Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 delegates, PresN and The Rambling Man, 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

Toolbox
  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]

List of songs recorded by Kyla[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked on list articles about actors for quite a while, here I am going back to where my FL journey began, working on list of songs by a music artist. Kyla is a Filipino R&B singer who first shot to fame in the early 2000s and remains to be the only artist from the Philippines to have received an MTV Video Music Award. 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) 16:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "Kyla's succeeding records" - I think "Kyla's next two records" would read more naturally
Done
  • "were cover albums. Both of which" => "were cover albums, both of which"
Done
  • "In 2010, she released her eight studio album" => "In 2010, she released her eighth studio album"
Silly me, I've corrected this
  • There's a Harv error in the table of contents for some reason
I don't think I'm seeing it, as I don't use Harvard citation style or notes. Is it from a software you use to flag harv errors?
OK I figured it out. For some reason you have [[#CITEREF2003|B]] in the TOC. Don't think the bit before the pipe should look like that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: ah now I see it, must've pasted something by mistake. All fixed now. Thanks for checking. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kyla is featured in rapper Young JV's single" => "Kyla is featured on rapper Young JV's single"
Done
Thank you for your review ChrisTheDude, I have addressed the above and have provided a comment on one item to clarify. Thanks --Pseud 14 (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Not gonna screw this up

  • "her debut studio album Way to Your Heart." — comma after album; also, when was this released?
Avoided repeating the year 2000, so I added context to help clarify.
  • "third studio album I Will Be There was" — commas around I Will Be There
Done
  • "The title track was written by Ogie Alcasid and also featured the song "Flexin"" — the title track featured another song in it? It sounds like a peculiar thing...
Reworded and split into two sentences
  • "her fifth studio album Beautiful" — comma after album
Done
  • "worked with some new writers" — omit some as unnecessary and vague
Done
  • "album Private Affair. The" — comma after album
Done
  • "A remake of the Bee Gees' "How Deep Is Your Love" was the second single." — I find the wording rather awkward...
Reworded
  • Ref abbreviation needs to be explained in table
Added

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review Pamzeis! I have addressed the above. Let me know if I missed anything. Thanks! --Pseud 14 (talk) 13:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hyouka episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): Takipoint123 (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is a comprehensive list that meets the FLC criteria, and I think it looks similar to other anime-related FLCs. Thanks! Takipoint123 (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Hope I won't screw this up

  • "is a 22 episode" → is a 22-episode
  • Optional but I think "animated television series" would flow better than "television animation series"
  • "novel of the same name, Hyouka" → novel of the same name (naming the novel is unneeded as the reader already knows it has the same name)
  • Does "series composition" mean writing? The way it's worded... I thought the job was like a producer or something
  • "around the events Houtarou Oreki" — I had to read this a few times before I understood... because I thought the character was an event... maybe that's just an issue for me...
  • "released on August and" → released in August and
  • "North America on July and" → North America in July and
  • Link Crunchyroll at its first mention
  • Is the theme music relevant enough for the lead? It seems like mere trivia and fancruft to me
  • Make sure all citations conform with MOS:CITEPUNCT
  • The theme music singers need a source
  • "Two volumes of Hyouka's drama CDs were released." — kinda awkward and clunky
  • Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works like Hyouka need to be italicised in citations

