Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 at peer review 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. Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegate, PresN, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least ten days (though most last a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; 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; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

After a reasonable time has passed, the director or delegates will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, 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 – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects

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.

Supporting and objecting

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.
  • To oppose a nomination, write * '''Object''' or * '''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. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature, rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up 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, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • 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:



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

Nominations[edit]

United States congressional delegations from Connecticut[edit]

Nominator(s): Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first FLC! I thought Connecticut needed more featured lists :). This is a list of all the senators and representatives to Congress from Connecticut since it became a US state in 1788. The list is modeled after another similar featured list, United States congressional delegations from Hawaii. Please let me know any feedback you might have; thank you! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824's comments
  • "Current U.S. representatives from Connecticut" should be a table caption and not a header. Same with the senator table.
  • Wikilink the first usage of "dean".
  • 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. !rowspan=2|Season becomes !scope=col rowspan=2|Season. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. Same goes for row header cells, where the scope=row or rowgroup needs to be used.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear.
  • In the "United States Senate" table, what does the gray/white 3rd column (after the one showing the party color) signify?
  • Also, what does the "(PA)" next to Oliver Ellsworth's name stand for? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 Hi! Thanks for your feedback!
    • Headers converted to table captions - done!
    • There isn't a good wikilink I can include for "dean", but I've added a clarification as to what it means, and included a wikilink to the similar page Dean of the United States House of Representatives - done, but might want clarification.
    • It took me a bit but I think I added scopes to all the tables (although I may have missed something or messed up somewhere - is there a way to check?) - done for now.
    • The gray/white 3rd column signifies the term that senator was serving (every six years). Made me realize I need to add footnotes for a lot more senators, so that's on my to-do list. How should I make the meaning of the gray/white bars clear?
    • "(PA)" should mean Pro-Administration, legend is now fixed to represent that - done!
    Thanks again for your feedback! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricanehink

I also have an FLC about a state beginning with the letter C! So I figured I'd come here and review this one, especially since I enjoy politics. I compared the list to the three existing featured lists for state congressional delegations - Hawaii, Indiana, and Utah.

  • Is there an image for the top-right of the page? All of the other featured lists have that.
  • Somewhere you need to link U.S. state. Some people might never have heard of Connecticut, or believe it's even a real place. Context is important, and in general, I feel that the lead is far too short, compared to Indiana and Utah especially. The Utah list mentions, for example,
  • "Before the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, senators were elected by the Utah State Legislature. Members of the House of Representatives are elected to two-year terms, one from each of Utah's four congressional districts."
  • Was that similar for Connecticut? Also, how many have there been? Utah's list also includes a total number, which is a useful bit of information you'd expect in a featured list, such as people who were both a representative and senator, the longest-serving member, a gender breakdown, the current dean of the state. That information should be in the lead. That's important for how Wikipedia's information is shown. On mobile, for example, you would see the lead, and then have to open up tabs to read more information.
  • I don't know if it's overkill, but considering the number of times that PVI is brought up, could you explain somewhere what that means, not just linking it in the first infobox for current U.S. senators?
  • "Connecticut has not had a Republican representative in Congress for more than a decade" - which begs me to ask, who was the last Republican? I think it's worth mentioning in the spirit of neutrality both in respect for party affiliation and historical context.
  • Just some general spotchecking, but could you tell me what is the reference for the historical list of senators? For example, that James Hillhouse was after Ellsworth.
  • There's nothing about how the representatives are voted for. Again, referring to Utah's list, there should be something like - "Members of the House of Representatives are elected every two years by popular vote within a congressional district... Connecticut has had five districts since 2003."

So that's it. I don't think any of the above should be that difficult, it's mostly me being nitpicky with what I expect out of a featured list. Please let met know if you have any comments, Staraction (talk · contribs). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities of Tabasco[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one more list of municipalities with a standardized format that now includes 44 (!!) lists in North American jurisdictions. Inspired by real encyclopedias with consistent formatting and high standards, I'm helping to achieve this for lists of municipalities. I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks for your reviews Mattximus (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Couldn't find any issues. Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • The captions to the images of the biggest three are not complete sentences so shouldn't have full stops.
  • That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Images have alt text
  • Images, including the map, are appropriately licensed
  • Images have succinct captions and are relevant in the article.
  • This passes image review. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1992[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my 50th nomination in this series. In this particular year some of the biggest names in R&B gained their first number ones: Mary J. Blige, TLC, and a guy I'm sure a lot of us would prefer not to have to think too much about but I guess you can't change history..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824
  • Some of the images are from much later than 1992. They'll need some "(pictured in xyz") added to the captions. The lead image is ok since it is from 3 years later only.
  • "inside two months" => "in the space of two months".
  • Didn't see any other problems with the prose or table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. Congrats on hitting the milestone! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • No act took more than two singles to the top of the R&B chart in 1992. -- perhaps this can be written like no other act has achieved more than two number one singles in the R&B chart in 1992 or more than two singles atop the R&B chart in 1992, or something along those lines.
@Pseud 14: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed in Commons
  • Images are relevant in the article and have succinct and clear captions. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:46, 11 April 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 8 sources match what they are being cited for

Comments:

That's all I've got. Good stuff Chris, and congrats on hitting that milestone! Gonna have a large and awesome featured topic if you keep at it! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: - thanks for your review, all done! I replaced the dead link with a completely new source -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of talpids[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 15:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

We continue through animals with #37 in our perpetual series of mammals lists: moles! Also shrew moles and desmans, collectively making up the family Talpidae. This is the second of four families of the order Eulipotyphla, and is the last easy one at 45 species. These guys are pretty well-known, despite living largely underground, though unfortunately we're missing free images for mostof the Asian ones. As always, this list follows the pattern of the previous lists and reflects previous FLC comments. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 15:44, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • It might be worth linking invertebrates, amphibians, crustaceans and fungi.
  • That's all I could find really. It's a very informative and well-structured list, as one would expect with your species-related work. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • "A member of this family is called an talpid" It should be "a talpid", right?
  • Didn't see other problems. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turing Award[edit]

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Knuth, Hopcroft, Lamport, Aho – all authors of CS textbooks, and all winners of the “Nobel Prize of computer science”. My third FL nom; something different this time. I’ve improved the lead, table accessibility, and added a bunch of references. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:16, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DBC[edit]

Dylan620[edit]

Placeholder for image review. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 17:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • major technical importance to computer science.[2] It is generally recognized as the highest distinction in computer science -- MOS:DUPLINK, unlink the second instance of computer science; perhaps worth switching it to in the field or in the field of study to avoid being repetitive.
  • theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence[6] and a key contributor -- comma after artificial intelligence
  • I would link Word War II, and Google on the first instance.
  • That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coldplay live performances[edit]

Nominator(s): GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 19:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! I withdrew this page's nomination last year due to lack of time to address issues that could possibly be brought forward, but I believe I'm ready now. The column scopes in the tables have been fixed as asked before. Other than that, I think we are ready for the next steps. GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 19:12, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-through comments
  • Concert tours table - does everything need to be center-aligned? It would be better for the number columns (shows, gross, attendance) to be right aligned.
  • "width:17.05em" seems like unnecessary precision.
  • COLOR shouldn't be the only means of conveying important information. Add a symbol as well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the centered number columns makes it easier to visualise the information, similar to the List of highest-grossing concert tours. And yes, tables all across the article are precisely aligned, I'm an obsessed perfectionist. With that said, I just made a few adjustments to meet your criteria without compromising mine too much. Sorry for not adding a symbol before, I completely forgot. GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 03:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment

  • As a procedural note, Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support. Your nomination on the List of cover versions of Coldplay songs has one support at the moment. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of birds of New Brunswick[edit]

Nominator(s): B3251 (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First ever featured list nomination! I updated the list (additions/removals/tag changes) with current information, which can be found here (this is not a full list but rather an addendum update from 2023, so I also used the 2017 checklist to double check the tags). I also added photos, copyedited some of the families' descriptions, and added a description introducing the reader to New Brunswick and its geography. I took reference from the recently-promoted List of birds of Alberta and its nomination to make edits to the New Brunswick list, and reused a good amount of references to make sure each family description has citations here as well. Improving New Brunswick-related topics on Wikipedia has been my top priority since I began actively editing a year ago, and I'm more than happy to nominate this for featured list status. I do not have access to the book that the Alberta list nominator used for the family descriptions so I am more than happy to rewrite them if needed using alternate sources such as Birds of the World, which I have an institutional access to. B3251 (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Move Old World vulture link to first usage
  • Suggest linking Old World flycatchers
  • Passerine is inconsistently capitalised
  • "The vireos are a group of small to medium-sized passerine birds mostly restricted to the New World," - link New World?
  • "The thrushes are a group of passerine birds that occur mainly but not exclusively in the Old World" - same with Old World
  • "The yellow-breasted chat is the [....] and are" - grammatical disagreement here
  • Under Cardinals and allies there's no line break after the order and family
  • That's all I got - awesome work!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    checkY @ChrisTheDude everything fixed, thank you for the comment! B3251 (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grungaloo[edit]

Great to see this! I took the List of Birds of Alberta to FL and I'm glad to see other Canadian provinces getting the same treatment!

  • Lead - Accidental vs Rare. I wouldn't use the word "rare" to describe accidentals since then it's hard to distinguish how it's different from rare. Try something like "a species that does not often occur...".
  • which has disputed sovereignty between New Brunswick and Maine - The sovereignty dispute is between Canada and the USA technically, would reword this to state that but you can still say that each Province/State includes it in their territory.
  • Gulls, terns, and skimmers - I left out any discussion of skimmers in the family description since none appear in Alberta, but for New Bruinswick I'd suggest adding a line describing them. If you'd like I can look at the reference book I used and add that in.

Everything else looks great! grungaloo (talk) 21:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the adequate changes but if you could help out with the reference for skimmers it would be much appreciated. I have institution access to birdsoftheworld but not much was mentioned about skimmers aside from "skimmers use their highly specialized bills to snag their prey from the surface of calm water, often in gracefully coordinated bands." Thanks! B3251 (talk) 22:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs recorded by Rachelle Ann Go[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After bringing Rachelle Ann Go's list of roles and awards to FL status, here's another related list that I am nominating. This list includes songs she has recorded and released that span her two-decade career. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "She has also collaborated with other artists on duets and featured songs on their respective albums" - lose the word "respective", it isn't needed
Done
  • "experimenting on genres that infuse Filipino music and eclectic styles of dance" => "experimenting with genres that fuse Filipino music and eclectic styles of dance"
Done
  • "for the Filipino dubbed South Korean series" => "for the Filipino-dubbed South Korean series"
Done
  • "Christian Bautista and Go recorded a cover of Peter Allen's and Carole Bayer Sager's "You and Me (We Wanted It All)"" => "Christian Bautista and Go recorded a cover of Peter Allen and Carole Bayer Sager's "You and Me (We Wanted It All)""
Done
  • "Eva Noblezada and Go featured in "The Movie In My Mind"" => "Eva Noblezada and Go featured on "The Movie In My Mind""
Done
  • "Go has covered Mariah Carey's Through the Rain." - song title should be in quote marks
Thanks for catching. Fixed
  • Why is the "album" column against "Missing You" blank?
Another great catch. Oopsie. Added album title.
Thanks for your review ChrisTheDude. All actioned and fixed. Let me know if I missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Dylan620[edit]

  • Points for including alt text in every image, but there are some things that I think should be addressed:
    • According to WP:ALTTEXT#Importance of context, alt text should only describe what a person is wearing if the article is about fashion, which this is not. (Dylan runs off to fix his own instances of doing this, having just recently been advised on this matter himself.)
    • Three alt texts refer to the person using their full name, two refer to the person using only their family name, and two refer to the person without using their name at all. This should be standardized.
  • Otherwise, everything looks great. The images all contribute encyclopedic value to the listle, as each person pictured is pertinent to at least one song listed. Licensing checks out across the board, though I am assuming good faith WRT one of the uploads taken from a Flickr account which no longer exists. In my opinion, all of the images are of sufficient quality as well, though the picture of Noblezada was recently tagged on Commons as a low-quality image. I guess I can see why the person who tagged it would think that, as the picture is a tiny bit grainy and there's a whole lotta black (i.e. low contrast), but the former doesn't bother me and the latter also applies to the image of Go used in the lede. Still, if a higher-quality PD or CC photo of Noblezada (or another Miss Saigon actor) surfaces down the line, you might want to consider swapping it in.

