead and I'll agree with them since I'm not an expert on sourcing. Mattximus (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Mattximus:! :) I saw that the Luhansk list is already in queue for a source review but not this one so not sure if there'll be a source review soon. About the source tho, how does it look on your end? Is it the link to the ukr gov stats website that doesn't work (it's an unsecure site so might help to check browser settings) or is it the RAR file download link that doesn't work (the instructions on the wikiref are supposed to help with this)? Dan the Animator 00:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Staraction

  • All images are relevant to the article
  • All images are usage tagged properly (AGF on own works)
  • All images have alt text except for the map in the infobox. Suggestion: the alt text has citation numbers (ie. [22]) for some images, those probably do not need to be in the alt text
  • All images have relevant captions

Thanks for your work @Dan the Animator! Staraction (talk | contribs) 17:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by FL nominator

  • @Mattximus, Steelkamp, Dajasj, and Chipmunkdavis: Many sorries for the bother but considering y'all's contribution to the other, very similar FLN for List of cities in Luhansk Oblast which got promoted a few days ago, and my completion of applying all the suggestions from that nom to this article, I thought I'd ping y'all in case any of y'all are interested taking (or retaking) a look at this list now and hopefully providing comments so the nom can advance. @PresN: thanks for doing the source review on the Luhansk list!!! :) Thought I'd ping here in case you're interested in doing this one too; also, they share about 70% of the same exact refs (plus a lot of shared content too) so most of the source review for this article you already technically did with the Luhansk review which I thought might make this one a lot easier/quicker to get through. Sorry again for any bothers and looking forward to any additional feedback and to getting this nom completed! Dan the Animator 03:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from CMD

As the nominator noted above, I made comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cities in Luhansk Oblast/archive1 which appear to have already been actioned here.

  • Prose/lead.
    "...occupied all cities located..." might be clearer with a number, "...occupied all X cities located..."
    A number may also be helpful at "Additional cities were...", which may provide a route to reword/remove the "...while an additional two cities (Lyman and Sviatohirsk) have been recovered..." wording, as I am not sure "addition" is clear in meaning. Having numbers for both invasions and the counteroffensive means that there is no need for an "As of X date...", which might quickly appear dated.
    The final sentence is a tad confusing. Firstly, "occupation of the three reformed raions" is an odd pipe, all of the raions were reformed (removing "the" may solve this problem). Secondly, "including the cities of Bunhe, Chystiakove, Kalmiuske, and Khrestivka" is unclear, I assume those four are former cities of regional significance, but the preceding clause already states "reformed raions" so I would assume they are included by default. Lastly, "the three raions[b] and four cities' new names have only de jure status" seems to imply that the cities under Russian control outside of the 2015 occupation zone de facto use the new names, which would surprise me. It also reads oddly that the raion names are specifically pointed out, this list isn't about the raions and noting names specifically as de jure suggests that the raion otherwise operates de facto, which would also surprise me.
  • Comprehensiveness: Comprehensive.
  • Structure: Is one table, sortable.
  • Style: Not necessarily my strong point, but the decorative images are all licenced as is the locator map. There is a "Jump to table of cities" for mobile access. Alt text is present on all images bar the infobox, which does not seem to have the feature encoded.
  • Stability: Stable.

As with the previous review this is a novel interwiki usage, but I don't see how it affects the FLCR. I do think this article (and similar ones) would be served well by dropping the locator infobox and replacing it with a map of the Oblast showing the various city locations, but that is also not a FLCR requirement. In summary, questions for FLCR1/2 and no questions for the other FLCR. CMD (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @CMD: for the review! I think all the suggestions should be addressed. I applied some of the rewording and moved some of the other confusing content into efn notes. Also, thanks for the suggestion with the map! Added it and I think it turned out perfect! (props to Tone for their exceptional work on the UNESCO FL maps which helped a ton with creating this map)! :) I'll also apply these edits to the other lists if you think they're alright CMD but let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve these lists! Thanks again! Dan the Animator 04:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestions were addressed, the efn notes help and nice work finding relevant sources. Hopefully more secondary sources emerge on the topic, it is an area not currently well covered on en.wiki. I had a look and could not find a source linking the 2020 raions with the 2015 era occupation (the current primary source used does not support "by 2015"). However, I did find this source, which mentions the DPR and LPR continuing to use the old names (page 10), and has a list of renamed places and whether they are occupied (pages 84-89). It uses the old raions, but it has relevant dates and names that can supplement the existing sources for "by 2015" and those in the efn notes. CMD (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CMD! I added in your source into the names efn together with some additional sources. I added a complementary source for the primary ref I think you're talking about (the "About the boundaries and list of raions...temporarily occupied" ref): journalist's David Gormezano France 24 piece characterizes the main Donbas war phase as "April 2014 – February 2015" and also says in that section "On February 12, 2015, the so-called Minsk II agreements formalised the de facto partition of Ukrainian territory...In the years that followed, and until the full-scale Russian attack on February 24, 2022, small-scale attacks and artillery fire hardly ever ceased, without the line of contact between the forces really moving." which should be enough imo to back up the 2015 year (most of the cities were actually occupied in 2014 but due to Debaltseve, I think the wording "by 2015" is more accurate. To sum up, the "About the boundaries" ref verifies which cities were occupied during the Donbas war while the France 24 piece backs up the claim that the occupations of cities during the Donbas war happened between April 2014 and February 2015.
About the use of the 2020 raions when talking about the 2014-2015 occupation: its mostly done out of concision than any actual connection between the two (technically, the new raions' boundaries were decided with consideration of what territories were occupied by DPR/LPR forces at the time so the area could be easier to govern (at least as far as I know) but aside from that, there isn't any actual meaningful connection between the new raions and what areas are occupied). Using the new raions saves on words and makes it easier to understand since there's no caveat to which cities in the raions are occupied and which aren't (for the older raions, since many of the cities are also municipalities, there'd be a need to either list all 21 cities occupied or separately list all the occupied city municipalities and raions, both of which would be unduly and more confusing imo). Let me know if it'd help to find a source mentioning/discussing this rationale for the boundaries for the new raions.
Let me know if there's anything I'm missing or anything else that can be improved and whether this list is ready for promotion! Thanks, Dan the Animator 23:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an issue using the new raions, just wish there was more research on the matter. More sources would help of course, surely someone somewhere has looked up how the de facto raions function in reality and what provisions are in place for the raions that don't exist in reality yet? But, for the purposes of this article the sources are now enough that the list is ready for promotion. CMD (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah got it. I definitely agree more research should be done regarding Ukrainian administrative laws and reforms. About the de facto/de jure raions, as far as I understand it, the de facto raions function as they've always had in the pre-2022 occupied territories while for newly occupied territories, my guess would be it mostly affects the number of Russia-appointed representatives certain administrative entities get, what sort of government websites/digital representation the Russian government gives those entities, how the areas subordinated to those entities are referred to in Russian law, and, at least on paper, how much money/funding goes to each district (although I think its fair to say a lot of that money gets siphoned off by those Russia-appointed representatives or by Russia itself). Probably also a few other miscellaneous things but those are the main "practical effects" of the de facto raions. For de jure raions, its mostly just having websites in some cases (I remember reading a law regarding Crimea's new raions which mandated creating representation of the raions, which would likely include websites), and how the territories subordinated to new raions are referred to in laws (both in Ukraine and by others).
I think one of the reasons why there hasn't really been any research into the "prospective" raions is because they didn't actually exist, either de jure or de facto, until relatively recently (the "occupied terr. admin. reform date" efn note elaborates on this caveat a bit more). And with the ongoing invasion and considerable budget strain of the Ukrainian government, I doubt they've been able to do anything meaningful in the way of these raions imo. Not sure if my reply really answers your question or helps too much but hope its interesting. Thanks again for the review and great suggestions (and the source)! :) Dan the Animator 02:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:57, 5 August 2024 (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) 00:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC) [34].[reply]

List of Brooklyn Nine-Nine episodes

Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FLC. I am now nominating as my previous solo nomination has closed. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by - @OlifanofmrTennant image (probably) needs a caption. Staraction (talk | contribs) 21:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Sgubaldo

  • Refs. 29-31 are all tagged as permanent dead links. Done
  • Refs. 62, 66, 99-106 and 123-131 have TV by the Numbers as publisher instead of website. Done
  • 'Tv series finale' ==> 'TV Series Finale' on Ref. 173
  • "On May 13 the Fox canceled the series; the following day, NBC picked up the series" ==> "On May 13, Fox cancelled the series; it was picked up by NBC the following day" Done
  • Ref. 34 is missing a retrieval date Done
  • Also on Ref. 34, the date is marked June 9, 2020 but checking the ref shows June 4. Done
  • "The season was the final to air on Fox." ==> "This season was the final one to air on Fox." Done
  • Ref. 147 is missing an archive link and the current url is dead. Done
  • Not strictly essential, but there's several sources whose current url is live that don't have an archive link: Refs. 1-6, 8-34, 36, 173 and 175-179.