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: Thanks for you comments! I think I got everything that you pointed out... but as for the music I think it should be fine to keep it there as it seems other anime FL articles seems to point it out like List of Puella Magi Madoka Magica episodes and List of Yuri on Ice episodes. Thanks! Takipoint123 (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pamzeis: Sorry, I just realized I had to italicize the citations! I've italicized them. Do you have any other suggestions? Thanks :) Takipoint123 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "series composition by Shoji Gatoh" - what's "series composition"?
    • series composition is a role like director, typically used in Japanese entertainment. A lot of anime-related articles use this term.[1]
  • "The series centers around the events first-year high school student Houtarou Oreki faces" => "The series centers around the events which first-year high school student Houtarou Oreki faces"
    • Corrected
  • Is there an appropriate wikilink for whatever a "drama-CD volume" is?
  • "who wants to know how the room was locked in" => "who wants to know how the room was locked"
    • Corrected
  • What's an "eyecatch"?
    • An eyecatch seems to be something like an endcard (Forgive the reddit link, but this is an example from the anime) [2].
  • "name the Classic Literature Club anthologies as Hyōka" - is this the same word as the title of the series? If so, why is it spelt differently here?
    • I've corrected them to Hyouka. (Hyōka is the same spelling with Hyouka and is just a different way of romanizing Japanese.)
  • "which turn out to be a yukata" - should be "which turns out". Also, is there a wikilink for whatever a "yukata" is?
    • corrected and linked.
  • That's what I got as far as episode 9 but I need to break off now. Back for more later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "a solution with which almost satisfies everyone" => "a solution which satisfies almost everyone"
    • Corrected
  • "he forgot to find a role to the rope" => "he forgot to find a role for the rope"
    • Corrected
  • "he shares his views with Eru on what Hongou probably wanted, who is" => "he shares his views on what Hongou probably wanted with Eru, who is"
    • Corrected
  • "Eru does excellent" => "Eru does excellently"
    • Corrected
  • "He asks some help from Satoshi" => "He asks for some help from Satoshi"
    • Corrected
  • "Hotaro knew that school president and vice president was" => "Hotaro knew that the school president and vice president were"
    • Corrected
  • "volunteer to retrieve sake lees" - what are "sake lees"?
    • It is an alternative name of Sake kasu, and I added the appropriate link.
  • "Satoshi attributes on the quality" - "attributes" really isn't a valid word in this sentence, but I'm not 100% sure what you are trying to say so I can't suggest an alternative.......
    • I've changed the sentence to: Satoshi attributes on the quality -> Satoshi refuses to receive her chocolate, criticizing the quality of the chocolate she made.
  • "contemplates on the fact that Satoshi" => "contemplates the fact that Satoshi"
    • Corrected
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for a thorough review of the article, it is quite a lengthy one :) I've clarified/corrected based on your comments.--Takipoint123 (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Book of Boba Fett characters[edit]

Nominator(s): ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 23:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because for the last review I got a pass from the article reviewer and a pass from the source reviewer, but the article only got two votes, therefore not having enough to pass. I am sure this meets the criteria per the last review and am renominating the article in hopes of getting more votes. See last review hereKaleeb18TalkCaleb 23:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • Lead is a little brief for such a long article, per MOS:LEAD.
  • "amount" -> "number"
  • "that appear in the series are " include, rather than "are"? And why cherry pick these ones?
    • If I do not cherry pick wont the list of name become quite lenghty
  • "before in The Mandalorian and has also" overlinked.
  • "back to life.[21][11] Rich " ref order.
  • " ship Slave I back and" overlinked.
  • "Ming-Na Wen portrays" ditto.
    • Another editor and I in the last review agreed that it is ok to keep this link here in case someone reads just that section
  • TV Insider's -> TV Insider's (check the markup here if it's confusing.
  • "protagonist in the series The Mandalorian.[39] In" overlinked.
  • "and Salvador Larocca for Marvel Comics" overlinked.
  • "Comic Book Resources' Brenton Stewart" overlinked, and see formatting with the {{'s}} template here and elsewhere.
  • "Lucas' film American Graffiti.[128][129][19]" ref order and "Lucas's".
  • "two or less episodes in The Book of Boba Fett and are considered to play a significant part" fewer, not less, and considered by whom?
  • "of ComicBook.com described" italics or not? Be consistent. And don't overlink.
  • "comedian Amy Sedaris performs" overlinked.
  • "Britt of Inverse said that " ditto.
  • "the Star Wars: The Bad Batch series" ditto.
  • "considered to be minor characters or make a significant cameo" considered by whom?
  • "conversation with ComicBook.com, Rodriquez" unlink this dab.
  • Plenty of spaced hyphens in the references, should be spaced en-dashes.

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has been fixed except for ones I put responses under and I'll get to the last one later. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 00:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question where is the guideline that says I should change the hyphens to dashes in citations. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 11:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaleeb18: - are you able to resolve the issues across this article and List of The Mandalorian characters? Another editor is attempting to (badly) merge all the content from this article into the other one and this one isn't likely to get promoted to FL if all of its content has been merged elsewhere...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude Do you think the best way about this would be to remove the content from over there because it is not the list of The Book of Boba Fett characters, but it is the list of The Mandalorian characters. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 11:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would be my preference. I tried to sort out the other article earlier, but I didn't realise quite how much of a mess it was and I ran out of time before I had to go out..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: I have finished all you have said except for the ones I had questions for. Also @ChrisTheDude: I have fixed the issue at the List of The Mandalorian characters. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1951[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my 10th FLC of a list of number ones on the antecedent of Billboard's R&B/Hip-Hop chart. In this particular year one of the chart-toppers was a track which is now regarded as one of the contenders for the title of "first ever rock and roll record"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • Link "Black Night"
  • "the longest unbroken spell at number one" – maybe clarify that this was the longest streak that year (presumably) instead of all-time?
  • In the table, "'T' 99 Blues" appears to have an extra apostrophe – either it should be removed or every other occurrence should have this apostrophe
    • Note that the apostrophe also affects sorting order in the table
  • "The Glory of Love" should sort by "Glory"

RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: - all done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SupportRunningTiger123 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14[edit]

  • and pianist Charles Brown[3] -- I think you can invoke this citation at the end of the sentence.
  • I would move Ref4 to the end of the last sentence in the second para
  • That's all from me. Could not find anything else to quibble, another well-written piece! Pseud 14 (talk) 18:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14: - those AllMusic refs were citing the descriptions of the musicians ("ballad singer and pianist Charles Brown" and "pioneering doo-wop group") and don't cover the remainder of each sentence (the bits about their runs at number one, which are covered by the table) hence why I put the refs where I did, but I guess it's no big deal where exactly they go..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Looks good and thanks for the clarification. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • The first paragraph feels a little dense to me, but I don't see any errors. I'm not doing much prose reviewing these days ... I'm having some health issues and I'm not sure that I'm still up to the task, but FLC generally requires at least three supports, and I think you're in good hands here, so I'll leave it alone. I can still make a useful contribution here, I hope; there's a lot of grunt work involved in a review that mostly requires familiarity with the process.
  • The table needs a caption. I added a table caption.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 09:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more thing ... I do have one recommendation that would move the last part of the first sentence into the second sentence (although, if you do this, the second sentence might then need to be either shortened or divided up into two sentences ... your call). You have "In 1951, Billboard magazine published two charts specifically covering the top-performing songs in the United States in rhythm and blues (R&B) and related African-American-oriented music genres: Best Selling Retail Rhythm & Blues Records and Most Played Juke Box Rhythm & Blues Records, based on sales in stores and plays in jukeboxes respectively. The two charts are considered ...": I prefer "In 1951, Billboard magazine published Best Selling Retail Rhythm & Blues Records and Most Played Juke Box Rhythm & Blues Records, two charts covering the top-performing songs in the United States in rhythm and blues (R&B) and related African-American-oriented music genres. The charts, one based on sales in stores and the other on plays in jukeboxes, are considered ...". It's a tiny change, but I think it would help for two reasons: 1. Readers, especially those who aren't familiar with the subject matter, need all the help they can get to quickly figure out what the article is about so that they can start to put the information you're giving them into context. Shorter first sentences are easier to digest (if they can be shortened without violating some other rule); also, "Best Selling Retail Rhythm & Blues Records and Most Played Juke Box Rhythm & Blues Records" is really helpful in understanding what the article is about, so the sooner you say that, the better. 2. Human short-term memory is actually quite small, so it's always best to answer questions raised by the text as soon as possible (in this case, "which two charts are you talking about?"), especially in the first sentence. I'm not saying that this is easy, there are always opposing considerations ... but it's desirable. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: - sounds reasonable - changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Military Academy First Captains[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 — Maile (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is being nominated as featured list because it includes significant American military figures, as well as others who went on to successful civilian careers. Instituted in 1872, First Captain is a leadership position, the senior ranking member of the 4,400 Corps of Cadets at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. (Not to be confused with the salaried Army enlisted rank of Captain (United States O-3).) Note that the PDF United States Military Academy sourcing for the list of names is only a chronological list of all who have held the position . — Maile (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • After reading this list, I still have no idea what the first captain is. How are they selected and why? What is "overall performance" of the Corps – academic performance, military preparedness, general campus concerns? What is the "class agenda"? Is this basically a student body president? At most universities the students elect a leader of the student government who runs on a platform and works with the administration to ensure student-focused programs are funded, expanded, inclusive, and transparent. Does West Point have such a representative student government or how does this compare? You describe the brigade that the first captain leads as being divided into battallion and companies but don't answer the so-what: do each of them have a leader that the first captain herself directs or what?
    @Reywas92: @Hawkeye7: can answer this better than I can, but comparison to a student body president is not adequate. This is war college, and the First Captain is the Brigade Commander, with graduates often going directly into combat zones. In short, please see United States Military Academy#Rank and organization. War is their business, so any comparison to student body president at some civilian school, is not workable. All that academic stuff aside, the First Captain is charged with making sure they are prepared for war. But, as I said, Hawkeye7 can probably explain better. — Maile (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reywas92: @Hawkeye7: I found an answer, and a press release, and have posted the info in the first paragraph of Selection and Organization of the Cadet Corps The Academy selects the First Captain, as well as its other leadership positions. It doesn't give the details, but it most certainly was via an established criteria set by the Academy itself. Hope this helps explain somewhat. — Maile (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pratt should be recognized in the lead as the incumbent but her post-graduate majors are irrelevant here