Great work overall, and I expect to support once the alt text is addressed. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 21:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620: Thanks for the review. All addressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! I probably would've kept the details that didn't pertain to clothing, but that's just me personally, and I'm happy with the changes you've made. Support. For what it's worth, if you have any time or interest, I would love some feedback on an older FLC. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 23:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relayed[edit]

It is good to see you working with another! At a glance, the prose looks good to me and the table "contents" widget is working properly. I do not see any substantial issues apart from the following:

  • Saturno co-wrote the single "From The Start"Saturno co-wrote the single "From the Start" (MOS:TITLECAPS)
  • In the table, "From The Start""From the Start" (MOS:TITLECAPS)
  • Both in the table and image caption, "The Movie In My Mind""The Movie in My Mind" (MOS:TITLECAPS)
  • "Something In the Air""Something in the Air" (MOS:TITLECAPS)
  • "Stay In Love""Stay in Love" (MOS:TITLECAPS)
  • "Walk Into My Life""Walk into My Life" (MOS:TITLECAPS)
  • Some songs in the table are not sorted properly alphabetically. Follow the table below:
Current revision Expected
"Alam ng Ating Mga Puso" "Alam ng Ating Mga Puso"
... ...
"I Will Always Love You Anyway" "I Will Always Love You Anyway"
"If" "I'll Always Love You"
"If You Don't Know Me by Now" "I'm Sure"
"If You Walk Away" "If"
"Ikaw Lang" "If You Don't Know Me by Now"
"I'll Always Love You" "If You Walk Away"
"I'm Sure" "Ikaw Lang"
"In Your Eyes" "In Your Eyes"
... ...
"Masasabi Mo Ba" "Masasabi Mo Ba"
"The Movie In My Mind" "Missing You"
"Missing You" "The Movie in My Mind"
"My Forever Love" "My Forever Love"
... ...
"Pagkakataon" "Pagkakataon"
"Palm Reader" "Palad Mo sa Puso Ko"
"Palad Mo sa Puso Ko" "Palm Reader"
"Promise Me" "Promise Me"
... ...
"You Kissed My Tears" "You Kissed My Tears"

That's all I have for this list, and I will happily support once everything is addressed. Great work, as always! Do ping me if you have addressed the above or have any comments. If you can spare some time, it would be great if you could take a look at my current FLC, which would be needing comments. – Relayed (t • c) 16:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Relayed: - Thanks! All addressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good job and good luck! – Relayed (t • c) 18:31, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arizona Cardinals first-round draft picks[edit]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This will be list #8 for me in this series and, hopefully, #28 in the series to be promoted. One of the charter members of the NFL and the oldest continuously run professional football franchise, this most resembles and copies the format of my previous nominations of List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks (a fellow charter member and second oldest franchise) and List of Detroit Lions first-round draft picks (fifth oldest franchise). As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • In 1960, the team moved to St. Louis -- I think it would be better to write (and link) as St. Louis, Missouri
  • From 1947 through 1958 the NFL designated -- comma after 1958
  • In the table notes: Pick used in 1989 supplemental draft. -- I would remove the period
  • That's all from me. Solid work as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed in Commons
  • Images are relevant to the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented all of your suggestions. Thanks so much for taking the time to review and provide feedback @Pseud 14! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "The team was established [...] and are the" => "The team was established [...] and is the", surely?
  • "where they've played their home games since" => "where they have played their home games since"
  • Jimmy Lawrence's name is spelt incorrectly in the lead
  • Lottery is spelt incorrectly on the 1958 row
  • "Arizona received the Washington Redskins's 1977 first-round" => "Arizona received the Washington Redskins' 1977 first-round"
  • That's it. Great work as ever, Josh!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback @ChrisTheDude! I've made the suggested changes and boy do I feel silly about the lottery and "Redskins's" one! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grade I listed buildings in England completed in the 20th century[edit]

Nominator(s): KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following a helpful Peer review, I hope this attempt at a comprehensive list of Grade I listed buildings in England dating from the 20th century is ready for FLC. I've ensured there is a corresponding article for every entry. I've not quite achieved that level of completeness with the images, with three missing. The usual sources couldn't help, and two have exceptionally light on-line presences. To explain my thinking on the order, I've taken a thematic approach; cathedrals/churches/war memorials/other memorials/houses/public buildings; and chronologically within those groups. The table is fully sortable. If nothing else, it will give interested editors the opportunity to derisively critique the inclusion of some structures, and enjoy suggesting their preferred alternatives. Any and all comments gratefully received. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • What's the initial sort order of the table? It isn't the name of the building or the architect or the date of either completion or listing. It seems completely random, unless I am missing something obvious...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s a very fair question, and one that was asked at PR. I went for thematic - cathedrals/churches/war memorials/other memorials/houses/public buildings - and chronologically within that. Now, whether that was the right decision…? I could go strictly chronological, or alphabetical (although that seems equally random), or something else. Would appreciate views on the best approach. KJP1 (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think alphabetizing the name column would be best. I do like the thematic organization, but even then there's chapels interspersed with the churches, memorials with war memorials (but then other memorials later), and other irregularities like the house of St Catherine's College being organized with the college rather than other houses, which are separate from apartment blocks. Maybe change some of them to broader categories (like Bridge instead of Footbridge, Road bridge, and Suspension bridge) so sorting the Type column would work better.
ChrisTheDude,Reywas92 - Many thanks indeed for the input. I've gone for the suggested Alphabetic approach, and I think it's better. I also took the opportunity to iron out a few other quirks; combining the Footnotes, simplifying the Types, and standardising titles. If either/both of you had time for a review, it would be very much appreciated. Thanks and regards. KJP1 (talk) 07:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • 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. I've added a parameter to the header template, so screen-reader-only captions can be added by putting |caption=your_caption_text as a template parameter.
  • I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 16:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
PresN - Hi, apologies, but the technical aspects of setting up tables are pretty much beyond me, and I've not got a clue as to what I need to do in response to your comment. I've had a look at the relevant Accessibility page of the MoS and at the accompanying tutorial, but I'm afraid I still can't work out what I'm supposed to do. If you were able to give a little more guidance, I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks. KJP1 (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1: You had it mostly right- you just didn't need to wrap the caption in a {{sronly}} template, because I made the {{English Heritage listed building header}} template do that already. I fixed it, so you're all good now. --PresN 16:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
PresN - very much appreciated. Thank you. KJP1 (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Liechtenstein general elections[edit]

Nominator(s): TheBritinator (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this article that I created to be of high quality and I would like to nominate it for FL. It is quite simple, but I believe it explains the topic well inline with contemporary lists. TheBritinator (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824
  • No list should start with "This is a list of". It might be better if the current second paragraph is moved to the top.
  • "Elections in Liechtenstein have been held since the ratification of the 1862 constitution in with the Landtag was of Liechtenstein was established for the first time." Needs grammar fixes to be intelligible.
  • I don't understand the color system in the table. Why does the color of the winning party bleed on to the date cell of the next election too?
  • You can consider using the Template:Party name with color template for the political party cell in the table. The other columns don't need the color.
  • Is the monarch column very relevant to this table? Same for the date column.
  • Only slightly relevant to this FLC, but please create a stub atleast for Karl Freiherr Haus von Hausen.
  • Is the phrase "(during term)" in the PM column necessary?
  • The notes for the graph should be in its caption.
  • "First election to use 25 Landtag seats instead of 15." to "First election to have 25 Landtag seats instead of 15."
  • 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. !rowspan=2|Season becomes !scope=col rowspan=2|Season. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
    • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear.
  • The last three are PresN's standard comments. That's all I have for now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright I believe I have (at least started to) addressed this issue pointed out. As you have pointed out with the monarch and date it may not be necessary, though I would be a proponent of keeping the date(s) as I believe it's better structures the table given that some elections have taken place in the same year. That being said, I have replaced the monarch column with a reference one instead as recommended by @RunningTiger123, these are the sources from the main election article. TheBritinator (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still need colscopes. --PresN 16:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
    Take another look. TheBritinator (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by RunningTiger123
  • Agree with all of the above comments
  • "elections for the members of the Landtag of Liechtenstein and Prime Minister of Liechtenstein" – but the PM isn't directly elected, right? The elections only select the Landtag representatives; those representatives then elect the PM.
    • Same idea for "Elected prime minister (during term)" in column header – just say "Prime minister"
  • No need for empty lines in the "Political parties" section (just leads to unnecessary gaps)
  • Don't add bold text in markup for table headers (MediaWiki adds bold text automatically)
  • Images need alt text
  • I'm having a hard time checking because the colors include an alpha value, but I don't think the background cell colors meet MOS:COLOR. There must be a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 between the text and background colors.
  • "30 September 1914 – 2 October 1914" – no need to state year twice
  • Perhaps the most critical part – what's your source for any of the election results???

RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of number-one Billboard Latin Pop Albums from the 1980s[edit]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a break from the Latin pop/tropical #1 singles while I work on the songs that reached #1 in 2001. I haven't mentioned, but I also love 80s music in Latin pop and tropical music formats. Since the Latin Pop Airplay didn't exist back then, I figured I'd do it by albums. As always, I look forward to addressing any issues! Erick (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "José José was also the artist with the most number-one albums of the 1980s with Promesas (1985), Siempre Contigo (1986), and Soy Así (1987)" => "José José was also the artist with the most number-one albums of the 1980s, also topping the chart with Promesas (1985), Siempre Contigo (1986), and Soy Así (1987)"
  • "they were best-selling Latin pop albums of 1986–88, respectively" => "they were the best-selling Latin pop albums of 1986–88, respectively"
  • "Un Hombre Solo (1987) by Promesas had the longest-running number one " => "Un Hombre Solo (1987) by Promesas was the longest-running number one "
  • "Emmanuel and Julio Iglesias were the only artists to have more than two chart-toppers." => "Emmanuel and Julio Iglesias were the only other artists to have more than two chart-toppers." (because you already said that Jose Jose had four)
  • I might also be tempted to change it to "Julio Iglesias and Emmanuel", as currently it could be taken that Emmanuel also had the surname Iglesias (in the same way that you might say, say "Julio and Enrique Iglesias")
  • "while the artist was on temporary retirement" => "while the artist was in temporary retirement" (also in image caption)
  • "Five female acts had reached number one on the chart during the 1980s" => "Five female acts reached number one on the chart during the 1980s"
  • "Pantoja had the best-selling Latin pop of 1989" => "Pantoja had the best-selling Latin pop album of 1989"
  • That's it I think - great work once again! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review @ChrisTheDude! I'll review one of your lists in return. Just ping me what you want me to review. Erick (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • One further question.......the lead says "Promesas was the longest-running number one with 32 weeks" but I am only seeing 17 weeks in the table......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Ah okay, I see where I went wrong. I counted each week twice by accident. I amended both Promesas and Iglesias's total weeks at number one with the sources provided by the Billboard database themselves. I hope that helps. Erick (talk) 12:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • José José's photo is from 2011. Add a "(pictured in 2011)" just after his name in the image caption. Same for the other photos which aren't from the 1980s.
  • I always need to do a double take on the word "bi-weekly" (wondering whether it means twice a week, or once in two weeks). Consider replacing it with "fortnightly".
  • "José José was also the artist with the most number-one albums of the 1980s also topping the chart with Promesas (1985), Siempre Contigo (1986), and Soy Así (1987), which were the best-selling Latin pop albums of 1986–88, respectively." Quite a bit of redundancy there: "number-one albums", "topping the chart" and "best-selling ... albums".
  • The sentence about Camilo Sesto doesn't seem very relevant for the lead. Remove it, unless the album has achieved some other distinction too.
  • 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 |+ caption_text instead. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 Thanks for the feedback! I did my best regarding the redundancy part and addressed everything else. Let me know if I missed anything. Erick (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Splitting the José José sentence works better. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have the time and the inclination, please take a look at this older FL nomination. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 I'll see what I can do, but I can't make any promises. Erick (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AJona1992[edit]

Leaving this here as a placeholder, will review shortly. – jona 18:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker world rankings 1984/1985[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The latest in the series of professional snooker ranking list nominations. (I've been given permission to open another.) Steve Davis retained top place in the rankings, as he would for a while. Once again, the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association changed their mind about the basis of compilation after publishing the list, and revised it. I can provide extracts from relevant sources to reviewers. Thanks in advance for improvement suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Lead images are usually right at the top, having it halfway down looks a little odd to me
  • "open to all members of the WPBSA, carried points" - don't need that comma
  • "Merit points were awarded to players who were required to compete in qualifying rounds of ranking tournaments who reached the last 32" => "Merit points were awarded to players who were required to compete in qualifying rounds of ranking tournaments and reached the last 32"
  • There's a stray > after the bit about Kirk Stevens
  • "the board of the WPBSA voted to award merit points to players who had won qualifying group and then progressed in the main tournament should receive merit as well as ranking points" - this really doesn't make sense, I think some text has maybe been left in that was intended to be removed......?
  • "Other Ranking Tournaments" => "Other ranking tournaments" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • Please wikilink the first usage of "Lada Classic". This is in the second paragraph.
  • Done (I linked it to the article about the tournament series; the later link is to the specific edition. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add colscopes to the header cells of the points tariff table.
  • In the main table, the "1982/83 season" header cell should have scope as colgroup. Same for the "1983/84 season" header cell. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've done this, but let me know if I haven't done it properly. 08:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, MPGuy2824. Let me know if anythign else is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good. Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed in Commons
  • Images are relevant and have succinct captions. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review : Passed

  • Sources are reputable and reliable for the information being cited, and in line with those used in similar featured lists.
  • I would link The Daily Telegraph and The Guardian, as it appears you link every instance of the work being cited.
  • Might be worth linking the first instance of Everton, Clive in the book sources too. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • That completes image and source review. Both passed. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of California tornadoes[edit]

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I moved to California, and was worried about how lacking the information on Wikipedia there was about tornadoes. You might not care about them because they're so common, but certain places get them more than others, and certain areas are more populated than others, so their effects might be disproportionately more impactful than, say, the middle of a corn field (which does happen a lot in California too). How often do they happen? And where? I'm glad you asked, because I wanted to figure out these questions, and more!