Sgubaldo (talk) 11:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgubaldo: I have addressed the above with the exception of the last one which I'm having trouble with. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 01:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing: the production codes are sourced to here, but I can't see them anywhere in the source? Sgubaldo (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgubaldo: Their there in the first row. The episode number = prod code. For instance me time is sixth episode produced fourth to air so its production code is 106. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Three more:
I trust these will be done, so I'm happy to Support. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this stalled out a bit... No concerns found to stop promotion, source review passed, so, promoting. --PresN 19:09, 17 July 2024 (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) 00:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [35].[reply]

List of myosoricines

Nominator(s): PresN 02:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mammal list #39, and we have a short breather in the order Eulipotyphla: shrews part 2! Soricidae (shrews) may be ~400 species in three subfamilies, but of course it's not split evenly, so our middle list here only has 25 little shrews. These guys are the cleverly-named African shrews, because... they're all in Africa. They're again all pretty similar, and mostly don't have pictures, because they're tiny little things that burrow around under leaves in the forest eating bugs all day. In any case, this follows all the conventions we've built up over the last dozens of FLCs, and should be good to go. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 02:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 14 sources match what they are being cited for
  • Assumed good faith on sources that I did not have access to

Usually I'm too intimidated by the size of these species lists to give it a go, but this one is comparatively short. Found no issues so I support promotion. Great work as always PresN! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

  • May have made the same comment on another FLC you nominated earlier. Regarding the ecosystems shrublands, grasslands, and wetlands, perhaps consider linking for those who are unfamiliar. Other than that, nothing preventing me from supporting another solid work from you. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review – All of the images used in the article have appropriate licensing, caption (for the lead photo) and alt text, and the maps have cites for their source data. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:41, 25 June 2024 (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) 00:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [36].[reply]

List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the progress made during archive1 makes me feel that this should be featured-level with a few minor changes. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MPGuy2824

  • Add a "(pictured in <year>)" for Danny Wuerffel since it seems to be from much later in his life. Check the same for the other images as well.
  • You can remove the bolding from the image captions, since the information is already present in the table.
  • Support promotion as the above are minor issues, and the first nomination was closed just before I indicated my support there. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comments by Staraction

  • Image review passed
    • All images have alt text
    • All images appropriately licensed (AGF on own work)
    • Images relevant to the text
    • Captions suggestion: instead of formatting with multiple lines, perhaps write a little prose? For instance, "Justin Herbert in 2021, who was the winner in 2018 and 2019". Otherwise, looks good.
  • Some prose comments
    • "For Division I, Justin Herbert is the most recent repeat winner." -> "Justin Herbert is the most recent repeat winner in Division I."
    • "Before the College Division was divided, its repeat winners included David Gubbrud, Chris Hatcher and Corte McGuffey repeated." -> "Before the College Division was divided, its repeat winners included David Gubbrud, Chris Hatcher and Corte McGuffey."
    • "The Football Academic All-America Team Member of the Year is the annual most outstanding singular college football athlete of the set of American football athletes selected for the Academic All-America Teams in a given year." -> "The annually-awarded Football Academic All-America Team Member of the Year is the most outstanding singular college football athlete selected for the Academic All-America Teams in a given year."
    • "The Academic All-America program recognizes combined athletic and academic excellence of the nation's top student-athletes because the All-America teams and team members of the year are selected based on excellence in both classroom achievement and athletic competition performance by the College Sports Communicators (CSC, known before the 2022–23 school year as College Sports Information Directors of America, or CoSIDA)." -> "Selected based on excellence in both classroom achievement and athletic competition performance by the College Sports Communicators (CSC, known before the 2022–23 school year as College Sports Information Directors of America, or CoSIDA), the Academic All-America program recognizes combined athletic and academic excellence of the nation's top student-athletes".

Thanks for your work @TonyTheTiger! Let me know if you have any questions / concerns. Staraction (talk | contribs) 19:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support on images & prose. Staraction (talk | contribs) 22:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 16:15, 15 July 2024 (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 archived by Hey man im josh.

List of Women's Premier League (cricket) captains

Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio (U • T • A • C • S) 14:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it's a well-organized list about a noteworthy topic. Vestrian24Bio (U • T • A • C • S) 14:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "In the 2 seasons played, 7 players" => "In the two seasons played, seven players"
  • " In the meantime Delhi Capitals's Meg Lanning" - there's no reason for the words "In the meantime" there. Also, there should not be an s after the apostrophe on Capitals'
  • "while, Meg Lanning and" - no reason for that comma
  • Also, per MOS:SURNAME, only Lanning's surname needs to be used on the second mention of her
  • "Despite having won no titles, Harmanpreet Kaur leads" - again, only surname is needed here
  • "The following list is arranged by most number of wins in descending order" - no it isn't
  • "The ones with the † are currently captaining their sides in the WPL 2024." - already covered by the key above, you don't need to say it again
  • The notes should go above the see alsos -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done:Thanks, I've fixed them except, "The list is initially organised by the number of matches as a captain and if the numbers are tied, the list is sorted by last name." - it is. Vestrian24Bio (U • T • A • C • S) 11:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Player becomes !scope=col | Player. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ![[Meg Lanning]]{{Dagger}} becomes !scope=row | [[Meg Lanning]]{{Dagger}}. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 16:09, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PresN Just one question: Is the !scope= needed for header cells set in the middle of the rows. example: ! 70.58 Vestrian24Bio (U • T • A • C • S) 16:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There should only be one header cell per row. Header cells should not be used to highlight cells, but only to serve as the "head"/primary cell of each row. --PresN 19:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments

  • Sorting the player column should sort by last name
  • The column needs to be renamed as "Name" or "Captain"
  • The team name columnshould be just after or just before the captains name column.
  • The key table needs to have the same accessibility fixes done that were applied for the captains' table (rowscope, colscope, caption, etc)
  • Some of the keys are unnecessary (e.g. Won, Lost, Tied, Win%). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 All done, except the third one: The "Name" column is the row header and should be kept fist, and their nationality comes after. How could I place the Team name next to the player name. also, what caption would be appropriate for the key table. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • what caption would be appropriate for the key table Looking at one of the nominations before yours, just the word "Key" is enough.
    • The name column still doesn't sort correctly by last name. Sorting it in descending order should show Sciver-Brunt at the top.
    • The row header does not have to be the first column, just the most important cell in that row wrt to the list that it is in.
    • PresN's last comment is also not yet done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Table is sorted based on number of matches; I'll adjust the columns now. I am still working on PresN'a comment-will be done tonight. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Done Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 12:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. If interest and time permit, please take a look at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated for deletion
@PresN: I'm not sure if the issue is that the target talk page doesn't exist, or something I've done, but I'd appreciate you taking a look at this. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the bot won't close it if the talk page doesn't have the linking FLC template... and the talk page doesn't even exist now. Manually closing. --PresN 15:31, 15 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [37].[reply]