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Establishment of the university" section doesn't seem relevant, please tie in better to the article's subject or remove.
    I think it provides background. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I completely agree on the background info, which is why I put it here. Without that section, non-Americans are not likely to know the why and how of the institution's establishment. And I think it's really important to note when the first women were allowed into the academy. That was a really big deal in American history. It also provides the background as to why no women were named First Captain until 1990. — Maile (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're not using US-style MDY dates, a comma doesn't ever belong between a month a year.
    How right you are! I had done a pre-nom sweep to catch such things, but must have blinked. I believe they're all taken care of now. — Maile (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Global influence" is a pretty vague header. Of course top military brass have a global influence, but how does that mean this position has global influence? It's great to note that high achievers at the military academies are often high achievers in the military and that many former officeholders later become generals, but there should be a bit more tying of them together than details like what Pershing did.
    Headings are normally vague. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Removal of "global" still ignores the rest of the comment. This shows that a number of have had significant roles decades after being FC, but not the "influence" of the position itself. Reywas92Talk 18:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The position itself has little influence per se outside the Corps of Cadet, where it is a highly-sought after honour among highly competitive people. (This is particularly notable nowadays as the corps is very large, so they tend to be over-achievers). However: the appointment marks the cadet as a likely candidate for future greatness, and this is seen by the high proportion who achieve general officer rank. I created the list because it kept cropping up in biographies. It is also not unknown for First Captains to become patrons of other First Captains, which is important because the US Army runs on a system of patronage. In particular, Pershing took an interest in the careers of other First Captains, hence the run of them as his successors. Graduates are normally ranked on graduation, but this refers to academics, whereas the position of First Captain is based on scholarship, sportsmanship and leadership. As the quote in the article indicates, by first year the cadets have been assessed for a long time. It is not unusual though for them to also rank high in the class, often first like MacArthur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pershing, MacArthur, Malin Craig and William Westmoreland all served as Chief of Staff of the United States Army" helps with that, but it's missing Summerall, Clark, and Rogers as listing in the table.
    Who was Clark? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Francis William Clark — Maile (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed I rechecked the source on Clark via his obit. He was Chief of staff of only the Third division at Fort Lewis. I have so noted on the list. — Maile (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there any other notes about the first captains' actual service beyond the examples in "Interrupted terms"?
  • "All Ameican" typo
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "WW I, WW II" isn't spaced
    Removed abbreviations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salzman is the only "Brigadier-General" with a hyphen, please check for consistency in the formatting of these comments in general.
    Alas not; corrected them all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of inconsistency of U.S. vs. US
    Standardized on "US". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsisency like a simple "Rhodes scholar" for Morales and a wordier "Recipient of a post-graduate Marshall Scholarship" and then "Rhodes scholar scheduled to attend the University of Oxford" that's redundant since Rhodes scholars by definition attend Oxford.
    True, but not everyone knows that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the comments column, there is value in recognizing their later achievements and major positions, but there shouldn't be comments merely for the sake of being comments for each one. Lots of people get an "MBA from Harvard Business School" or "MBA degree from Stanford Graduate School of Business" (another inconsistency with "degree"!) and that's just not as relevant here.
    Removed some. Will do another pass through.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I altered the column heading a bit to say "Comments/post-cadet career" This could probably be tweaked. — Maile (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is "who retired three times" meaningful? Retired from what?
     Done Note that this is re George H. Olmsted. It's a bit complicated, but I hope I've expanded it adequately now. — Maile (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm really confused why the comment for Robert S. Brown is "AKA Capt. Robert (“Todd”) Sloan Brown", what does this add to spell out his middle name?
    West Point tends to have similarly-named relatives also attending the academy, especially in the cases of fathers and sons. This one has name variations from source to source. I wanted the reader to understand that this is the same individual who, for reasons unknown, used alternate variations of his name in different time periods. As a cadet, he was listed as Robert S. Brown. But he wrote a journal for West Point under the name Todd S. Brown. And depending upon the published editon of that journal, his name is listed both ways. Sometimes as Robert (“Todd”) Sloan Brown. No explanation of why. It's confusing, but the only way I could indicate they are one and the same person. — Maile (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is The class the stars fell on a relevant see also?
    Because it's an FL about the 1915 Academy cadets, 36% of whom rose to the rank of general. — Maile (talk)