Caveat up front. First, it's been a few years since I've nominated anything. Second, I'm not 100% that I identified every individual tornado, as they're not always reported, or verified by a reliable source. I largely used the National Weather Service, the National Climatic Data Center, and on occasion, corroborating news sources. There are a few different types of weather events that are included, such as waterspouts which went from the water to land (thus making them an official tornado), fire whirls (or fire tornadoes, yes, that's a thing and they're terrifying), landspouts and gustnadoes. After a fairly extensive search over the last nine months or so, I'm fairly sure that the article is comprehensive, well-written, well-cited, formatted to the standards that are expected, all that good stuff that makes for a featured list. But I have my blinders on, and I fully acknowledge that I might've made a mistake here or there, in which case, I'd love to fix it. If you have any minor or large issues, I'll do my best to address them. And if you enjoyed the article, then thanks for the read. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620[edit]

Howdy HH, long time no talk! Hope you and yours are doing well. I'm saving this space for an image review; should be done in the next two to three days. Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 09:11, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the slight delay; I had planned to post this yesterday or the night before, but I needed to (a) address comments on a GAN I'd submitted, (b) recover from a particularly lousy night's sleep, and (c) do some digging through California legal documents to verify the status of one of the images here. The image review passes; details below.
  • All of the present images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
  • Image sources check out across the board. Page numbers for a few of them were lacking at the time of nomination, but I took it upon myself to fix this issue over at Commons; see my recent edits there.
  • All images are appropriately licensed. I note that the original Flickr upload for the image, which was taken by the Los Angeles Fire Department, claims full copyright. However, assuming my reading of the law is correct, the California Public Records Act states that images taken by California government agencies are in the public domain, thus overriding the Flickr claim.
  • All images have sufficient alt text.
The image review aside, I did notice a minor prose-related issue that prevents me from being able to fully support just yet. While the dates for most of the entries are followed by an en dash (good), there are also multiple instances where the date is followed by a hyphen (not so good). Once this is rectified, I will be able to offer my full support. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 18:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Dylan620 (talk · contribs) - I changed all of the hyphens. Thanks for checking out and adding the page numbers. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No prob HH – everything looks good to me now. Support. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 17:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot R&B Singles number ones of 1991[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the 49th article in this series for your delectation. In this year one artist reached number one for the first time after 15 years on the chart and another act reached number one for the first time who was actually aged 15. Feedback as ever will be gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • Freddie Jackson moved into the number-one position - in every instance in the article number one is written without the hyphen
    • Done. In the wording "number-one position", it is being used as an adjective rather than a noun and sources seem to be split as to whether it needs a hyphen in such cases but I changed it anyway
      • Thanks for the clarification. (I initially thought it was the opposite, at least from the sources I've looked up). Will take note for the future lists.
  • Hi-Five's "I Like the Way (The Kissing Game)" - more of a consistency thing as well, perhaps it should be written single first then artist, as how you listed the other singles on this last sentence.
    • Done
  • That’s all I could find. Great work as usual on this series. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solid work as always! Support. Also, if you have spare time and interest, wondering if I could get some feedback on the other side on a current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed in Commons
  • Images are relevant and have succinct captions. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • All sources are appropriate, and in line with those used in similar featured lists. Nothing that needs a citation is lacking one. I couldn't see any issues with formatting. Pass for source review. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:42, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink[edit]

I came here from my own FLC, and saw the other Hot R&B singles from 1990 already had several supports, so I thought I'd review this instead.

  • So my first nitpick is about the paragraph arrangement in the lead, since that's the primary area of prose in the list, and thus should be subject to scrutiny. The first paragraph is rather short. Just throwing it out there, I'd love if the first charting one was included there (to signify the start of the year), and then the bit about Shanice's "I Love Your Smile", since this all would be a logical end to the first paragraph:
  • No song spent more than two weeks in the top spot during 1991, although Shanice's "I Love Your Smile", which spent the last two weeks of the year atop the chart, would extend its run by two further weeks in 1992.
  • "With the exception of Gerald Levert, who would achieve a second solo number one in 1992,[4] none of the acts to top the chart twice during the year would achieve another R&B number one after 1991, and Color Me Badd, Hi-Five, the Rude Boys, and the Winans siblings all achieved the only two R&B number ones of their respective careers during the year." - that's a lot for one sentence. I'd rather the bit about Gerald Levert go with the other Levert info in the 2nd paragraph, and maybe simplify what you're saying here.
  • Two times, you say "a number", as if it's some vague unknown term.
  • A number of acts reached number one for the first and only time in 1991
  • "Can You Stop the Rain" by Peabo Bryson was one of a number of tracks to spend two weeks at number one in 1991.
  • I think both would be improved if it said what number that was. Otherwise, I like how the images are complete sentences, which is why they all end in a fullstop. Periodt.
  • OMG, Gonna Make You Sweat (Everybody Dance Now) is that song?! I think you need to mention how important that song is in popular culture. I just put it on, that song is still relevant and beloved in 2024. Give it some love.
  • Kinda along similar lines, I feel that Summertime is pretty iconic, but IDK if it's definitely worth mentioning that Will Smith would later have a #1 hit later on (Gettin' Jiggy wit It)
    • Gettin' Jiggy wit It wasn't an R&B #1, it only got to #6..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And similar for Emotions. According to this, Mariah Carey hits her highest note in this song. It's probably trivial, and maybe not worth mentioning, it's just a song that I knew instantly when I saw it.
  • I fixed a few redirects in the song titles. I noticed that some of the links are also redirects in the artist names (I saw it for Pebbles and stopped checking), so would you mind double checking the artist names for redirects?
    • There's no requirement to fix redirects but I think I got them all anyway -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately these all are minor. I imagine I'll be able to support without much work. Let me know what you think about my comments. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: - thanks for your review. All addressed, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the quick response! I'm happy to support now. Yea, there was no requirement to fix the redirects, but I was trying to find *anything* to nitpick the article about, in a way to show how good it already is. Really appreciate the fixes. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer[edit]

  • "each of whom had two number ones, tied for the highest number of weeks in the top spot during the year, each spending three weeks" --> could this be slightly reworded to not have "each" used twice so close in the same sentence?
  • "would prove to be the only time he even reached the top 10" --> Remove "even"
  • "was the act's only R&B chart-topper but continued to be popular for decades afterwards" --> add "it" or something similar after but

That's all from me. These were mostly nitpicks as the article looks great already, so if you disagree with the comments, not a big deal. Great job with the article. -- ZooBlazer 02:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ZooBlazer: - done the first and third ones. I left the second one because I was trying to make the point that you might expect an act who started their career with a bang with a number one single to have subsequent tracks get close to that position but in Washington's case he never even managed to get into the top 10 again...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Happy to support. -- ZooBlazer 22:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh[edit]

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:

Great job as always Chris! Side note, it's been bugging me today that I don't fully understand the inconsistencies in some of these Billboard namings. Some of them are using a hyphen in "number-one". Is it "number ones" and "number-one" as a standard? Is there a de facto correct usage? I'd love to find something to better understand the naming conventions of these various Billboard articles. If so, I can do some cleanup on the article namings when I get time. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be "number one" when used as a noun and "number-one" when used as an adjective. So "Mariah has had lots of number ones" vs "Mariah has had lots of number-one singles". That's my understanding, anyway..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool, thanks. I see that you made the changes as well so I'm going to note my support. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cover versions of Coldplay songs[edit]

Nominator(s): GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! I withdrew this page's nomination last year due to lack of time to address issues that could possibly be brought forward, but I believe I'm ready now. The most notable change since then was the removal of tribute projects, as they are now part of Cultural impact of Coldplay. With that said, allow me to recap some important points from the original discussion:

  • Selection criteria: My research for Coldplay covers added only acts who have a Wikipedia page to the list, which in theory means they are notable.
  • Secondary sources: A fellow Wikipedian pointed out they would prefer to see more secondary sources where possible. I managed to go from 143 primary sources to 93.
  • Glee covers: Footnotes were added to specify which people from the cast performed the songs.
  • Country column: If I remember correctly, this was a controversial topic of discussion. I used the nationality that is shown on each act's article.

GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 20:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

All the notes other than the first one are not complete sentences so shouldn't have full stops -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Solved! GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 20:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

  • "since their rise to fame with Parachutes (2000) and following albums" - I think just "since their rise to fame with Parachutes (2000)" works. They did really rise to fame with that album.
  • Willie Nelson image caption needs a full stop.
  • Richard Cheese should be under C not R
  • Jai McDowall is Scottish, not American
  • Damian McGinty is Irish, not American
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I included "and following albums" because while Parachutes (2000) was an immediate success in the United Kingdom, they only started to grow further around the world with A Rush of Blood to the Head (2002), X&Y (2005), and more. As for Richard Cheese, they are a group instead of an individual, are you sure I should sort them under C? The sorting rules are very confusing to me. Other than that, all solved! GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 17:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Richard Cheese is one guy (real name Mark Davis) not a group -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the article says "Richard Cheese & Lounge Against The Machine (or simply Richard Cheese) is a cover band and comedy act". GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 14:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of University of Texas at Austin presidents[edit]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And now for something completely different... Normally I work on TV-related lists, but this was an interesting dive into a different type of list. This was modeled off existing FLs of university leaders, though there is less of a consistent format across them so I am open to suggestions for changes here. I've also aimed to provide a brief list of other offices for each individual as context – in the process of finding sources for that, I was able to address two redlinks in the article, and the rest should follow in time. I've striven to make sense of conflicting dates in several places and hope that my research has been thorough enough to support this list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "The current president is Jay Hartzell, having served in the position since 2020" - I think "The current president is Jay Hartzell, who has served in the position since 2020" would be better
  • Is there an appropriate link for "comptroller"? It's possibly a commonly understood word in US English but I personally (as a British person) have no idea what it means (we probably just call it something different :-))
  • If you sort the table based on any other column and then resort based on the first column, the row where the number is a dash gets "stuck" at the top. You need to use a sorting template to make it sort between 17 and 18.
  • Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: All done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • "Ref." to "Ref(s)" since most rows have more than one reference.
  • Per MOS:RELTIME, the phrase "To date" isn't recommended.
  • Consider adding that Leslie Waggener was the first president to his image caption.
  • No issues on table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824: I kept Waggener's current caption to be consistent with other images – not all of the presidents shown have a similar "special" fact, it's just whoever had free images. For the header, Template:Refh points here to justify that format – I changed it for now, but let me know if you think it should switch back for consistency with that (somewhat weak) consensus. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding "Ref(s)", it looks like there was some consensus to use the template, so feel free to change that back, if you wish. Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. If you have the time and the inclination, please take a look at this older FL nomination. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Chompy Ace[edit]

Support. Great job as a nearly flawless list! Also, If you have time would you care for reviewing the List of accolades received by TV Patrol regarding its featured list nomination? Chompy Ace 08:18, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-credits and post-credits scenes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe[edit]

Nominator(s): -- ZooBlazer 23:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second Marvel Cinematic Universe list I've nominated. While not the first to use credit scenes, the MCU popularized them for betrer or worse. -- ZooBlazer 23:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

A great article with a detailed coverage about a popular culture topic (I didn't know this existed!). Looking at the lead, at 4 sentences, it appears to be short. Having said that, I would suggest that perhaps you utilize the History section as the article's lead since it pretty much sums up what the article is about and what is outlined in the tables for each phases. It should work well IMO, including the primary image. The other prose sections after the table should be fine.

Here are the rest of my comments on the prose:

  • S.H.I.E.L.D. agent Phil Coulson -- worth linking to S.H.I.E.L.D. on the first instance
  • Other times these mid- and post-credits scenes -- comma after other times
  • receives her next assignment: take down Clint Barton -- I think the colon can be dropped and just be written as receives her next assignment to take down Clint Barton, ...
  • In the Sony's Spider-Man Universe (SSU) film -- In Sony's Spider-Man Universe (SSU) film
  • A review noted that the scene -- a reviewer or perhaps attribute the name

Image review : Passed

  • Non-free image has appropriate FUR for it's use on the article.
  • Image is relevant
  • Caption is OK, but perhaps, per MOS:CAPSUCCINCT, the second sentence with the quote can be incorporated in the lead instead. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for another great and helpful review Pseud 14! I think I've addressed everything. -- ZooBlazer 17:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good and happy to support. I made some small edits. Btw, if you have some time and interest, I got something on the other side. Wondering if I could ask for some feedback on a current FAC. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DBC[edit]

I think for accessibility purposes alt text for the image would be great. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant The image has alt text already. -- ZooBlazer 04:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh odd it wasn't popping up for some reason. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass[edit]

  • I didn't see anything in references 12-13 that actually support the claim of it being the longest post-credits scene, have I just missed it? "Over four minutes" likely doesn't need sourced as it's referenced to the work itself, similar to a plot summary, but stating it's the longest is a fairly direct claim.
    Reworded it since I can't find any reliable sources stating it. -- ZooBlazer
  • Template:Cite AV media accepts author data for the writer of the films in references 16-18. The information seems just as relevant, if not more, given they likely wrote the mid/post-credit scenes.
    It doesn't work when the people parameter is used. In general it seems like directors get listed first for films/short films and writers get more credit for TV series, which is why the director is the one listed in these template. -- ZooBlazer
  • Reference 47 has an author that needs added
    Added -- ZooBlazer
  • Reference 49 lists GamesRadar+ while others from this website just list GamesRadar. Should be unified one way or the other considering they all lead to the same site and it all source were released well after the 2014 rename.
    Added + to all of them. -- ZooBlazer
  • Spot-checked five other references and everything seems to be good.