List of constituencies of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My fifth FL nom and the third in the constituency series. This time it is a larger list with 230 constituencies. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "As of 2001, it comprises 230 members" - 2001 was more than 20 years ago, so the present tense is not appropriate. Surely there is more up-to-date info available?
  • "The 2011 census of India stated that the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled tribes constitute a significant portion of the population of the state" => "The 2011 census of India stated that the Scheduled castes and the Scheduled tribes constituted a significant portion of the population of the state" (past tense, as 2011 was more than 10 years ago). I presume more up-to-date data has not been published?
  • "After the independence of India in 1947, the then province of the Central Provinces and Berar, along with a number of princely states merged with the Indian Union, and became a new state" => "After the independence of India in 1947, the then province of the Central Provinces and Berar, along with a number of princely states, merged with the Indian Union and became a new state"
  • "The number of constituencies of the legislative assembly of this state was 184. 127 constituencies were single-member, and 48 constituencies were double-member" => "The number of constituencies of the legislative assembly of this state was 184, of which 127 were single-member and 48 were double-member"
  • "Madhya Pradesh was reorganized on 1 November 1956, following the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. It was created by merging the old Madhya Pradesh state, Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal states." => "Madhya Pradesh was reorganized on 1 November 1956, following the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, merging the old Madhya Pradesh state, Madhya Bharat, Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal states."
  • I notice that you use both the US spelling "recognized" and the UK spelling "recognised". I don't know which is the correct spelling in Indian English but whichever it is should be used in all cases.
  • That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Switched from "As of 2001," to "From 2001," which is what I meant. I can clarify/reword that statement further, if required.
    • I assume you mean reorganized, not recognized. I've switched to the spelling used in the name of the act: "Reorganisation", which is the UK one. There is still one instance of "Reorganization", but that is from the title of a paper by two US authors.
    • The 2021 census of India hasn't yet taken place. 2011 is the latest completed census.
    • Fixed the rest. Thanks for the review, ChrisTheDude. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments

Comments

  • "After the split, 90 of them were assigned to the new state (Chhattisgarh), while the remaining 230 composed the reduced Madhya Pradesh legislative assembly." don't think you need while in this sentence. Flows better without it
  • Does the constituencies table not need a symbol to go along with the colour? For visually impaired users.
  • Is ref 24, covering the constituencies table? Because it's not clear what's referencing that table at the moment

Looks good to me apart from the above comments. NapHit (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I feel that the 230 number (in the cell next to it) needs to be explained. I've removed the explanation for where the 90 seats went. See if this wording works better.
  • The color is always along with the texts SC or ST, which is why a separate symbol isn't needed IMO. I can add these abbreviations to the legend if you think that it would help.
Done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 24 does have the current list of constituencies, but ref 28 has the same list, as well as the updated number of electors from 2023 (the latest election). I've put that in the header cell for the electors column.
@NapHit: Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issues have been fixed and just a minor one to fix, so I'm happy to support. NapHit (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

  • Ref 6 – Could you add |via=Google books
  • Ref 7, 12, and 15 – Remove "Election Commision of India" from the title and move it to the publisher field. I also note that all of the other references from the commision include |url-access=limited.
  • Ref 22 – Link is dead, mark as such
  • Ref 24 – No publisher listed

Other than that, I don't believe I have any criticisms. Please ping me when these have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Aargh, the Election Commission of India (ECI), in its infinite wisdom, has changed the urls for the delimitation reports. I've updated the relevant refs, but it will not be possible to archive these new urls due to the geo-restriction that the ECI has put on them. For ref 24, I've put Gazette of India as the publisher, but it could be argued that it should be Delimitation Commission of India instead. Fixed the rest. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 16 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC) [38].[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Tunisia

Nominator(s): Tone 20:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tunisia has nine World Heritage sites and 15 sites on the tentative lists. Several ancient cities and Roman remains, as well as desert locations. Standard style. The list for Morocco is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 20:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a hard-and-fast rule, but I've noticed that nominators wait for 2 (or more) supports on an older nomination before starting a new one. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • "because of construction" to "because of the construction" - in the lead and the table
  • " resulted in reduction of vegetation and drop in bird numbers" to " resulted in a reduction of vegetation and a drop in bird numbers" - in the lead and the table
  • "between the 12th to the 16th centuries" to "between the 12th and 16th centuries"
  • wikilink "Islamic world"
  • " series of wars until the" to " series of wars, until the"
  • wikilink necropolis
  • The sentences about minor boundary changes don't seem important to the list.
  • "listed endangered" to "listed as endangered".
  • "By 2006, the situation has improved" to "By 2006, the situation had improved"
  • "As opposed to several Phoenician cities, such as Carthage, Byblos, or Tyre," to "Unlike other Phoenician cities, such as Carthage, Byblos, or Tyre,"
  • "The ruins, which date to the 4th and 3th centuries BCE and were discovered in 1952, provide an important insight into the Punic urban planning." to "The ruins, which date to the 4th and 3th centuries BCE were rediscovered in 1952, and provide an important insight into Punic urban planning."
  • "under the Aghlabids as a part of" to "under the Aghlabids, as a part of"
  • "The medina has been well preserved, with several monuments, including the Ribat, which is both a fortification and a religious building, the Great Mosque (pictured), the kasbah, the Bou Ftata Mosque, and fortifications." - too long and complicated. Please split.
  • "important Libyan–Punic settlement which" to "important Libyan–Punic settlement, which"
  • "lives here while" to "lives here, while".
  • "have been reintroduced" to "were reintroduced".
  • "mammals and reptiles and it" to "mammals and reptiles, and it".
  • I'll continue later. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing...
  • "As opposed to several sections of Roman Limes" to "Unlike several sections of Roman Limes".
  • "Sfax was the gateway and the port of Ifriqiya to the Levant." to "Sfax was the port of the Ifriqiya region, and its gateway to the Levant".
  • "Geological formation" to "The geological formation" in two entries.
  • "extinction event supporting" to "extinction event, supporting".
  • A couple of the refs are missing archive links.
  • That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks! I am trying to list the boundary modifications, either major (which get extra explanation) or minor, because this is still relevant - it is a list of WHS after all. And it explains why some numbers have bis or ter attached - I've had questions on that before :) Tone 08:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2024 (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) 00:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [39].[reply]

List of masters of Trinity College, Cambridge

Nominator(s): IntGrah (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for featured list because...

  • expanded the lead to describe the role
  • described the Master's lodge building
  • highlighted significant developments made by masters of the college
  • summarised the notability of each entry on the list
  • added related images with alt text

IntGrah (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Might be worth mentioning at the start that Trinity is part of the University of Cambridge
  • "In 1546, Trinity College was founded by Henry VIII, from merging the colleges of Michaelhouse and King's Hall" => "In 1546, Trinity College was founded by Henry VIII, merging the colleges of Michaelhouse and King's Hall"
  • " then Warden of King's hall" - shouldn't hall have a capital H, like in the previous sentence?
  • "The Façade of the building" - facade isn't a proper noun so it doesn't need a capital
  • "Arthur Blomfield expanded the west wing of lodge" => "Arthur Blomfield expanded the west wing of the lodge"
  • Great Court is linked twice in the lead
  • (Aside) was the second master known informally as Bill Bill? ;-)
  • "Vice-Chancellor (1548)" - probably worth making it explicit that he (and others who held this role) was VC of Cambridge, not of some other institution
  • That's what I got. Great work! In fact it's inspired me to get out of my comfort zone of music and football and work on a similar article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done (UoC)
    • Done (Merging the colleges)
    • Done (King's Hall)
    • Done (façade)
    • Done (the lodge)
    • Done (Great Court)
    • Not done (Bill Bill)—Very funny
    • Done (Vice-Chancellor) Wrote "Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge" for each entry. Also did the same for St John's College, Cambridge and Jesus College, Cambridge, which have Oxford colleges of the same name.
    IntGrah (talk) 20:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments

  • John Redman, Robert Beaumont, and Thomas Comber are all disambiguation pages
  • You are missing column and row scopes. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice
  • A number of these names are unnecessarily preceded by a title, while others who do have titles that match what's included don't show them. Try to match the target page's name instead, minus disambiguators of course.

Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks for spotting; it was a mistake made when switching from Wikilinks to Sortname templates.
Done Row scopes are attached to the names
Done Names now match article titles.
IntGrah (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |{{Sortname|John|Redman|dab=Trinity College}} becomes !scope=row |{{Sortname|John|Redman|dab=Trinity College}}. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 20:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • "appointmented" to "appointed" OR rewrite the sentence to "The role is an official appointment by the monarch, at the recommendation of the college, ..."
  • Some stats about the shortest and longest tenure would be nice in the lead.
  • I'll reiterate PresN's point about having a primary cell for each row. I'd recommend the name cell.
  • According to [40] William Bill stopped being master of St. John's in 1551, so you can remove the "?" after that year. In the same cell, remove the full stop at the end since this isn't a complete sentence.
  • The empty ref column for the second William Bill stint looks odd. You can re-cite the earlier ref. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (appointed) I think the version "The role is an official appointment by the monarch..." doesn't allow for the fact that it is only ceremonial nowadays.
  • Partially done I added a bit about Richard Bentley, since his long tenure is significant. (He was charged twice by the fellows, but held the role. The first sentencer died, and the second sentence was meant to be executed by the vice-master, whom he was a friend of.) I didn't think it was interesting enough to talk about the shortest term of office though.
  • I already have | scope="row" |{{Sortname|First|Last}} on each table row, is that enough, or is there a another way to mark these as primary?
  • Done (Bill Bill)
  • Done (Empty ref)
IntGrah (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of | scope="row" | it should be ! scope="row" | -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? I didn't see this in other featured lists, and I think putting the picture first is better in this case. I made a test edit for now, but I am under the impression that | scope=... is sufficient for screenreader software. Please correct me if I'm wrong. IntGrah (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Thoughts? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be a !. The reason is that, for wikicode, ! means a header cell, and | means a regular cell. Scope tags only work on header cells (since they're identifying the header cell for the row). Note, though, that the header cell, oddly, doesn't actually need to be the first cell in the row, so if you want the picture column to be the first one then that's fine. I personally don't like the look, but it's not invalid. --PresN 17:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the highlighted effect on the header cell looks weird when it is the second column. Is the current state fine then? (With the name as the header column) IntGrah (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I think it is fine now with the name as the first column (+ header). Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UC

My first time crossing the floor from FAC to FLC, so here goes:

  • later becoming President of the Royal Society (1970–1975) (Hodgkin). Suggest cutting becoming; we don't have it or similar in any other context, and it could be used many times in this table.
  • President of the Royal Society (1950–1955), president of the Royal Society of Medicine (Adrian): why the inconsistent caps?
  • Suggest spelling out "Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge" as "Cambridge University" (or "of the University"): as written, it sounds like an appointment in city government.
  • Physician (Haematologist) (Davies): decap haematologist as a job, not a title.
  • Note 2: I don't see "fionaholland" (claimed author) mentioned on the page. Would advise not giving a username as an author anyway: is there anything linking it to someone presumably called Fiona Holland?
  • Dashes in the "Furniture History" reference are massive: should be endashes per MOS:DASH.
  • Stephen Brewer, Donald Olson (2006) (note 13): name order is at odds with other citations.
  • Pace the Wikisource editors, looking at the source page, there is definitely a space in "Beaumont, Robert (d.1567)} after the d..
  • Note 27 should be put into the same style as the other Wikisource links, and hyphen replaced with an endash.
  • Note 36: endash needed.
  • Note 43: endash needed.
  • Advise linking Alan Hodgkin, Anthony Howard (NB target) and Andrew Huxley in references.
  • Notes 54 and 55 need endashes where they have hyphens.
  • Note 64 is shouting at me.
  • Note 56 is a book, which we have generally given in title case, but the title is given in sentence case.
  • Ditto 44, which also needs an endash.
  • Some websites are cited inconsistently: compare notes 66 and 68, both to the Royal Society.
  • Note 5 needs a correct publisher (which university press?), a volume and perhaps an edition number. Could also link to Chisholm.
  • Does Beaumont have an article in the ODNB? If so, why cite the old DNB by preference?
  • The office of the master could be held until the age of seventy, although this could be extended to seventy-five, by decree of the fellowship.: this is phrased in the past tense, but we never say that it has been repealed, or what the current rule is.
  • The office of the master could be held until the age of seventy, although this could be extended to seventy-five, by decree of the fellowship. There have been 40 appointments to the position: MOS:NUM advises consistency on words versus figures here.
  • the second sentence was refused to be carried out by the vice-master, Richard Walker, whom he was a friend of: this is pretty tough going in the passive voice: it would be clearer in the active, I think.
  • the title is referred to as the master: it's the holder that is referred to as the master.
  • Although sentenced twice, the first sentencer died before the process began: I'm not sure which process is meant here, or why this would allow him to get off the hook.

UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:20, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! I went through each of your points and didn't disagree with any of them:
  • "fionaholland" appears in a <meta name="author" content="fionaholland"/> tag in the HTML. I think it's safe to say that Fiona Holland is the author, so I spelt out her name properly.
  • Replaced DNB and ODNB web citations with with ODNB templates
  • I summarised the Bentley feud by dropping the details of the trials – that can be read on the main article.
IntGrah (talk) 23:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I've made a few fairly trivial edits with matters too minor to hold up the process. Nice work. UndercoverClassicist T·C 15:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

  • Birth and death columns need column scopes
  • All of the portraits need alt text added for accessibility
  • There's a lot of opportunity for more wikilinks in the references you've used. Try to add more where possible, including converting websites listed as the publisher to the actual article that relates to that website.
  • The page displays a script warning for issues related to {{cite encyclopedia}}, which means it's like an issue with a usage of {{Acad}}, as that's a wrapper template of the encyclopedia template. Please resolve the issue(s).

That's what I've got for now. Please ping me when these have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging nominator, @IntGrah. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thank you for the comments. I'm away for a few days but I will get round to it eventually. :) IntGrah (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh done … maybe. I am not sure how to fix the script warnings (I don't see any red text). Is it even there? But the other stuff: done! IntGrah (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IntGrah: These types of references aren't my forte, but I narrowed it down to the usage of {{acad}} and the |doi-broken-date parameter. I don't know the exact resolution, but I wanted to at least set you on the right path. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh Thanks for pointing me in the direction; I fixed some of the dois on {{Cite ODNB}} and removed the broken date warnings – hopefully nothing else is wrong. I checked the {{acad}} references and couldn't find any issues (there's only two params – what could possibly go wrong?) IntGrah (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good news is there's no longer any citation errors. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:39, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 16:15, 15 July 2024 (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 Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC) [41].[reply]

Peter Capaldi filmography

Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC), Rusted AutoParts[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I have sourced the contents of the page. This would be part of a FT around Capaldi. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "His first acting role was in a 1974 play titled An Inspector Calls" - that implies that the play was written or first staged in 1974, which isn't correct. I would suggest "His first acting role was in a 1974 performance of the play An Inspector Calls" Done
  • "Living Apart Together" should be in italics, also it would be good to say if it was a TV show or a film as "onscreen appearance" is vague Done
  • "He portrayed the twelfth incarnation of the Doctor in Doctor Who (2013–2017) and Malcolm Tucker in The Thick of It (2005–2012)" - I would say it would make more sense to put these in chronological order Done
  • "voice acting including, Rabbit" - no reason for that comma Done
  • "Chrisopher Robin (2018)" - this is spelt incorrectly, also it should be in italics Done
  • "He preformed as Professor Marcus in The Ladykillers." - "performed" is spelt wrong, also title should be in italics, also what was this? Another radio play? Done
  • In the tables, roles should sort based on surname where the character had one Done
  • Any title starting with "the" should sort based on the next word Done
  • "Denotes works that have not yet been released"

- there don't seem to be any so just lose this Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. Done
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1982 becomes !scope=row | 1982 (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. Done
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. Done

--PresN 20:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Dylan620

There's only one image, but I still figured an image review would be beneficial.