Not much to say here, great work on the article! TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review TheDoctorWho. I've addressed all of your comments above. -- ZooBlazer 17:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great, source review passes. TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Line of Duty[edit]

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Line of Duty is a critically acclaimed BBBC series with a large international cult following. I noticed the table that existed in the parent series article was fairly large and mostly unsourced. Over the past few days I've been working on building this from scratch, and actually haven't looked at the old table at all, solely building this from sources I gathered myself. It feels comprehensive enough to meet the criteria for a featured list, and the article falls within the scope of a good topic I'm working towards, so I'm nominating it. The first two paragraphs are largely background information for understanding of why the awards/nominations were received, while the third paragraph summarizes the list of awards itself.

Note: This is my second current featured list candidate. The other one has two supports as well as a comment from a coordinator that has been addressed leading me to believe it meets the "substantial support" requirement. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "the series primarily filmed in Belfast" => "the series was primarily filmed in Belfast"
  • "while Hawes role extended" => "while Hawes' role extended"
  • "appeared as a guest star in one episode each of the two following series" => "appeared as a guest star in one episode of each of the two following series"
  • "A third of the series successful awards" => "A third of the series' successful awards"
  • In the nominee(s) column, anything in quote marks currently sorts erroneously at the top. They should sort based on the first actual word
  • Lots of entries for "Line of Duty 2", "Line of Duty 3", etc. I think these should be "Line of Duty series 2", "Line of Duty series 3", etc, as what is there currently could give readers the impression that it was actually branded on screen as "Line of Duty 2", in the manner of, say, "Kung Fu Panda 2", which it wasn't
  • I think you need to change the start of the table to class="wikitable sortable plainrowheaders" so the first column isn't oddly bolded
  • That's what I got - great work on an article on a great show! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, thanks for the review! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:07, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Turns out it was actually the lack of row scopes that was making the first column oddly bold, so I added them. Now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • 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. !rowspan=2|Season becomes !scope=col rowspan=2|Season. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. Same for rows.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done! TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Better Call Saul episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the criteria. I have improved this significantly in the past few days. This is my third FLNom, so I feel as I owe it to reviewers to review other noms so I hope to slowly provide a few DBC and enventually provide full reviews. For the WikiCup my other active FLC is a co-nom with User:Lady Lotus Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer[edit]

  • Better Call Saul is an American television drama series created by Vince Gilligan and Peter Gould, which aired on AMC, it premiered in 2015 and concluded in 2022. Put a period after AMC and start a new sentence for the premiere and conclusion.
  • Over the course of the series, 63 episodes aired over six seasons --> 63 episodes aired over six seasons
  • The sixth season was split in two parts --> split into
  • Remove the link to AMC in the ratings section. That's a WP:DUPLINK.
  • I suggest hiding the graph for now until that situation is resolved.

That's all I've got. Looks pretty good overall. -- ZooBlazer 19:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All coments have been addressed except the last one as I couldn't figure out how to do so without removing the graph. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Support -- ZooBlazer 04:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "The series was officially greenlighted" => "The series was officially greenlit" Done
  • Also, is there a way to avoid using "series" twice in that one short sentence? Done
  • "The season was planned to release in 2014" => "The season was planned to be released in 2014" Done
  • "A thirteen episode second season" => "A thirteen-episode second season" Done
  • "However, in November 2016 the season" => "In November 2016, however, the season" Done
  • "The sixth season was split in two parts," => "The sixth season was split into two parts," Done
  • "Slippin' Jimmy, is a animated" - no reason for that comma there Done
  • "engages in some hardcore slipcanery" - literally no idea what that last word means, is there an appropriate link?
    It seems to be a made up word Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above description appears verbatim on IMDB as do the descriptions for the other SJ episodes. Have they been copied from IMDB, which would be WP:COPYVIO?
  • That's it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The descriptions were already their so I'll put a notice on the slippin Jimmy page, but given how the other descriptions were hidden on the list should those be hidden as well? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:00, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They need total deletion, as they are copyright violations -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed the text from the slippin Jimmy page and request rev deletion. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TheDoctorWho[edit]

  • I would link the first use of "second season" rather than second. Done
  • "The first season premiered on February 8, 2015, and ended on April 6." → "The series premiere aired on February 8, 2015, and the first season concluded on April 6." - Makes for a better flow and allows you to link the episode similar to how the finale is linked later on. Done
  • The paragraph regarding renewals and air dates appears to be largely in chronological order. The exception is the portion about the sixth season renewal. Is there a particular reason for this? If not, I'd move it for a better flow. August-October 2018 → January 2020 → February-April 2020 rather than August-October 2018 → February-April 2020 → January 2020.
  • Changed to be in order. Done
  • "with the first part ran from" → "with the first part running from" (or remove "with") Done
  • It feels a little odd that the second season header contains renewal information while none of the others do? I'd either remove it from that one or add it to the rest for consistency. It's already in the lead so we're not missing anything if it's removed, or the sources are easily available if you decide to add it to the rest.
  • DeadlineDeadline Hollywood in reference 16 to match the other source from this site. Done

That's all I have, not much to say! If you're still looking for additional candidates to review, I'm still looking for a few more on this one. Good work on the list, TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The season 2 header brings up renewal information is due to the episode count changing Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I won't oppose just because of that nor will I oppose over my second comment since it's a personal wording preference. I can see you already fixed points one and three, but I would like to see the fourth and sixth comment addressed before I do support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finished addressing concerns. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect! Support. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Green Bay Packers general managers[edit]

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following in the footsteps of the head coaches and presidents lists, I now have the general manager list for the Packers. I will pre-emptively state that this list wasn't the easiest, as there are multiple times in Packers' history where there was no GM, but obviously someone(s) still had the authority to act like a GM. This list is based off of what the Packers have established as their own list of GMs (see here and here). Happy to address any concerns or comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • In 1923, a publicly-owned, non-profit organization called the Green Bay Football Corporation -- organization name should not be in italics
  • and serves as spokesperson -- should serve be in the past tense?
  • That's all from me. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review : Passed

  • Images have alt text
  • Images are relevant and provides context for its use in the tables
  • Images are appropriately licensed as PD, as well as AGF on self-published image. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pseud 14, I have implemented both of your comments. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
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 12 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

  • Ref 7 – Is there any reason you used a hyphen instead of a vertical dash here, like the target uses?
  • Ref 8 – Change to cite magazine and change website to a blusher of Sports Illustrated
  • Ref 10 – I notice it's not like other references to the Green Bay Press-Gazette website, in that, it mentions USA Today beside the author's name. I understand they're owned by USA Today, but it's unclear to me whether USA Today should be listed as the agency in this instance. Any thoughts on that?
  • Ref 15 – Missing publisher
  • Could you add the {{Use American English|date=April 2024}} and {{Use mdy dates|date=April 2024}} templates to the top of the article under the short description? That way if more refs are added they'll be properly formatted (date wise).

That's all I've got, good stuff as always Gonzo, even if I hate the Packers! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh, all addressed. Regarding Ref 10, the difference is that the other GBPG articles are from Newspapers.com. I don't usually include USAToday in these types of refs, just too deep info when the newspaper and link is already included, imho. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007: Ref 16 as an example doesn't include that bit that ref 10 does. I agree and understand about not including the parent company, but I was wondering if 10 should be treated as re-posting a story from a wire service instead. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh, my understanding is that USA Today is not a wire service, so "agency=" wouldn't be appropriate. I could do "via=" if you really want, but just to note I haven't done that before. I think if there wasn't an author listed, I would probably agree with you. But I view this more as Todd McMahon writes for the whole network, not just the newspaper. The newspaper is just differentiating between an in-house newspaper sportswriter (like Richard Ryman). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007: No, I won't ask you to do "via=" here. I think I agree with your view that Todd McMahon writes for the whole network and that it's just differentiating.
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Seattle SuperSonics seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 04:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing in my series of Seattle sports seasons and a streak of basketball lists: the Seattle SuperSonics played 41 seasons in Seattle before they were uprooted by their new ownership and moved to Oklahoma City. This list was rewritten from scratch in a manner similar to the Seattle Storm list that was just promoted. SounderBruce 04:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • the Sonics had twenty games with crowds larger than 30,000 and drew a league-record 40,172 spectators at a 1980 playoffs game. -- perhaps this can be a separate sentence.
    • Done.
  • at the Tacoma Dome, a suburban arena in Tacoma that was expanded to 16,296 seats. -- I think the city of Tacoma can be dropped since the arena name already provides context and also has a wikilink.
    • Done.
  • The team were below .500 -- I would unlink, since winning percentage is already linked in the third para.
    • Done.
  • That's all I have. Great work. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Suggest alt text
    • Added.
  • Image is appropriately licensed
  • Image has succinct caption and relevant. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pseud 14: Thanks for the review. I have made all of the changes you suggested. SounderBruce 22:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • Wikilink the first usage of "postseason".
  • "by assistant and former Sonics player Nate McMillan," to "by assistant coach and former Sonics player Nate McMillan,"
    • Fixed.
  • According to the legend bold is for winning the championship, but some cells are bold-ed even though the team didn't win the championship in that year. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MPGuy2824: Thanks for the review. I have removed the bolding from the key but kept in the main table; this practice is similar to many MLB season FLs. SounderBruce 03:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Support promotion. P.S. Maybe you can add that bolding indicates when the team were conference/division champions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by SB19[edit]

Nominator(s):Relayed( Abacusada) (t • c) 15:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After successfully working on two SB19-related lists, here comes my next offering. This is the list, which I overhauled last February, that documents the awards and nominations received by SB19 since their debut in 2018. They have received well over 100 80 notable nominations from local and international award-giving bodies for the past five years, among which they have won over 70 40 (which I do believe are the most numbers from any Filipino boy/girl group).[citation needed] They are indeed revolutionary because, apart from transforming P-pop, they have claimed multiple "firsts", from being the first Filipino group to chart a single on World Digital Song Sales to being the first Filipino act to be nominated for the Top Social Artist award at the 2021 Billboard Music Awards.

I am nominating this for featured list because I have stuck myself with the idea of improving Wikipedia's coverage of Filipino artists, starting with SB19, and hopefully bringing SB19 to a featured topic someday! All suggestions and feedback are welcome and much appreciated. I sincerely thank the reviewers who will put their time and effort here. – Relayed( Abacusada) (t • c) 15:45, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • For FLs and based on Wikipedia:Awards and accolades, I have reservations about the notability of awards such as BreakTudo Awards, Philippine Pop—PPOP Awards, Push Awards, VillagePipol, and therefore should be excluded.
    I get where you are heading about this. However, here's the thing, I am a bit conflicted here, because—though I have seen your works with these types of lists—there are also FLs that list awards with no respective standalone articles on Wikipedia (such as BTS and Exo). These awards have been at least covered with secondary sources (evident for BreakTudo, PPOP, and Push) and have been mentioned by media organizations (VP: [1], [2], [3]), which is why I think they can be considered notable enough for inclusion. – Relayed (t • c) 11:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would refer to the same conclusion made by FLC delegates PresN and TRM on a similar nomination, much more recent than BTS/Exo. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for bringing up a similar discussion. The arguments they brought seem understandable and convincing, I was just hoping there would not be a need to remove some content. In the meantime, I have removed the awards with no standalone articles from the list until someone else develops a consensus regarding the inclusion of such. – Relayed (t • c) 14:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Star Awards for Music can be linked to PMPC Star Awards for Music
    Done
  • Their breakthrough led the band to be awarded with the Favorite Breakthrough Artist of the Year at the 2020 Awit Awards. -- Consider tweaking as this is a bit repetitive, simply put, this led to the band being awarded...
    Done
  • Pagsibol, included singles -- included the singles
    Done
  • which had multiple nominations, including both nominations for the Song of the Year award at the 2023 Awit Awards. -- this reads repetitive too. consider which earned multiple nominations at 2023 Awit Awards, including Song of the Year for both singles.
    That does read better! Done
  • which all won them Awit Awards for -- which won them the Awit Awards
    Done
  • Why is there two separate rows for "2024" for Star Awards? If these are all nominations from the same ceremony this should all be lumped into one year.
    These nominations are actually for separate ceremonies. "2024 (1)" is for the 14th ceremony, while "2024 (2)" is for the 15th, which both had released a list of nominations but had not carried out an actual live ceremony (as far as I am aware).
  • The boy band also received multiple recognition throughout their career for their artistry and work -- Drop multiple as it reads ambiguous and just say received recognition throughout their career.
    Done
  • Wish Group of the Year in 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 -- use a range instead of listing each year.
    Done
  • That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking a look and for your comments, Pseud 14! Apologies if I took a while. However, I have addressed everything except for the first point. I have no problem taking out some of the awards listed. Do hear me out with the reasoning I have raised above. If that does not convince you, then I can go ahead and remove its respective parts on the next revision, no problemo. – Relayed (t • c) 11:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All good on the rest, other than the remaining item per my response. I will be holding back making a specific declaration until PresN or more commenters weigh in. Great work on this. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for replying, Pseud 14! Sorry for taking a while to respond, again. I have addressed your remaining point as per a similar discussion on Coldplay's list. The non-notable awards have been removed, and the infobox and the lead have been tweaked to reflect the changes. Let me know if everything is now up to your standards or if you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 14:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can now support. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the support, Pseud! – Relayed (t • c) 09:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations[edit]

Timeline of the 1994 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 00:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back again with another hurricane season timeline! This time it's the 1994 Pacific hurricane season, which generated a trio of Category 5 hurricanes; that's a record for the most in one season, which still stands today (albeit having since been tied twice). One of them, John, became the farthest-traveling tropical cyclone ever recorded after it embarked on an 8,000-mile (!) voyage across the Pacific Ocean. I'm a little worried about the lede being too large, but I couldn't think of how to scale it back without excising valuable and relevant information. This was a more difficult endeavor than the 1993 EPAC timeline (FLC for that one is still in progress) because of a few data discrepancies that I have tried to address to the best of my ability. Overall, I believe that this timeline is up to the standard of the 1991 ATL timeline FL (promoted last week) and the aforementioned 1993 timeline, and I look forward to the community's feedback. I will do my best to address concerns in a timely manner. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 00:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that I've had a go at barbering the lede; this is what it looked like before. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 14:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • The 1994 Pacific hurricane season was an event in the annual cycle of tropical cyclogenesis over the Pacific Ocean north of the Equator and east of the International Date Line. - this is quite complex. Is the season "an event", or rather the article chronicles the events that took place during the cycle? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • You raise an interesting point. This wording was chosen in line with what I have observed to be convention; out of the last six (chronologically speaking) featured hurricane season timelines within the National Hurricane Center's area of responsibility—2016 Atlantic, 2018 Atlantic, 2018 Pacific, 2019 Atlantic, 2020 Atlantic, and 2020 Pacific—only the 2020 Atlantic timeline does not start with the "an event" wording. However, it has always seemed kind of odd to me, considering that each hurricane season can contain a large number of events within it. I have revised it to "The 1994 Pacific hurricane season was comprised of the events that occurred in the annual cycle..." although part of me worries this might be more complex; what do you think? Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These dates conventionally delineate the period each year when tropical cyclones tend to form in the basin according to the National Hurricane Center - I think this should probably come before the actual dates. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Convention has historically been to put that tidbit after the dates, but I think I've managed to work something out. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1994 season was well above-average - this isn't really a part of a sentence. Presumably should prefix with "activity in" or something. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lede have a lot of citations in it. Do they need to be there? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think so, since those citations are being used to verify information that is present in the lede but not the body. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 17:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Lee for reviewing this. I've addressed one of your points and replied to it inline; I should be able to respond to the other points after I get home later today. (Sorry, I've had a busier past couple days than I anticipated.) Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 08:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I have more, I just do it icrementally. Feel free to fix as I go along. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tennessee Titans first-round draft picks[edit]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This will be list #7 for me in this series and, provided all goes well, #27 in the series to be promoted. Nothing really different about this list, continues on using the same format as the other first-round pick lists that I've nominated. As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "where they've played their home games since" => "where they have played their home games since"
  • I would merge the two short paragraphs at the end of the lead together
  • "The Titans used an addition first-round pick" => "The Titans used an additional first-round pick"
  • On that note, there's only one pick listed for 1966 in the table, so why was it "additional"?
  • That's it, I think. Great work once again!!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much for the review @ChrisTheDude!
    • Example text – Fixed
    • I would merge the two short paragraphs at the end of the lead together – I'm torn on this. These paragraphs are broken up the same way in the other lists that I've worked on and I'd like them to be consistent.
    • Example text – Done.
    • On that note, there's only one pick listed for 1966 in the table, so why was it "additional"? – It's meant to continue off of the point of the previous sentence, in that, a first-round selection that was chosen by the team actually chose to sign elsewhere. I've added a couple commas that I hope make this slightly clearer.
    Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the last point, I would simplify it to "The team's first-round pick in 1966, Tommy Nobis, also chose to sign with the NFL instead". Currently the use of the word "additional" implies that they had more than one pick in 1966 (a "main" one and then an "additional" one - does that make sense?) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's much better wording, thank you for the suggestion @ChrisTheDude. Fixed now. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • The Titans compete in the National Football League (NFL) -- add the parenthetical after the full name, as it is used in many instances after
  • The Titans have selected first overall twice, selecting John Matuszak in 1973 -- just a suggestion, so selected .. selecting doesn't sound repetitive, perhaps an alternate wording for either.
  • That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Images have captions and are relevant. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback and review @Pseud 14! I've made the appropriate changes :) Hey man im josh (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Another great list. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DBC OlifanofmrTennant[edit]

Ref 48 lists SB nation and Gang Green Nation seperatly as publisher and work/website this is the only citation which does so. Additionally this seems to be a blog site. The about page is just a list of writers. SB nation is a blog hosting network so is this source reliable? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @OlifanofmrTennant, I could have technically listed Gang Green Nation under Vox Media, but thought SB Nation was more appropriate. I did that because it quite clearly advertises itself as a subcommunity of SB Nation. As for the reliability of SB Nation and its subsites, it was discussed most recently here in 2023, and the result was no consensus. Despite it including "Blog" in its name, it's actually a widely used sports news site. Given what was being verified, and that it wasn't the only source used to help verify said fact, it should be an adequate source. Never the less, I've replaced it with two others. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just following up to make sure all feedback has been adequately addressed @OlifanofmrTennant. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gonzo_fan2007[edit]

  • , who remained the owner until his death in 2013,, the commas make this a complicated sentence. Maybe mdashes or parentheses would work better?
  • For those two seasons, the team was known as the Tennessee Oilers, but changed its name to the Tennessee Titans for the 1999 season, when they moved into Adelphia Coliseum, now known as Nissan Stadium, where they have played their home games since. split this up, run-on sentence
  • he was the team's territorial selection maybe a brief explanation of what this means?
  • joined the NFL instead -> joined the Chicago Bears of the NFL instead
  • The notes in the 1965 and 2022 rows have periods at the end of the sentences, while the rest of the notes do not. Can you rephrase these two to not be two sentences and thus not have the periods.

That's all I got hey man im josh. Nice work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:29, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • , who remained the owner until his death in 2013,, the commas make this a complicated sentence. Maybe mdashes or parentheses would work better? – I put a portion of that in brackets now, let me know what you think.
  • For those two seasons, the team was known as the Tennessee Oilers, but changed its name to the Tennessee Titans for the 1999 season, when they moved into Adelphia Coliseum, now known as Nissan Stadium, where they have played their home games since. split this up, run-on sentence – Yeah, wow, is it ever, eh? I've made some changes, let me know if you think it's decent now.
  • he was the team's territorial selection maybe a brief explanation of what this means? – I included an explanation of the territorial picks in the paragraph above that which I believe/hope is adequete. Let me know if it's not and I'll see what more I can do.
  • joined the NFL instead -> joined the Chicago Bears of the NFL instead – Good suggestion, done.
  • The notes in the 1965 and 2022 rows have periods at the end of the sentences, while the rest of the notes do not. Can you rephrase these two to not be two sentences and thus not have the periods. – I've used this format across all of the first-round picks. I've added full stops in cases where I didn't feel it flowed well to combine what were essentially two separate and unrelated notes. I'm not sure there's a good way to refactor these in a way that I could apply to all of the lists. I'm not opposed to utilizing a different format, I'd just prefer to do so in a way that can be applied across all of these articles.
Thanks so much for taking a look @Gonzo fan2007! I very much appreciate the feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good job! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harper J. Cole[edit]

  • The picture of Earl Campbell is rather blurry. There's a clearer one on his article.
  • Typo on "running back" immediately after that picture.
  • The first mention of retired numbers could link to that section of the Titans' page.
  • Likewise for Titans Ring of Honor.
  • I don't know whether there's a Wikipedia convention for this, but I find it a bit counter-intuitive that the team are referred to as Tennessee in the trade notes from 1960-1996 (they were Houston when they made the trades). I know that humans who have changed their names are referred to by the current one throughout an article, but I don't remember seeing that for an organisation, and articles such as 1960 Houston Oilers season use the name from that time.
  • Similarly, the table could be titled "Houston Oilers / Tennessee Titans first-round draft picks"
  • allowed them to select a single player within a designated region and teams were allowed to select a single player from a designated region Did the Oilers make the selection themselves, or was is collectively decided by all eight owners? The source seems a little unclear, saying "they were unanimously agreed upon by the other teams" but also "Billy Cannon who was selected by the Houston Oilers with their territorial pick". Perhaps the article should reflect this ambiguity?
  • Tennessee loaned quarterback Jacky Lee to the Denver Broncos (for the 1964 and 1965 seasons) in exchange for their 1965 first-round selection (No. 2 overall), defensive tackle Bud McFadin, and cash. The term "cash" seems a bit informal for an encyclopedia. Would recommend giving the exact amount, or else "an unspecified sum of money" if it's unknown.
Harper J. Cole (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture of Earl Campbell is rather blurry. There's a clearer one on his article. – Yeah I went back and forth on which to include. I do think you're right that it's better to use that one. Switched.
  • Typo on "running back" immediately after that picture. – That's embarrassing. Fixed.
  • The first mention of retired numbers could link to that section of the Titans' page. – I've added some links.
  • Likewise for Titans Ring of Honor. – I've added some links.
  • I don't know whether there's a Wikipedia convention for this, but I find it a bit counter-intuitive that the team are referred to as Tennessee in the trade notes from 1960-1996 – I get exactly where you're coming from on this. I've worked on 12 of these lists and I've internally battled about what fits best for other articles as well, such as the Cardinals and Patriots. I've approached it from the perspective of the reader, and from a point of view that we're referring to the team as a whole, not necessarily their name at the time. I'm open to rewriting these, but I'm not sure of the best way to do so while making it easy for readers to follow. Do you have any suggestions?
  • Similarly, the table could be titled "Houston Oilers / Tennessee Titans first-round draft picks" – In that case we'd want to name all three names they'd gone by I imagine. I'd like to hear your answer to my above response before I implement this. I only want to wait because I'm considering how/if I should implement this change across all of the relevant pages I've worked on in this series.
  • Did the Oilers make the selection themselves, or was is collectively decided by all eight owners? The source seems a little unclear, saying "they were unanimously agreed upon by the other teams" but also "Billy Cannon who was selected by the Houston Oilers with their territorial pick". Perhaps the article should reflect this ambiguity? – So, those are actually two separate statements. The idea is that each team got to select whatever player they wanted within their region before the next phase of the draft started. After that phase of the draft, the territorial selections, teams agreed upon the top 8 players at each position, which were then randomly assigned to teams. So each time agreed on who the best players were at positions and randomly got one. The only selection ACTUALLY made by any team during the 1960 AFL draft was their territorial selection, the rest were randomly assigned to them after sort of "tiers" were decided upon.
  • The term "cash" seems a bit informal for an encyclopedia. Would recommend giving the exact amount, or else "an unspecified sum of money" if it's unknown. – I went based on the language that the Broncos used, but that's a fair criticism. I've changed it to "an unspecified sum of money".
Thank you for taking the time to review this nomination @Harper J. Cole:, I appreciate it! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to the territorial picks, I'm still not entirely sure. The phrase "unanimously agreed upon" does appear to be referring to the regional picks rather than the general lottery that followed it. Still, the latter sentence is so explicit in saying that he was selected "by the Oilers" I can't object if you're personally satisfied. There don't seem to be any other reliable online sources to shed further light.
  • With regard to the trade notes, you can get around it for the Cardinals and Patriots by referring to them by their nicknames, but that doesn't work in this case. I can see four options.
  1. The current style, with "Tennessee" used throughout.
  2. Use "Tennessee", but add an explanatory note each time from 1960-96
  3. Use "Tennessee", but add a single explanatory note, perhaps on the table title.
  4. Use "Houston" for 1960-96.
Harper J. Cole (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Harper J. Cole:
  • With regard to the territorial picks, I'm still not entirely sure. The phrase "unanimously agreed upon" does appear to be referring to the regional picks rather than the general lottery that followed it. Still, the latter sentence is so explicit in saying that he was selected "by the Oilers" I can't object if you're personally satisfied. There don't seem to be any other reliable online sources to shed further light. – I'll mull this over a bit, look over what I might have stashed away in a folder of possibly useful bookmarks, and see if I can figure out some better wording.
  • With regard to the trade notes, you can get around it for the Cardinals and Patriots by referring to them by their nicknames – I could use the nickname for the Cardinals and Patriots, but I'm trying to apply the same formatting and style to all of these lists that I've worked on. As you said though, this wouldn't work for this list (or the KC list).
  • I think, if I were to go the route of changing the styling, I'd probably lean towards option 3. I do make the point of identifying that the team changed names in the lead, but I also recognize that adding a note can still improve the article and make things more clear than they currently are. I'll give this a bit of thought and send you a ping tomorrow for you to review.
Thanks again for taking the time on this! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Harper J. Cole:
Current: The first AFL draft was held prior to the start of the 1960 season. To start the 1960 AFL draft, each team received a "territorial pick" which allowed them to select a single player within a designated region (the team's "territory"). Teams then agreed on the top eight players at each position, who were subsequently assigned to teams by random draw, with each of the eight teams receiving one of those players, and repeated the process until all 53 roster spots were filled.
Proposed: The first AFL draft was held prior to the start of the 1960 season. The first round of the 1960 AFL draft was territorial selections. Each team received a "territorial pick" which allowed them to select a single player within a pre-agreed upon designated region (the team's "territory"). Teams then agreed on the top eight players at each position, who were subsequently assigned to teams by random draw, with each of the eight teams receiving one of those players. This process was repeated until all 53 roster spots were filled.
Do you think that's more clear, easy to digest, and understandable?
As for the table title, I think it'd be rather janky if I went with "Houston / Tennessee Oilers / Titans first-round picks". Do you think a note stating "Previously known as the Houston Oilers (1960–1996) and Tennessee Oilers (1997–1998)." next to the table title would be adequate? Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh Yes, I think both those are fine. That gives ample opportunities for readers to understand the situation, even if they skip over the intro and go straight to the table. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Harper J. Cole: All of the changes have been made. I think/hope I've addressed all of your helpful feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh Thanks—Supported --Harper J. Cole (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of New England Revolution seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this list because I think it's a well-formatted list and because it's my favorite team! The prose has been updated to give an overview of the team, the competitions they play in, and their history. The table gives a detailed overview of each season and their record. I took inspiration from List of Seattle Sounders FC seasons, which is a featured list for another MLS team. Brindille1 (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments
  • Wikilink the first usages of "league" and "conference".
    • I think both of these are MOS:OL, as they both should be understood most anyone reading the article, but I don't feel strongly and added the links.
  • In the table heading use Template:abbr like in the Seattle Sounders list.
  • Is the league column necessary in the table? They have been in the same league since their establishment.
  • What is QR2 and QR3 in the USOC column.
  • In that same column, the sorting is weird, Ro32 is shown as better than Ro16, and RU is shown as worse than SF. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, addressed each of these. Added QR2 and QR3 to the key. Brindille1 (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is QR2 different from R2?
    • The sorting of the USoC column is still weird. I'm getting this order when I sort it in ascending order "qr3, qr2, r2, r3, r4, Ro32". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:50, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @MPGuy2824
      "How is QR2 different from R2?"
      >>> For a few years, the USOC had MLS teams qualify by playing in a miniature tournament before qualifying for the tournament proper (all sources I've seen list these rounds as part of the tournament). So QR2 is the second qualifying round, and R2 is the second round of the tournament proper.
      "The sorting of the USoC column is still weird."
      >>> I initially based the sorting for each column of results is based on the number of teams left in the competition when the Revolution were eliminated. Given that the QR's are arguably not the tournament proper, I've switched it to QF > Ro16 > R4 > R3 > QR3 > QR2 which should hopefully be more intuitive Brindille1 (talk) 01:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • The top goalscorer column is sorting based on the nationality rather than on the player's name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, it now sorts by last name. Brindille1 (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • 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. !rowspan=2|Season becomes !scope=col rowspan=2|Season. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup 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 17:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, this is fixed now. Brindille1 (talk) 20:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in the Democratic Republic of the Congo[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 09:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The DRC has five sites on the main list and for tentative sites. Four sites are listed as endangered. Standard style and formatting for WHS lists. The photos could be better but since these sites are somewhat more difficult to reach than in some other places, I guess what is currently on Commons will have to do. Feel free to suggest better alternatives. The list for Zimbabwe is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 09:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824
  • The legend for endangered sites is the color and a cross, but an asterix is used in the table for those sites.
  • "it has the highest biodiversity among national parks of Africa" - needs a ref since it is not mentioned in the UNESCO refs provided.
  • "It is home to mountain gorilla" to "It is home to animals such as the mountain gorilla" OR "species like the".
  • "as well as threatened primate species chimpanzee," to "as well as threatened primate species like the chimpanzee,"
  • wikilink "subalpine" -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:59, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed, thanks! Tone 22:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