  • Alt text should probably be added. Maybe something to indicate that it's a headshot of Capaldi?
  • Encyclopedic value is obvious, as the image provides identification of Capaldi.
  • Sourcing for the image checks out.
  • The image is appropriately licensed under Creative Commons.

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: added alt text. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you OlifanofmrTennant, looks good to me now. Support. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 08:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 20 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

  1. Refs 7, 38, 120 – Shift the title from all caps to title case Done
  2. Refs 13, 14, 17, 24, 27 – Change TVGuide to TV Guide instead (consistency with other refs / matches target)Done
  3. Ref 40 – Add publish date Done
  4. Ref 43 – Fix author name, it's Eleanor Bley Griffiths, not Eleanor Griffiths Bley Done
  5. Refs 43, 44, 80, 130 – These targets are redirects to another target, which is actually live, but the URL used should be updated to not be a redirect Done
  6. Refs 49, 88, 163 – Source is dead, mark it as such Done
  7. Ref 51 – Add author Done
  8. Ref 53, 59, 64, 79, 114, 115, 156, 158 – I believe these should be BBC Genome Project instead of BBC Genome Done
  9. Ref 75 – Wikilink to The Daily Telegraph for consistency with refs 117 and 152 Done
  10. Ref 82 – Uses a generally unreliable source, can we sub this out for another ref instead? Done
  11. Ref 85 – Wikilink The Observer and add author Done
  12. Ref 92 – Wikilink The Guardian Done
  13. Ref 110 – Add publish date Done
  14. Ref 129 – Change from Doctor Who TV to BBC Done
  15. Ref 140 – Add publish date and author Done
  16. Ref 146 – Change WhatsOnStage -> WhatsOnStage.com Done
  17. Ref 152 – Add author Done
  18. Ref 170 – Currently displaying an errorDone
  19. For the television table, change the abbreviation to "Refs." and the hover to "References", to reflect that there's more than one reference in the column for some of these Done

That's what I've got for now, please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rusted AutoParts, @OlifanofmrTennant: I have no idea what's been done and what hasn't been. Additionally, responses should be made after reviewer's replies, not in line. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem like several things listed were done but not marked off. I would go to do the fix and it was already done. As for my responses I had been doing them in a reply like this ({{Done}}) but it seems someone edited them. Rusted AutoParts 18:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its preferred to avoid the usage of templates in FLC reviews. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Collection of the responses me and Rusted Auto Parts gave: Ref 163 contained a typo, its been fixed. Ref 85 already had an author. Ref 170 Switched cite book to standard URl cite as it's not necessarily linking directly to a copy of the book, more so linking access to it via subscription. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So have all my comments been addressed @Rusted AutoParts and @OlifanofmrTennant? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: Done. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:36, 11 July 2024 (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) 12:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [42].[reply]

List of Jewish Major League Baseball players

Nominator(s): Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a complete as per the given criteria in the article, is well sourced and, IMO, clears the requirements for FLC. To my surprise, the topic of Jewish MLB players is well documented but there was no Wikipedia article on it. So I tried to capture the importance of baseball in Jewish American history and then used a criteria which is strictly for players who identified as Jewish during ("during" being the key word) their MLB careers. I tried to find as many reliable sources as I could and highlighted the star players of their times. I also took inspiration and instruction from similar MLB lists which are featured lists. I hope I did it justice. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I only have time to look at the lead at the moment, but this is what I got on that:
  • No list should start with "the following is a list". Look at other FLCs and find a way to write a more engaging opening.
  • "players who have at least one Jewish parent" => "players who have or had at least one Jewish parent"
  • Don't have bullet points in the lead, convert this into prose
  • "The criteria for this list has" - "criteria" is a plural word so it should be "have"
  • Per MOS:NOBOLD, bold should not be used to identify entries meeting certain criteria. Use a symbol like {{doubledagger}} instead
  • "an virtual museum" => "a virtual museum"
  • "with two players, Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax being considered" => "with two players, Hank Greenberg and Sandy Koufax, being considered"
  • More later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude, thank you. Will be adding your suggestions ASAP. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I've rewritten the lede with your suggestions. Please give feedback whenever you can. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • "with Lip Pike being the first one ever" => "with Lip Pike being the first"
  • "20th-century" doesn't need a hyphen
  • "Jewish players who made it to the Major Leagues often changed their name" => "Jewish players who made it to the Major Leagues often changed their names"
  • "at the rampant in the country and the league" => "at the time rampant in the country and the league"
  • "and the alleged involvement Jewish crime boss" => "and the alleged involvement of Jewish crime boss"
  • "Greenberg played in Detroit which was home to Father Coughlin" => "Greenberg played in Detroit, which was home to Father Coughlin"
  • "an antisemitic Catholic priest who used his radio program to broadcast antisemitic commentary and Henry Ford who spread antisemitism through his newspaper" - don't think you need to say "antisemitic" three times in such quick succession. I think you can get away with losing the first one.
  • "He faced antisemitism from opposing benches and fans" - yet another one there. Maybe change this one to "abuse"
  • "The most famous of those would be Sandy Koufax" => "The most famous of those was Sandy Koufax"
  • "While Greenberg and Koufax were the main subjects of the film, the movie also discusses" - these two verbs should be in the same tense
  • In the table header, "Major League Team(s)" shouldn't have a capital T on the last word as it isn't a proper noun
  • I don't think the teams column needs to be sortable, as it will only ever sort on the first team listed
  • Almost all of the image captions in the gallery contain facts which aren't cited anywhere else in the article, so they will need citing here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude, getting right on it. Thanks. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And good catch with the "antisemitic priest who spread antisemitism" - I didn't realize! Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude, I got the facts from citations next to each players' names. Its why I didn't add any to the captions. I thought it unnecessary. The rest of the changes you suggested I have done though. ETA: and, of course, the articles of each player list the facts in further detail as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For 100% watertight referencing, I would duplicate whichever ref contains the fact in the image caption -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude, I've done so and also added a few more references. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude, just a reminder that I added the references to the pictures too. Is there anything else that needs to be added or changed? Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |{{sort name|Cal|Abrams}} becomes !scope=row |{{sort name|Cal|Abrams}}. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 20:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PresN, I've edited the tables as you have said. No questions but please check if I did it correctly. Thank you. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, looks good. --PresN 00:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • "existance" to "existence".
  • "late 19th-century and" to "late 19th-century, and".
  • "This includes players who converted during or before their careers or players who have or had at least one Jewish parent and identified as Jewish by virtue of their parentage." to "This includes players who converted during or before their careers, and players who have or had at least one Jewish parent, and identified as Jewish by virtue of their parentage." Also I'm unsure if the sentence should start with "This" or "These".
  • "rampant antisemitism and remain" to "rampant antisemitism, and remain"
  • "It also talks about Jewish immigration" to "talked", since that is the tense used in the previous sentence.
  • I think you can stop sorting of the notes columns. You should definitely make the Refs columns unsortable.
  • The image captions in the gallery aren't full sentences and so don't need full-stops.
  • See if you replace "winningest" with something else.
  • Run IABot on the article.
  • That's all I got for now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824, done. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Dylan620