96th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): PrinceofPunjabTALK 13:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. It followed how the 1929, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 ceremonies were written. PrinceofPunjabTALK 13:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Drive-by comment – While it's not required for similar articles to use the same format, this article currently does not use the same format as previous years (even though the nomination suggests it does). Sections are in a different order, and the winners and nominees section in particular needs to be rewritten to actually focus on key points instead of the various trivia thrown in there haphazardly. A more thorough proofreading might be in order. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PrinceofPunjab: Any comments on this? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RunningTiger123 After making some edits, I believe that article is now following the format more closely to the prior ceremonies than when your comment was made. On Trivial section, I am open to editing the stuff you think is more trivial for the general reader. PrinceofPunjabTALK 14:27, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll come back for a full review later, but I would suggest rewriting the trivia section to focus on items that are firsts (or maybe seconds/thirds if they aren't super contrived) or records. For instance, Scorsese being the oldest nominee for Best Director is an actual record, but six couples received nominations that they shared together in their respective categories is just a random fact. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I promised a full review, so here's one now.

  • No source in either the infobox or the body for the producers or runtime
checkY Done.
  • Network should probably just be ABC (ABC.com and the ABC app are just different ways to watch the main network, as far as I know)
checkY Done.
  • "The films which went home with one award each include..." – awkward wording
checkY Done.
  • "An American Sign Language livestream was broadcast..." – probably can just go in the body instead of the lead
checkY Done.
  • As noted before, the trivia in the "Winners and nominees" section should be cleaned up
  • Governors Awards should go after the main awards – this matches previous years (which, while not strictly required, is more convenient for readers)
checkY Done.
    • In general, the "In Memoriam" section also goes later
checkY Done.
  • Use lighter shades of gold for the award headings to meet MOS:COLOR (see colors used in previous year)
checkY Done.
  • I'm conflicted as to whether the names listed all at once at the end of the "In Memoriam" section should be included. It's really hard to parse the sea of links and if they weren't notable enough to get their own moment, they may not be notable enough to be listed here. Would be curious to know what other reviewers think.
  • "Pre-ceremony information" can just be "Ceremony information", again for consistency
checkY Done.
    • Move the introductory paragraphs under "Ceremony" up to this section
checkY Done.
  • "For the last two awards" – suggest "years" instead of "awards" to make clear it is not referring to award categories
checkY Done.
  • "underrepresented" and "cognitive or physical disabilities" – no need to quote these common terms (MOS:DOUBT)
checkY Done.
  • "the Barbenheimer phenomenon" – remove italics
checkY Done.
  • The whole paragraph about Messi the Dog feels a bit excessive. If it's relevant, it can probably be discussed in the "Reception" section. Speaking of which...
  • I really like the way the "Reception" section is written; I actually get a sense of what parts people liked and didn't like and what made this year's ceremony unique. Some small quibbles:
    • "The highlights of the ceremony are considered by many to be" → "Highlights in reviews included" (more neutral)
checkY Done.
    • "respective wins of Japanese films Godzilla Minus One and The Boy and the Heron" – not convinced that "some people liked the winners" is relevant to ceremony reception, that's almost always true
checkY Done.
    • "in 18–49 demo rating" → "among adults ages 18–49" (less jargon)
checkY Done.
    • "from 4.03 rating of last year's ceremony" → "from the 4.03 rating of the previous year's ceremony"
checkY Done.
    • "is so far the largest viewership" → "set the largest viewership" (won't fall out of date)
checkY Done.
    • "post-COVID-19 pandemic era" → "post–COVID-19 pandemic era" (MOS:PREFIXDASH)
checkY Done.

If you need help with any of this, I suggest reaching out to Birdienest81 – he's worked on a fair few of these lists. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123 I have edited the article according to almost all of the suggestions by you. I will address the other points soon. PrinceofPunjabTALK 15:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PrinceofPunjab:, @RunningTiger123:: It seems that Princeof Pujab decided to nominate the list for featured list. Unfortunately, the list as it is right would definitely not pass FLC criteria. Among the many issues, the facts sections reads like a trivia list, there are questionable sources, and some sections could be combined together. Usually, I wait until the Emmy Awards are given out before I nominate the ceremony for FLC. If you don't mind, I'm probably, going to do a full rewrite of the ceremony on a sandbox and make it more in line with other Oscar ceremony lists that have featured list status. Right now, this certainly would not pass.
Please note, I am down one computer and don't have access to the one that is working at the moment. So it may take some time to do a full rewrite. Birdienest81talk 08:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdienest81: While I agree the list needs work as it currently stands, the implication that you specifically need to do a rewrite (on a separate page) reads a bit like WP:OWNERSHIP to me. Maybe it would be better to work on the existing article with PrinceofPunjab in mainspace instead of pursuing a full rewrite in a user sandbox? RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list I am hoping for enough feedback to get this promoted and learn how to format other elements of this set of list. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments

Comments[edit]

  • "List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year is a list of" - no article titled "List of...." should start by restating the literal title or using the wording "this is a list of". Find a way to write a more engaging opening
  • "Football" isn't linked until something like the fifth use of the word. I would also suggest writing "American football" in full on the first usage, for the benefit of those of us who call a different sport "football"
  • "selected as the most outstanding of the annual Football Academic All-America selections." - what is/are "the annual Football Academic All-America selections"? Without any context/explanation, this is meaningless
  • "CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, RI, VT" - what do all these codes mean?
  • Can't see any compelling reason for the district names to be written in all capitals
  • I found the explanation of the award extremely impenetrable and confusing. You start off by saying there were two divisions for a time before explaining what the award actually is, then you say what it is, then you jump back to talking about the two divisions. You say "Currently, each team selects Academic All-District honorees in eight geographic districts" - who are this team that do the selecting? Also, you set out how a winner is chosen for each district but then don't really give any explanation how we get from that to a single winner.
  • "From 1996 to 2011 one winner each was chosen from both the College and University Divisions" - the table says it was until 2010
    • The transition was the 2010-11 academic year. Some sports teams were named in 2010 and some in 2011. Football is a fall sport so 2010 is correct.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most recently, effective with the 2018–19 school year, the College Division was split, with NAIA members now receiving their own set of awards" - there's still only one winner in that column for all subsequent years.......?
    • The split was effective for every sport. For most sports the only thing other than Division I, Division II and Division III is NAIA. For some sorts there are other sets of competitions. I will change this to reflect that for football it was a transition rather than a split.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the split was suppose to separate out Two-Year College, Canadian Institutions and any other institution not affiliated with the NCAA or NAIA. Canada seems to have been folded into the districts for the other 4 sets of awards for most sports. I think only the At-large awards for sports other than the main 5 for each sex have a 5th category.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is there an "other footnotes" section which is completely empty?
  • I would reiterate the comment above about colours/contrast. Some of the names are literally unreadable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude:, I think I have addressed your concerns.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some further comments[edit]

  • "Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year are [plural] the annual most outstanding singular college football athlete [singular]" - this doesn't make grammatical sense
  • "For the Division I team" - what's the "Division I team"? Or for that matter, Division I?
  • "From 1996 to 2010 this team selection process was held separately for the College and University Division" => "From 1996 to 2010 this team selection process was held separately for the College and University Divisions"
  • "However, Football has incorporated" - football is not a proper noun so doesn't need a capital letter
  • "men's and women's at-large teams" - what is an "at-large team"?
  • "One of these twelve sport-by-sport Academic All-Americans of the year is selected as the Academic All-America Team Members" - how can one person (singular) be selected as the team members (plural)? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral by Gonzo_fan2007[edit]

  • Comment I am generally opposed to the overuse of table coloring to convey non-essential information. This list, imho, takes this to an extreme, presenting color schemes (specifically college sports team colors) that are not notable to almost all readers. I am suspect of any decorative coloring in tables, even on the table header, but would oppose this list outright based on the current overuse of colors. I am sticking to just a comment for now, because I don't plan on performing a full review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not aware of any polling that team colors are not notable to readers. However, I do have life experience that many sports fans confuse teams when solely refered to by name. Furthermore, Wikipedia:COLOR seems to support alternate referents to teams where it says "Ensure that color is not the only method used to communicate important information". This indicates that school name and school color could jointly convey the team information. Most sports fans feel very strongly about their school colors. Sometimes it is a strategic element of the game to have all the fans attend wearing school colors. In my experience I have told people that I am a Michigan Wolverines men's basketball and had them tell me about the legend of Tom Izzo. I have had people say they saw the game last night on a night when Michigan did not play. To clarify what team I root for I say we are blue and they are green. Some people mix up all the Michigan schools (Michigan Tech, Michigan State, Michigan, Western Michigan, Central Michigan, Northern Michigan, Eastern Michigan), but if you tell them the color it is a second way to communicate the information. I have trouble keeping track of the Texas schools myself. Also all the Cal State -- XXX schools. Additionally most list that you might see are only NCAA Division I, but in this case there is much more room for confusion because this list incorporates almost all collegiate sports divisions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the tables need to be sortable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am trying to get help with the sortability at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Sortable_tables.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further color on team colors for athletics. On WP we place a high priority on affiliating players and teams with team colors in general. E.g. every sports team has clear presentation of its official colors. This is very abnormal for business and commerce in general. Try to find official colors on pages like Interpol, United Nations or any Fortune 500 company like McDonald's or Apple Inc.. In non-athletic business, official colors are not a thing. For athletics they are. Any bio of a player who is currently affiliate with a team has all kinds of automation presenting the official colors of this automation. Thus, whereas in general WP:FL may frown on highly colored list tables, affiliation of players and team is its own genre on WP. Presumably we do this not because affiliation is "non-essential information". Presumably this is a high priority interest to our readers. This list is attempting to uphold the broad consensus on WP that in athletics affiliation is preferably presented in prose and in color.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further commmentary on why color for this list is appropriate: Yes {{Infobox basketball biography}} and {{Infobox NFL biography}} are examples of very widely used templates used in WP:BLPs of current athletes. Other sports have similarly popular templates with equally prominent color usage. In general, team affiliation is considered a piece of information of extremely high encyclopedic importance. When a player is in the news regarding a trade or a signing, it is often highly contentious with edit warring and special sets of rules. Often page protection has to be invoked. We have seemed to condition the readers to assess team affiliation with both text and color presentation of the team affiliation. This is broadly done and commonly accepted across all sports on wikipedia. Others who spend a lot of time on sports might be able to give you more "color" (semi intentional pun) on this issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID needs to be followed.
  • Half of the names don't have {{sortname}} (first table the College Division Winner column) and there are some random ones missing in the second table.
  • I am opposing primarily based on the color and WP:FLCR 3c. MOS:COLOR states: Links should clearly be identifiable as a link to our readers. - this table fails this. There are so many different colors for the text, you can't identify a link. From an accessibility side, some of the text colors on top of background colors are difficult to read: Susquehanna and Eastern New Mexico particularly. Regarding the use of color, it should be complementary. The use of team colors can be beneficial in a lot of ways. As example would be Buccaneers-Packers rivalry, the table at the end has coloring to show who won and lost, who led a specific decade, etc. We also utilize coloring to better identify a specific team, like the infobox of Green Bay Packers or the {{Green Bay Packers}} template. This is minimal, but complementary use of color. What we have here is a ridiculous number of different schools and colorschemes. The really bad part is that there are so many different colors, that they can't be easily differentiated. Dartmouth, Oregon, Northwest Missouri, Illinois Wesleyan, Ark Tech, and Slippery Rock all have green background, with subtle differences in shade, with white text. From a quick pass, I can't differentiate the schools from each other, so what is the point of the colors? It doesn't help the reader at all. There are countless other examples of almost identical color schemes. Since the color serves no purpose, it is purely decorative (there is something like 73 different schools on this page, each with its own colors). Weighing the decorative nature of the coloring versus the current legibility, for me, it is detrimental the overall ability to read and understand the table. Colors can definitely be helpful, differentiating between two things, highlighting different awards won by people in a table, etc, but not like this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:FLCR, I am a bit confused on this objection.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • MOS:COLOR, I have been pondering this one along several dimensions. First, I confess to have often used general colors when colors did populate well or a tertiary school color was necessary for better contrast. I.e., rather than getting the exact hex color shade for a school for red, blue, gold, etc. I just used that word. Thus, many schools have one official hex and one general color for their color combinations. Second, I really contest whether it is useless to have a broad array of colors rather than a handful. I think the best format for the colors can be seen in the 2018–19_Big_Ten_Conference_men's_basketball_season#Rankings section of this article. I know this is not a list article, but it is the inspiration for my current vision of the page. The colors are not decorative. They ARE helpful to the reader. There are more than a dozen color schemes there with half of them being shades of red, scarlett and maroon. Colors can be used to identify a specific team even if more than a few different colors exist. Note that the section I am pointing to on that page uses the two colors as the background and cell padding. The text is usually black or white. I think that would be the best format for this page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • TonyTheTiger I think the single color strip, albeit still superficial and not extremely helpful, would at least alleviate my primary concern. I would still oppose with the secondary color included as you have in your sandbox. One question, I understand the bolding of the names, but why are the schools bolded? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have removed the bolded schools artifact from the prior format, which I believe predated my involvement with the school color element.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • I still think the colors are distracting and superficial. That said, I have stricken my oppose and will remain neutral. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • 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. ! 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. | 1987 becomes !scope=row | 1987 (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Ignoring how the mix of colors is garish, Illinois College, MIT, and Colorado Mines fail accessibility standards for color contrast. You can check colors at [4], but in general gray text on a color is unreadable to people with poor or reduced eyesight. Please swap those text to white.
  • 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 15:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: Not to beat a dead horse too much here, but the colors here are plainly unacceptable. MOS:COLOR plainly states that pages should meet at least WCAG AA standards, which require a 4.5:1 contrast ratio between normal text and the background. Some glaring examples: Valdosta State has #000000 text on #CC0000 background, which has a contrast ratio of 3.56:1. Carnegie Mellon has #000000 on #990000, which is a ratio of 2.35:1. Susquehanna: #3366CC on #651C32 for 2.21:1. These are just the obvious examples; it's not fair to expect reviewers to check all of the color combinations. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please consider using this format:
Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year (1987–2010)
Year University Division Winner School College Division Winner School
1987 Kip Corrington Texas A&M Grant Jones Denison
1988 Paul Sorenson Dartmouth David Gubbrud Augustana (SD)

That way all contrast issues are avoided and links can be their normal color. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year (1987–2010)
Year University Division Winner School College Division Winner School
1987 Kip Corrington Texas A&M Grant Jones Denison
1988 Paul Sorenson Dartmouth David Gubbrud Augustana (SD)
    • Wait. That is only pulling a second color that may be the secondary color. In 2 of the four cases it is pulling something other than the secondary color. More tinkering to come.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indianapolis 500 pole-sitters[edit]

Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked this list for the past ten months so that it is fully referenced, verifiable and more accessible. Feedback will be taken into account and acted on as fast as possible. EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 20:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by TV Patrol[edit]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 21:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because its format is almost identical to another one (which is a newscast) with the same class, List of accolades received by 24 Oras. Chompy Ace 21:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "the newscast's anchors changed significantly during its run" - if it is still being broadcast I would say "the newscast's anchors have changed significantly during its run"
  • "Each segment has a unique topic, such as entertainment and weather" => "Each segment has a unique topic, such as entertainment or weather" (current wording could be interpreted as saying that there is a single segment which deals with entertainment and weather, which would be intriguing but I assume doesn't happen :-)
  • That's all I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude, done. Chompy Ace 23:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — I am objecting to the "Wins 47 / Nominations 97" in the infobox, for reasons I have explained at Template talk:Infobox awards list#Totals should be avoided. Despite some canvassing, I have not received any feedback there, positive or negative. This !vote in the nature of a test case to spur discussion there. Basically, if the template is changed as I suggest then the FL criteria will change. It would be a simple matter to simply remove those two parameters from the infobox on this and other similar articles. jnestorius(talk) 11:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jnestorius, please strike oppose? This issue has been resolved. Chompy Ace 20:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the issue is not arithmetic; 44/100 is just as arbitrary as 47/97. jnestorius(talk) 10:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jnestorius, I removed it, so done. Could you please strike oppose or give support? Chompy Ace 12:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, thanks jnestorius(talk) 14:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from ZooBlazer[edit]

  • Relatively short in terms of prose, so I didn't find any issues.

Image review - passes[edit]

  • The logo for the series is the only image used. It has alt text, is properly licensed, and use obviously makes sense in the article.

Great work with the article. Happy to support. -- ZooBlazer 07:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of UEFA Europa Conference League finals[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the newest UEFA competition and has been a welcome addition to the European football calendar. I'm going to address the big sticking point immediately which is that there are only two entries, soon to be three in a couple of months. The competition is new and guaranteed to run for more years to come, so although it's a small list at the moment, it will swell over the years. While I recognise this may be an issue, I do think this fact should be enough to ensure it doesn't fall foul of the guidelines NapHit (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Only one accessiblity issue with the table- you can't use table-spanning cells as a "pseudo header" like you are for "Upcoming finals". Not just for screen-reader software (which won't treat it like a header at all), but even for regular browsers- the sorting doesn't work at all. Easiest fix is to just make that section have 2 tables - "List of UEFA Europa Conference League finals" (which could just be "UEFA Europa Conference League finals") and "Upcoming finals.
  • 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 15:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @PresN:, I've just removed the upcoming finals bit, as that does feel like it's WP:CRYSTAL territory. NapHit (talk) 19:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

I think, the reason this isn't being reviewed is because there are only two entries. This list is probably better off as a section of the UEFA Europa Conference League article for the time-being. I am going to nominate it for a merge. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion is here. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SZA discography[edit]

Nominator(s): ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 07:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SZA. You might know her from "Kill Bill" or "Snooze", or the fact that she has a whimsical name that rhymes with sizzle and scissor, or the dozens of passe jokes about how she lies all the time. She has been in the game for over a decade, changing the contemporary R&B (and now pop) scene as she goes with her highly acclaimed works. Her first two albums are in Rolling Stone's GOAT list, and the first one (2017) has never left the US charts. Dive into her relatively short discography here. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 07:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620[edit]

I'm going to take a look at this in the coming days. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 00:36, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:
  • The lede feels a bit short, even for someone like SZA with a relatively small discography. It jumps right into a rough chronology of her works without providing much of a background for the beginning of her career. I looked back through solo discographies that have been featured within the past year or so and noticed that those of Angeline Quinto and Esmée Denters both give a brief description early on of how their respective careers began. In SZA#2011–2014: Career beginnings and EPs, it is mentioned that SZA met Top Dawg reps in 2011; after See.SZA.Run and S, she signed with the label, which then released Z. Maybe something about this could be incorporated into the opening paragraph?
  • There's a bit too much early mention of SOS for my liking. Mentioning that Ctrl was a constant presence on the Billboard 200 even through the release of SOS is pertinent and reasonable, but the final sentence of the first paragraph puts SOS's inclusion on the Rolling Stone top 500 list into focus before there's any mention of what she released in between the two albums. It jumps forward to 2023 when the surrounding text details the 2017–18 timeframe. The sentence itself is written just fine, but it feels like something that should be at or near the end of the lede instead of where it is right now.
  • ...and has charted for over five subsequent years: Replacing "over" with "more than" would work better here.
  • SZA appeared in some film soundtracks: in → on
  • The expected upcoming release of Lana should probably be mentioned in the lede.
  • Since there is prose later on pertaining to unreleased songs, I would recommend adding something about this to the lede as well.
  • The table in §Music videos needs a caption, both per MOS:DTAB and in keeping with the rest of the tables.
  • To maintain consistency with the rest of the table captions, a comma should be added after the "list of [release type]s" clauses in the captions for the second and third tables in §Albums; the word "selected" should also be added to the second table caption.
  • For whatever reason, the UK Singles Chart source (ref 17 at time of writing) makes no mention of "No Love"; however, that song's UK chart position is verified by the song's page on the UK Charts' website.
  • Sources need to be added to the entries for "Easy Bake" and "Never Lose Me" in the table at §Guest appearances – I was told in a previous FLC (granted, this was 7 years ago) that wikilinking the articles isn't enough to verify the information.
Everything else looks great. Aside from the MV section, the tables are all properly formatted. I am impressed by the usage of hover text to elucidate the meaning of each chart initialism. IIRC it is unusual for discography articles to have prose in any sections other than the lede, but §Unreleased songs is a stellar example of how it can be done. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 21:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, @Dylan620. I hope everything has been addressed. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 12:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much, much better. The only additional improvement I can think of is that you might want to expand the MV table caption a bit to mention other column fields, such as the years and directors. Aside from that, this looks just about good to go. Support. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 20:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ZooBlazer[edit]

The article looks pretty good to me, so I mostly.just have nitpicks.

  • "From 2017 to 2022, as SZA prepared for her second studio album's release, she appeared on a few film soundtracks" --> You could probably remove "a few"
    • Good point; done
  • "with 3.172 million units sold" --> Is it normal to use three decimal places in these types of articles?
    • I am unsure, but it is the figure the cited source uses, so I am inclined to keep it
  • "The next release after SOS is Lana" --> Does it make more sense to say "will be"?
    • "Release" here is meant to be a noun and is taken to be synonymous with album/project. The sentence is true as you read it, so "is" makes sense here
  • "Originally intended to be SOS's deluxe reissue, Lana evolved into its own project, which..." --> Lana was originally intended to be SOS's deluxe reissue, but evolved into its own project, which...
    • Done

@ZooBlazer Responses made. Thank you for your comments. ‍  Elias 🪐  (dreaming of Saturn; talk here) 05:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Support -- ZooBlazer 05:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - passes[edit]

  • File:SZA14 (13458538654).jpg is the only image used.
    Properly licensed
    Use in article obviously makes sense
    Usually with FLC and FAC reviews I prefer alt text to be more than "Refer to caption", but I'll leave it up to you to keep or change it.

That's all I have. Like I said, mostly nitpicks. The article is in pretty good shape, which I expect coming from you. If you have the interest and time, I also have an open FLC if you'd like to have a look. -- ZooBlazer 03:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to say this passes. The alt text thing isn't something to hold it back from becoming a FL. -- ZooBlazer 05:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Reference 7/8 has a list of authors, I know it's impossible to list them all, but a few of them followed by "et al." could be utilized. See Template:Cite web for documentation.
  • Billboard should be linked in references 35, 36, 40, 101, 102, and 104 for consistency with the rest of uses from that source.
  • References 185 and 186 have authors that can be listed.
  • Spot-checked 10 random sources and they confirmed they're cited for.