  • Sourcing for each image checks out, though I did head over to Commons to fix some source URLs (see my recent edits there)
  • Alt text is present for all images
  • Each image contributes encyclopedic value to the listicle
  • All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons
  • The ref for the Sid Gordon caption, unless I'm missing something, doesn't seem to verify that he was "considered one of the best all-round players of his time"
  • The ref for the Ryan Braun caption does not appear to verify any of the information therein, though it does have material that could be useful for a caption

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620, I've edited the two captions to match the info in the source provided next to them. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylan620, is there anything else or is everything fine with the images? Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry, I meant to respond earlier today but got distracted. Everything looks good to me now. Support. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:47, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, regular review passed, promoting. --PresN 01:06, 6 July 2024 (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) 12:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC) [43].[reply]

World Figure Skating Championships cumulative medal count

Nominator(s): Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because a lot of time was spent by several editors to bring this article in line with Wikipedia standards, including properly formatting the tables so that they meet the requirements of MOS:ACCESS, so that tables display the most up-to-date information with proper sourcing, and so that the formatting matches the formatting used on other quality figure skating articles. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:16, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

PresN, can you verify that the tables in this article meet the requirements of MOS:ACCESS? I believe we have caught everything, but if there is anything that we've missed, please let me know. Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're fine. --PresN 20:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Since 1903, only men can attend the event" => "Since 1903, only men can compete in the event" (saying that "only men can attend" would imply that women aren't even allowed in the audience)
  • "He won ten gold medals in a row; however, this feat was not achieved at back-to-back events, as he didn't compete at the 1906 World Championships in Munich, Germany" - none of this is sourced
  • Also "didn't" should be written in full as "did not"
  • "The record for most back-to-back titles is held by Austrian Karl Schäfer with seven gold medals." - not sourced
  • Image caption: "Hayes Alan Jenkins (left) and his brother David (right) won together seven gold medals and four bronze medals for the United States in men's singles." => "Hayes Alan Jenkins (left) and his brother David (right) won a combined seven gold medals and four bronze medals for the United States in men's singles."
  • "which reflects on the men's singles medal table" => "which is included in the men's singles medal table"
  • Image caption: "Dick Button won the most gold medals in men's singles at the World Championships in the post-war era. He won all five gold medals at back-to-back events." - last sentence is not sourced
  • "Sonja Henie from Norway holds the record in women's singles for total medals won (with eleven) and the most gold medals won (with ten), which is also the longest winning streak at back-to-back events in this discipline" - last bit is not sourced
  • "Irina Rodnina and Alexander Zaitsev from the Soviet Union hold the record for the most gold medals won in pair skating and the longest winning streak at back-to-back events (with six)" - last bit is not sourced
  • "while the record for most the most bronze medals is held by Shae-Lynn Bourne and Victor Kraatz from Canada (with four)" - "most the most"?
  • Image caption: "Sonja Henie and Karl Schäfer have together won a total of seventeen gold medals at the World Championships." => "Sonja Henie and Karl Schäfer won a total of seventeen gold medals at the World Championships."
  • I would suggest a footnote to explain why "Figure Skating Federation of Russia", which isn't a nation, appears in some of the "by nation" tables -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback! All of these issues have been addressed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:57, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Dylan620

Support based on image review. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Kavyansh

  • "With the exception of the Olympic title, a world title is considered to be the highest competitive achievement in figure skating." — This is in the lead and is uncited, so I expected it to be somewhere cited in the article. I can't find it, can you help.
  • "Irina Rodnina won" — The reader has been introduced to her first name is the immediately previous sentence, she could be referred just by her last name.
  • Why is East Germany linked when all other countries or places are not? I'm not asking you to unlink it, just curious about your approach towards wiki-links here.
  • "Figure Skating: A History" v. "Figure skating: a history". Lets capitalize each word.
  • Do we need ISU link in the External links section when we have already cited it multiple times in the article.

Thats about it! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of these have been addressed except for #3 and #5. I assume East Germany is linked because it no longer exists? I left the link in the External links section because that seems consistent with other international figure skating competition articles, but I have no objection if someone else wants to remove it. Thank you for your input! Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed, regular review passed, promoting. --PresN 01:06, 6 July 2024 (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) 00:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [44].[reply]

List of cities in New Brunswick

Nominator(s): B3251 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like New Brunswick. I found this nice little list full of eight cities in need of major work, so I've completely rewritten the introduction, made a full revamp to the list and made any necessary updates. Feedback appreciated. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "New Brunswick saw a reduction from 104 municipalities to 77" - New Brunswick isn't alive so can't see anything, so suggest "The number of municipalities in New Brunswick was reduced from 104 to 77"
  • "Municipalities in New Brunswick, of which cities, as well as towns and villages are referred to as, are included" - rather mangled wording here. Would be better as "Cities, towns and villages in New Brunswick are referred to as municipalities and all are included"
  • "in Local governments in the province" - no reason for capital L, mid-sentence
  • "has wards in their municipal governments" => "has wards in its municipal governments"
  • "has a "Hybrid" council type," - don't think the H needs to be a capital (also in the note)
  • "As of 2021, the largest city by population in New Brunswick is Moncton" => As of 2021, the largest city by population in New Brunswick was Moncton" (2021 was three years ago so present tense is not appropriate)
  • "and the smallest is Campbellton" - as above
  • "Additionally, Saint John is the first incorporated city in future New Brunswick and Canada overall" => "Additionally, Saint John was the first incorporated city in the future New Brunswick and Canada overall"
  • That's what I got. Nice work on expanding the article. I have been to New Brunswick but I don't recall if I liked it as it was over 40 years ago :-S -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, and  Done. B3251 (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Second one still needs doing..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Missed that one, whoops.  Done B3251 (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At 8 entries, this seems a little short to be a featured list, but more importantly, it's also unclear why it exists at all given List of municipalities in New Brunswick (FL) exists. It's the first 8 rows of that table, with the council type/size added (and different incorporation dates, for some reason). How is this not just a content fork? --PresN 20:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair question to ask, though I am not the one who created the article so I'm unsure if I could answer it. All that I've pretty much done is do as much as I possibly could to expand onto the article so it stands better as a standalone list, though both articles (list for cities & list for municipalities) were created/promoted as FLC through the same editor. Would it be worth pinging them to ask? Furthermore, would it be beneficial to include former cities to provide leeway for more content to be included into the article? B3251 (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hwy43: Pinging article creator for further opinion. B3251(talk) 21:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While no nomination is the same, here is an example of another successful FLC with eight entries. In Canada, we have numerous topics for populated places. {{Canada topic|List of communities in}} is inclusive of both incorporated and unincorporated communities. {{Canada topic|List of municipalities in}} is for those communities that are incorporated only. That topic contains 13 FLs – one for each province and territory. {{Canada topic|List of cities in}}, {{Canada topic|List of towns in}}, {{Canada topic|List of villages in}}, etc., are subsets or child lists of their parents within {{Canada topic|List of municipalities in}}.

In the past, there have been discussions on these. There are contradictions between WP:NOTPAPER and WP:CFORK. The best way to address CFORK is to make sure this list article has sufficient additional detail that expands upon the content at List of municipalities in New Brunswick specific to cities in New Brunswick. To do so, I have suggested additional information on former cities and other communities that are eligible for city status. See List of cities in Alberta as compared to List of municipalities in Alberta. The former/child list has more detail with respect to administration of the cities compared to the latter/parent list. It also has the two additional sets of info I just mentioned.

I know that New Brunswick has at least one former city – Portland, New Brunswick. Riverview, New Brunswick, Quispamsis, and Rothesay, New Brunswick all appear to be eligible for city status.