Only a few notes. Great work on the list! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 1993 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 18:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I waffled a bit on whether now was the right time to submit this – I currently have another timeline FLC outstanding, which admittedly hasn't progressed as much as I would've hoped by now – but I am confident enough that this timeline meets the FL criteria that I have decided to submit it anyway. One of the things that makes the 1993 Pacific hurricane season stand out is how many of its storms went on to reach high intensities; out of 15 total storms, a whopping 60% became major hurricanes! Two of these reached maximum sustained winds of 150 mph (240 km/h), the highest of any storm this season, at the same time. While there was unfortunately some adverse impact – most notably from Hurricane Calvin, which was a disastrous event for the Manzanillo area – there were also several long-lived and powerful hurricanes that largely remained out to sea with no harm to life or property. That kind of storm is, I would like to think, any meteorologist or storm tracker's favorite type of hurricane.

This timeline was largely modeled after the 2018 and 2020 Pacific hurricane season timelines, both of which are FLs. I have worked to apply feedback from the other FLC to this timeline as well. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 18:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick update to note that the subject of the previous FLC to which I referred in the nomination blurb, Timeline of the 1991 Atlantic hurricane season, has since been promoted – I believe this timeline is up to the standard of the 1991 ATL timeline and I hope the community agrees. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 17:34, 18 March 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

Source review comments:

  • Refs 7, 9, 10, 16, 22, 23, 24 – These refs are defaulting to the archive link in sources instead of the source that's still live. Please add <code>|url-access=live</code> to the references.
  • Ref 10 – Wikilink National Hurricane Center
  • Ref 16 – For consistency with ref 1, wikilink Miami, Florida
  • There are 34 instances where the references list "(GIF) (Report)" and 5 instances (refs 7, 10, 22, 23, and 24) where the "(GIF)" portion is listed next to the link to the original source while the "(Report)" part is listed next to the archive link. In all these instances the original sources is still live but needs that designation. For consistency, this should be fixed so that all 39 refs that use "(GIF)" and "(Report)" do so consistently.

Thanks what I've got. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for reviewing this, Josh! I believe I have addressed your comments. I actually noticed the issues you brought up in your first and fourth points in my other FLC as well, but couldn't figure out how to resolve them; I'm glad to have solutions! Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 23:26, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay, I didn't realized I hadn't responded to this. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

Per MOS:PSEUDOHEAD, the use of ";" to make psuedo-headers is not acceptable. It's ironically fixable in two opposite ways: either make them actual headers (e.g. ====June 1====), or make them actual bold text (e.g. June 1), but the semicolon is for a list thing that you're not actually doing, which messes up screen-reader software. --PresN 04:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PresN, I appreciate you bringing this to my attention! I've replaced the semicolons with level 6 headers (the header size which looks identical to semicolon headers/bold text) and added {{TOC limit|3}} higher up the page. It's a different approach from the last few timeline FLs, which simply use bold text, but I figured it was one worth trying. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 17:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like WikiCleanerBot didn't like this and converted the level 6 headers into level 4 headers... I think I'm going to keep it that way for now, in the hopes that it would make for easier accessibility than bold text. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 18:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • which tropical cyclones tend to form in the basin -- worth linking basin (if the terminology has an article)
  • That's all I could find. Really well-written and well-explained lead for readers who are unfamiliar with the topic. It summarizes the timeline quite well. I don't think I have any more to add. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm blushing a little bit from that second bullet! There is indeed an article for the basin terminology; I've incorporated a piped link to tropical cyclone basins. Thank you very much for your feedback, Pseud 14. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 19:45, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review : Passed

  • Images used have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed and are from reliable sources (i.e. NORA and NASA)
  • Images have succinct captions, relevant, and provide context for its use in the timeline. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

50th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 09:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1982 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81talk 09:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824
  • Consider linking ABC in the lead.
  • "comedian Bob Hope hosted for the" => "comedian Bob Hope hosted the ceremony/show for the".
  • "viewers in the United States" Should end with a full stop.
  • Vanessa Redgrave is first mentioned in the "Winners and Nominees", but isn't linked there.
  • "was held at the same exact location and the same date 50 years later of the first meeting by the organization." => "was held at the same location as the first meeting by the organization, exactly 50 years later."
  • "controversy from Jewish group for its anti-Israel commentary". which Jewish group?
  • "both Jewish Defense League protestors burned" makes it seem that there were only two protestors.
  • "The Color Purple has since equaled this record with 11 nominations and no wins." to "The Color Purple later equaled this record with 11 nominations and no wins, in 1986."
  • Rest looks fine. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MPGuy2824: Done - I've ready your comments and made the appropriate changes to each comment.
--Birdienest81talk 07:30, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"controversy from Jewish group". Does this mean Jewish people in general, OR a particular Jewish organization? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude
  • "acting, directing, screenwriting for the same film" => "acting, directing, and screenwriting for the same film"
  • "And we couldn't think of anyone better than anyone better suited" - some repeated words there
  • "In celebration of both the fiftieth anniversary of both the Academy and the Oscars" - don't need to say "both" twice
  • That's all I got in addition to what MPGuy picked up -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Done - I've ready your comments and made the appropriate changes to each comment.
--Birdienest81talk 06:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ffranc
  • The lead section contains original information and does not summarise the entire article. It summarises the winners but there is nothing about Redgrave's speech and the reception.
  • The article is inconsistent in its use of words and numerals for numbers. It says "50th Academy Awards" and "40th ceremony" but "nineteenth time" and "fiftieth anniversary". Considering the article title, you should probably stick to all numerals, with the exception of film titles and 0-9 (per MOS:NUMERAL).
  • The info about the original works in Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium is not on the Oscars.org page. You need another source.
  • The original works are inconsistently linked: the ones with a different title from the movie get a link, but not Equus (play) which also has an article.
  • Change Pentimento (book) to Pentimento: A Book of Portraits to avoid redirection.
  • Add a piped link for La Femme et le pantin/The Woman and the Puppet or change to the English title, which the Wikipedia article is under.
  • ...Redgrave remarked in her acceptance speech,"And I salute you, and I pay tribute to you, and I think you should be very proud that in the last few weeks you've stood firm, and you have refused to be intimidated by the threats of a small bunch of Zionist hoodlums." There is a space missing. It's unclear who Redgrave meant with "you" here; this could be resolved with some explanatory word or by quoting more of the speech. The quotation is cut off. According to other sources, the sentence continued: "...a small bunch of Zionist hoodlums whose behavior is an insult to the stature of Jews all over the world and their great and heroic record of struggle against fascism and oppression." Either expand it to the full sentence or make it clear that it is not the full sentence.
  • Remove unnecessary words like "moreover" and "additionally".

Nothing more that I can spot, other than the things others already have mentioned. The sources I looked at check out, with the exception of the part with the original works, and assuming good faith for all the ones I can't access. (You've written 1982 in the nomination, but the article is about the 1978 Oscars.) Ffranc (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of premiers of Victoria[edit]

Nominator(s): GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a list containing so much information and history about Australian/ Victorian politics. There are very few FAs and FLs in the Victorian Politics wikiproject. (peer review) GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • 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. Most of them are fine, but the three sub-headers (Took office, etc.) need the !scope=col, and the Term of office cell should 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. ! rowspan="2" style="background:{{party color|Independent politician}};" scope="row" | 1 becomes !scope=row rowspan="2" style="background:{{party color|Independent politician}};" scope="row" | 1. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. Along with that, you currently have two cells per row set as the header- the Premier cell should have a | instead of a !.
  • 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 03:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done –––– GMH Melbourne (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • Consider moving the Electoral district/constituency to its own column. The name column is quite cluttered right now.
  • Consider mentioning that Allan is only the second woman to hold the post.
  • If you make the table sortable then List of premiers of Victoria by time in office can just be redirected here as you can get the same information by sorting on the relevant column.
  • Don't see any problems with the prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 Thank you for your suggestions. The reason I put the constituencies in the name column was to be consistent with the List of prime ministers of Australia. I am happy to change it, let me know your thoughts. I have now added the fact Jacinta Allan is the 2nd female premier of vic (this edit).
    As discussed in the peer review, making the table sortable isn't possible due to vertical cell mergers with the monarch/governor column and also for when premiers have served multiple, separate, non-consecutive, terms. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The table in the List of prime ministers of Australia is sortable and is a recent FL (from December 2022).
    • Also, to me the governor seems like a ceremonial office and not particularly relevant to this particular list. Maybe the governor/monarch column can be removed. Please take the opinion of other folk before doing this though. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      In relation to the List of prime ministers of Australia table, when you go and sort the table, it kind of stuffs it up. I have also just discovered vertical merges around the 'Election' columns which will cause further issues if made sortable. I have tried to seek consensus in the past to remove the column without the discussion gaining any traction, I will try again in the articles talk page. GMH Melbourne (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom and List of prime ministers of New Zealand have the constituency within the name column as well, so there is precedent. Regarding the governor and monarch column, I think its important to keep the governors because the governor directly appoints the premier. I wouldn't mind removing the monarch column though. Steelkamp (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of Indian Premier League seasons and results[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Cricket, WikiProject IPL (note: the original FL nominator is blocked, so I haven't notified them)

I am nominating this for featured list removal because the version of the article right now is not as good as the 2017 version, and lots of the text is outdated and not supported by sources. In the FL version [5], all the tables had sources for every team, but these have been removed, in violation of WP:VERIFY. This is enough to automatically fail this review in my opinion, as it isn't easily fixable. There are also multiple issues with the lead, including:

  1. Text on the formats isn't supported by the source [6], as the source says there were different formats from 2020-2022, whereas the text says there was a pre-2021 and 2022 onwards formats
  2. Mumbai Indians have won five titles.[31] Chennai Super Kings have won five titles and Kolkata Knight Riders have won two titles, Gujarat Titans, Sunrisers Hyderabad and Rajasthan Royals, apart from former team Deccan Chargers, are the other teams to have won the tournament title as of May 2023. Not supported by the sources, which are mostly from 2016. People have updated the number of wins but not the source itself.
  3. Altogether, thirteen teams have played in the past ten seasons of the IPL tournament. Out-of-date, as there have been 16 completed seasons (and this would need source update too). That whole paragraph is also way too overdetailed about team histories- the lead is meant to summarise the content of the lists, whereas this provides too much information.
  4. The entire lead is too long as per MOS:LEAD. This would require a complete re-write to have a lead that summarises the article, followed by a text summary in another section, followed by the tables themselves

The tables themselves have multiple problems too:

  1. The row headings have been removed from all tables, compared to the FL version. This is a MOS:ACCESS issue
  2. The "Overall team results" table has been changed so it's now using ridiculous amounts of MOS:COLOUR violations, and has the host countries added, which is unnecessary trivia (since there's only been 4 seasons not hosted entirely in India, and that information isn't pertinent to understanding team results)
  3. "Additional team statistics" table is newer than the FL version, and this is unsourced and doesn't actually give useful additional information

As such, this doesn't currently meet the FL criteria, and so should be considered for de-listing unless significant corrections are made. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302, as a reminder, please complete the required notifications and note them here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gonzo_fan2007 as I noted, the user who nominated it for FL is indefinitely blocked, so makes no sense to notify them. And I've notified relevant WikiProjects, so I don't believe anyone else is required. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And no other active editors have made substantial edits to this according to [7]. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:22, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joseph2302, when I commented the WikiProjects hadn't been notified (or at least the notices weren't added to the top of this page). Everything looks good, appreciate it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons[edit]

Notified: Buc, WP:NFL, WP:WPLISTS

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails a number of criteria:

  • 1. Prose: the prose is choppy and could probably use a full rewrite.
  • 2. Lead: Tom McCloskey should be linked. The lead is pointlessly self-referencing in the last sentence of the first paragraph.
  • 3b. Comprehensiveness: primary issue here, the list lacks necessary inline citations in the lead and within the table (the awards especially). There is too much of a reliance on "general references". Some sources appear to either be dead, out of date or unreliable.
  • 3c. Accessibility: the list lacks all accessibility features expected of WP:FL today, both in the table, the key and no alt text on the photo.
  • 4. Structure: the structure of the table is a bit off. The last section needs the darker gray formatting of the cells. The awards need some sort of acronym definition.

The list was nominated over 15 years ago when standards were quite different. These issues either need to be addressed or the article delisted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cleveland Browns seasons[edit]

Notified: Omg its will run, WP:NFL, WP:CLEVELAND, WP:USA & WP:WPLIST

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails a number of criteria:

  • 1. Prose: the prose is choppy (While the National Football League (NFL) does not recognize the Browns’ AAFC championships, the Pro Football Hall of Fame does recognize the team’s championships, which is reflected in this list.)
  • 2. Lead: the lead appears a little short considering other season lists. There are also some links that need to be added (like Detroit Lions, Pittsburgh Steelers and wild-card round. Just generally needs some clean-up. Could also use a photo in the lead.
  • 3b. Comprehensiveness: primary issue here, the list lacks any inline citations in the lead and within the table. Sources lack consistent formatting (dates especially) and there is reliance on "general references". Some sources appear to either be dead, out of date or unreliable.
  • 4. Structure: the notes and inline cites need to be split into separate sections.
  • Accessibility: the list lacks all accessibility features expected of WP:FL today, both in the table and the legend.

The list was nominated over 15 years ago when standards were quite different. These issues either need to be addressed or the article delisted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:42, 12 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]