@B3251: can you explain why the incorporation dates in this article differ than those in the parent municipalities list? I have a theory why but don't want to assume. Hwy43 (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hwy43:, thanks for the response. I looked for a specific incorporation date for each city, when they were incorporated as a city, if that’s what you were wondering is different. I sought each specific date that each municipality was declared city status, so there may be a difference there in comparison to its incorporation as a municipality.
Pinging @PresN: for thoughts on the above comment. B3251(talk) 11:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Very well done list, but isn't this just a fork of List of municipalities in New Brunswick? Mattximus (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Mattximus, please refer to my reply to PresN above regarding this. I don't think I could give a clear answer on this as I'm not the creator of the list, I just did as much as I could to improve/expand onto it and make it more standalone-specific for cities rather than being what information was already provided in List of municipalities in New Brunswick. This list article was created by the same editor who co-nominated the municipalities list with you, so I proposed pinging them here to hear from them. If you would like to possibly give your opinion, that would be much appreciated. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell; you have them for most, but they're missing on the second row of headers.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. || [[Bathurst, New Brunswick|Bathurst]] becomes !scope=row | [[Bathurst, New Brunswick|Bathurst]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 20:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Screen-reader caption, !scope="col" added to second row of headers, !scope=row added to primary cells (city names).
    I've made the fixes with some additional changes with the sortbottom classes at the bottom that may/may not have needed to have been made. How did I do? @PresN B3251 (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good from that standpoint, though see my comment above. --PresN 00:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 10 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

  • Ref 15 – Please downcase to title case instead of all caps

Source review passes. Support (without taking into consideration whether this should have been split). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get a response on here, but I do see that you downcased the reference appropriately. Thank you. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not responding sooner. Thanks, B3251 (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 18:54, 25 June 2024 (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) 00:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [45].[reply]

List of current United States governors

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 21:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across this list a few months ago and was shocked to see it was almost completely uncited despite being well-trafficked with tens of thousands of monthly views. I have cleaned up the list and added supporting text where needed and feel that it is a viable FL in its current state. This is my first foray into a political FL, so any advice is appreciated. SounderBruce 21:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

  • "Four U.S. territories". This can be shortened to "Four territories".
    • Fixed.
  • I'm not sure it's correct to say that "Four U.S. territories have Democratic governors" when Puerto Rico has a governor from the "New Progressive Party". Can this be reworded?
    • Reducing count to three; I think the next sentence sufficiently explains the Puerto Rico situation.
  • "All 55 state and territorial governors are members of the non-partisan National Governors Association as well as the partisan Democratic Governors Association and Republican Governors Association." This reads as all governors being part of the Democratic Governors Association and Republican Governors Association. I recommend rewording to "All 55 state and territorial governors are members of the non-partisan National Governors Association as well as either the partisan Democratic Governors Association or Republican Governors Association.
    • Reworked entirely to flow better by explaining the NGA first.
  • I'm not sure the sectioning layout works here. The first paragraph under "State governors" mentions territory governors as well. Do those governor statistics in the second paragraph include territory governors? Maybe the first paragraph should be moved up to the lead.
    • Moved up the paragraph that applies to both state and territorial governors; the second paragraph is solely about state governors per the source.
  • Starting a sentence with a number should be avoided as per MOS:NUMBERS.
    • Reworded.
  • "46 of the governors are non-Hispanic white, while one is Hispanic, one is Black, and one is Native American." Is this meant to add up to 50?
    • Fixed, the source mentions two Hispanic governors.
  • I don't think National Governors Association should be linked in the see also section as it is already linked earlier in the article.
    • Removed.
  • I don't think the "Prior public experience" column should be sortable.
    • Removed sortability.
  • And the federal district mayor table shouldn't be sortable at all.
    • Removed sortability.
  • Wyoming Treasurer could be red linked. (surprising that doesn't already have an article)
    • Added link to an existing redirect.
  • The National Governors Association is explained in two different paragraphs: the second and third paragraphs. I would remove any mention of the National Governors Association from the second paragraph.
    • Merged the mentions.

Sourcing

  • I don't think source 5 mentions the Minnesota Democratic–Farmer–Labor Party, which makes that unsourced.
    • Added a note and source.
  • Much of the prior political experience column is unsupported by source 13.
    • Moved the citations to individual profiles to support this information on a row-by-row basis.
      • That's a good idea, but I've noticed that the individual profiles don't always support the prior political experience. For example, the source for J. B. Pritzker doesn't mention the Illinois Human Rights Commission or the Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign, and the source for Dan McKee doesn't mention he was mayor of Cumberland or on the Cumberland Town Council.
        • Tossed out the positions I couldn't find in the re-added experience chart or the blurbs on the NGA website. The territorial governors now have additional citations where needed.
          • There are still some problems with the sourcing of the prior political experience: Sources don't support that Sarah Huckabee Sanders was a deputy press secretary, that Gretchen Whitmer was Minority Leader of the Michigan Senate, that Michelle Lujan Grisham was on the Bernalillo County Commission, that Roy Cooper was Majority Leader of the North Carolina Senate, or that Spencer Cox was a member of the Sanpete County Commission.
  • The source URL for Kathy Hochul is wrong.
Support from Hurricanehink

Ooh, I had to come here all the way from my California FLC!

  • Is it worth indicating that five states don't have a lieutenant governor? I suppose the "most" works, but it led me wondering, and then I forgot I was supposed to be reviewing this. Having that information available would save that wiki hole.
    • Added.
  • "All 55 state and territorial governors are members of the non-partisan National Governors Association, which lobbies the federal government for governors' interests. " - the NGA was already mentioned in the second lead paragraph, so I think its reference in the 3rd lead paragraph should be moved, keeping both mentions of NGA together
    • Fixed, that was duplicated during the move up from the next section.
  • "The average age of governors at the time of their inauguration was 59.28 years old." - considering every age is otherwise listed as a whole year, I suggest rounding this to the whole year. You could always add "about" before 59.
    • Rounded.
  • Could you add how long Inslee has been governor, how old Ivey and Sanders are?
    • As the years are included for all three, I believe it would not be necessary per MOS:CURRENT.
  • "two are Hispanic, one is Black, and one is Native American." - since there are so few, what do you think about indicating who these all are? Otherwise, I have no idea who the Native American governor is (not Hawaii like I thought for a second). Again, I went down a wiki hole when I should have been reviewing this list.
    • Not entirely sure this is needed, since the source states it outright.
      • The source might state it, but someone coming to the article might go away from this article searching for that information. That's something that stands out to me as something that seems missing. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a general spotcheck, but where are the references for the previous careers? The ref for Ivey didn't mention her being state auditor.
    • Should be fixed now.
      • As an extension of the spotchecks and references, I notice there's an entire column, but some of the references are under the section for "prior public experience." Is there a reason the references aren't under the reference column? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many governors are term-limited? (and thus lame ducks)
    • Great idea, I've added explanations of term limits. Listing the lame ducks would be difficult and likely irrelevant except for a very short period before elections, so I have decided not to add them.

The list seems pretty good, so I hope none of these are too difficult. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Thanks for the review and sorry for the delay. I have replied to your comments above. SounderBruce 02:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, my only two outstanding comments are identifying the Hispanic/Black/Native American governors (since there are so few), and a question about where the references go. I appreciate all of your other fixes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Added the non-white governors by name and moved citations to the reference column. SounderBruce 05:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: I think you may have missed this reply to your FLC, so I wanted to ping you to it just in case. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging SounderBruce (talk · contribs) again. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support now! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

EN-Jungwon
  • Archive all links
  • Ref 1 add date 14 October 2020
  • Ref 3 is dead
  • Ref 4 change date from March 2011 to May 2011
  • Ref 11, 13, 53, 72, 73, 87 and 89 requires a subscription
  • Ref 29 is showing an "Access Denied" message

-- EN-Jungwon 01:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 29 works for me, so it might be a location-related issue. An archive link has been added to the remaining links. SounderBruce 05:19, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EN-Jungwon: I have fixed the three citation errors and added URL tags to those that have a paywall. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 17:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EN-Jungwon 01:07, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Dylan620

  • All images have alt text.
  • All images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
  • All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
  • Sourcing for each image checks out, though I did need to do some digging through the Wayback Machine to find archived URLs for some sources that were dead links.

Support on image review. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:31, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Staraction

@SounderBruce Well done with this article and thanks for your efforts in improving it! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Staraction: Thanks for the review. I have replied your comments above (and I hope you don't mind me moving them down to maintain chronological order). SounderBruce 06:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce Article looks great! Support. Staraction (talk | contribs) 11:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 15:14, 28 June 2024 (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) 00:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC) [46].[reply]

Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe

Nominator(s): Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first FLC! I am nominating this for featured list because the Marvel Cinematic Universe is the highest-grossing film franchise and one of the most popular media franchises today. It has had a significant impact on the film industry and has a large following with various articles going into much detail on the different aspects that make up this franchise. This list outline provides a comprehensive breakdown of these working parts to help guide readers through navigating this multimedia franchise. I do want to stress that while some of these tables are transcluded from sub-articles, they have been designed with visual aid and navigation on this list in mind. Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • You're good on column and row scopes, but unfortunately the pseudo-headers within the tables (like "Phase One") don't meet accessibility standards. The more complete explanation is at MOS:COLHEAD, but in short while they look visually like a new header, they're not actually like that in the table code so screen reader software treats them like their a cell from the first column (e.g. the first film is named "Phase One"). You need to either make the phases their own tables or else make "Phase" a column in the combined table. COLHEAD has examples of both. Same goes for the other tables.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 02:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good to know! I think I would prefer using captions over adding another column for "Phases", just to avoid bundling more text together in the tables than is necessary. I'll be testing this out here shortly. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trailblazer101: Where some of these tables originate, they don't need the captions visible because they are virtually duplicating the heading right by the table. This will then affect how they appear here and I think we need to go the route of subsections. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I understand. My thinking now is that maybe we should vacate the saga sections and split them up by phases entirely, as to avoid overdoing subheaders. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, I now see the changes you've made. That handles it better. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. Also, I can totally tackle the TV tables later today or tomorrow. Those I know will be a bit of coding work to ensure everything appears where it needs to at other articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's kind of why I put them off until last. An assist would be greatly appreciated for those! Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok I think I've gotten it all settled. We'll just need to see if the captions are worded the way we want (in particular the Marvel TV ones), and then what ever other hatnotes we'd need on the outline article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks a bunch! Okay, I just tweaked some display for the future films with that WM update tag as it was spanning the width on different columns too much, especially for some empty cells. They all look good to me, though I'm not currently sure what other hatnotes we may need. Would it now be appropriate to introduce the {{Transcluded section}} hatnotes to the outline sections where applicable/appropriate or would that be overkill? Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My thought on hatnoes was if under say "Phase One" we should have it there, even though I have now linked it in the prose below "The Infinity Saga". {{Transcluding article}} may be better as a "catch all" if desired. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think either one could work for this, though transcluded section may be more preferred as it would provide links in each section which would be beneficial for the Marvel Studios series. Trailblazer101 (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have gone with {{Transcluded section}} for each of the sections where applicable and swapped the {{Main}} instances with those given it accomplishes two tasks at once. I also included specific section headers in the links for readers to easily click to, though I will note when you click to edit, it goes straight to the page and not the sections, though I don't think that's an issue. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PresN: The accessibility suggestions have all been addressed. Trailblazer101 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo

In an effort to get things moving forward, I'll review this.

  • Lead
    • "...has expanded to consist of various superhero films and television series produced by Marvel Studios and television series from Marvel Television, as well as short films, digital series, and literature, among other media." ==> "...has since expanded to include various superhero films and television series produced by Marvel Studios, television series from Marvel Television, short films, digital series, literature, and other media."
    • "The franchise has been commercially successful, becoming one of the highest-grossing media franchises and the highest-grossing film franchise of all time, having grossed over $29.8 billion at the global box office" ==> "The franchise has been commercially successful and has grossed over $29.8 billion at the global box office, becoming one of the highest-grossing media franchises and the highest-grossing film franchise of all time."
    • "This includes Avengers: Endgame (2019), which became the highest-grossing film of all time at the time of its release" ==> "This includes Avengers: Endgame (2019), which concluded its theatrical run as the highest-grossing film of all time" to avoid repetion of "time"
    • "....television series, and it has inspired other film and television studios to attempt similar shared universes." ==> "....television series, and has inspired other film and television studios to attempt similar shared universes."
  • Organizations
    • "Marvel Studios – Creator of the MCU and the production company for its films, some television series, and other media; part of Walt Disney Studios and currently owned by the Walt Disney Company" ==> "Marvel Studios – Creator of the MCU and the production company for its films, television series, and other media; currently part of Walt Disney Studios"
    • Indent the bullet point for Marvel Television so that it falls under Marvel Studios
    • "Marvel Television – Production company for some television series; a division of Marvel Studios and currently owned by the Walt Disney Company" ==> "Marvel Television – Production company for some television series; currently a division of Marvel Studios."
  • Influential people
    • Does Louis D'Esposito deserve a mention as co-president?
    • "Kevin Feige helped conceive of a shared media universe of Marvel properties." ==> "Kevin Feige helped conceive a shared media universe of Marvel properties."
  • Content
    • "The Phases also include multiple series and two specials streaming on Disney+" ==> "The Phases also include multiple television series and two specials streaming on Disney+"
    • Adventure Into Fear was supposed to be set in the MCU but not cross over while Paul Zbyszewski stated Helstrom is not set in the MCU. Perhaps remove it or mention this in a note?
  • Notes
    • Note e.: "...television development process, moving away from head writers and began to hire dedicated showrunners for their series....." ==> "...television development process, moving away from head writers, and began to hire dedicated showrunners for their series....."
    • In Note g., switch the references so that Ref. 132 appears first.
  • Sourcing (not a full source review, just things that I caught a glimpse of)
    • Ref. 1 is missing IMDb as publisher and an archive link. You can use Template:Cite Box Office Mojo if you want.
    • Refs. 205, 206, 207, 209 and 216 have Amazon as the publisher, which seems wrong. Also consider giving each one of them a link to their corresponding Google Books page.
    • Change Comixology to ComiXology in Ref.196 and wikilink it
    • Add a link to here and an archive of that for Ref. 199
@Sgubaldo: All done, minus using Cite BOM as it doesn't support the site's franchise pages. I retained the link to "superhero films" in the lead as it is helpful to some readers.Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The missing link was an error on my part. As a final comment, please add the authors to the various prelude comics.
Other than that, I'm happy to Support. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support always nice to see the dedication in the MCU articles. Given Phase 1 managed to become a Good Topic, hope more of the Phase overviews get to FL soon to enable more topics. igordebraga ≠ 15:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 18:54, 25 June 2024 (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.

Nominations for removal

Bleach season 1

Notified: Erachima, Sephiroth BCR, WikiProject Anime and manga, WikiProject Television

Following the recent FLRC for 30 Rock season 1 and a discussion regarding expectations for TV season articles, this list appears to fall clearly short of current-day FL standards. High-quality season articles (whether FLs or GAs) are generally expected to cover production, reception, etc. in addition to providing plot summaries. Sourcing is also poor, relying heavily on primary sources. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note: seasons 2–10 of the show are also FLs and I plan to nominate those for FLRC later for similar reasons, but it's only fair that each FLRC get due consideration, so barring any notes to the contrary (and to avoid flooding FLRC), I plan to nominate them one at a time. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't even close to being complete. At best this is a C level article. Gonnym (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original editor left Wikipedia years ago Tintor2 (talk) 10:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know that both the nominator of this season's list and the nominator for most later seasons left, so please let other people know about this FLRC if they are in a better position to help or provide feedback. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist – poorly sourced, and generally not up to standard. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove all of the relevant information simply being formatted into a lead section is a poor format and extremely unencyclopedic. As those above have said, we expect more from articles of this type than we did in the past. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=1230020388"