There's potential here but there's a way to go, namely that it needs more than "these people who did things after attending USMA held a leadership position at USMA". Back to the student body president question – student body president is *not* a Wikipedia notable position! This being a service academy and the success of many alumni can justify this article, but it doesn't really show it. Reywas92Talk 21:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We'll keep working at it. It would be WP:OR to find their student records while at the academy. Which the academy would not give us access to, even if Wikipedia had no dictate against that. We can only go by existing public information. What makes them notable, is what they achieved after the academy. The whole point here is that a leadership at the academy gave them the skills to achieve notability otherwise.
@Hawkeye7: Do you have time to eyeball the Comments column, and help add pertinent info beginning around 1900-15, if lacking? I've started to add brief blurbs about their military careers. Once we get into the 21st century, cadets serve out their required post-cadet military service, and then go into financially successful careers in the private sector. I think it's important to note that. — Maile (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Maile (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment
  • "Holland is one of only seven women cadets...." - per MOS:SURNAME, individuals should not be referred to by their forename in this way -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed - Nice catch there. — Maile (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hasn't been changed as far as I can see...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed for the second time. It was fixed. An editor changed it back while doing other editing. I've made the change again. — Maile (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Tropical Airplay number ones of 1997[edit]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the Latin pop #1's of 1997 done, here is the tropical #1's of the same year. This year was really good for tropical music, with this list having some of my favorite tunes! Erick (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "It was succeed by Grupo Manía's song "Linda Eh" where it remained on top of the charts for four weeks" => "It was succeeded by Grupo Manía's song "Linda Eh", which remained on top of the chart for four weeks"
  • "Starr had previously established herself freestyle artist" => "Starr had previously established herself as a freestyle artist"
  • "returned to music scene" => "returned to the music scene"
  • "She is the only female artist to have a number one on the Tropical Airplay chart in 1997" => "She was the only female artist to have a number one on the Tropical Airplay chart in 1997"
  • Grupo Mania photo caption seems to have too many quote marks after the song title
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As always, thank you for the comments! I have addressed them all. Erick (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coldplay videography[edit]

Nominator(s): GustavoCza (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, this is my first FL nomination since the List of awards and nominations received by Coldplay. It's the listings of the band's visual work, as their music videos section on Coldplay discography was getting way too big. All old sources were checked, corrected and replaced. Please feel free to note any detail I might have forgotten.

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "appearing on many television shows throughout their career as well" - this should probably be "as well as appearing on many television shows throughout their career". However, the Television section further only down only lists four appearances. Four is not "many"
  • "with the former receiving a MTV Video Music Award for Best Art Direction." - unsourced
  • ""Strawberry Swing", which received three UK Music Video Awards" - unsourced
  • "The record spawned "Princess of China" and "Hurts Like Heaven" as well" => "The record also spawned "Princess of China" and "Hurts Like Heaven""
  • "The former won a MTV Video Music Award for Best Rock Video, while the latter received two silver prizes at the Clio Awards. " - all unsourced
  • "Harvey (pictured in 2021) guested on numerous music videos as an easter egg" - show (and link) his full name
  • The captions to all the images beside the table are complete sentences, so they need full stops
  • Some of the captions say that something happened "on [video title]" - the "on" should be "in"
  • "A man enters an elevator" = "A man enters a lift" (UK subject so UK term should be used)
  • "The band performs the song" => "The band perform the song" (appears more than once)
  • "on a slow motion sequence" => "in a slow motion sequence"
  • "Coldplay performs the song" => "Coldplay perform the song" (appears more than once)
  • "enhanced to appear as Coldplay were performing the song" => "enhanced to appear as though Coldplay were performing the song"
  • "The band climbs a hill and reaches" => "The band climb a hill and reach"
  • "It features numerous footage" - "footage" is singular, so it can't be "numerous"
  • "Both versions of the music video has" => "Both versions of the music video have"
  • "at Viva la Vida Tour" => "on the Viva la Vida Tour"
  • "with Jay-Z appearing trough a television screen" => "with Jay-Z appearing through a television screen"
  • "the band appears as puppets" => "the band appear as puppets"
  • "Harvey appears as one the parents" => "Harvey appears as one of the parents"
  • "in front of River Thames" => "in front of the River Thames"
  • "The band plays across various backdrops" => "The band play across various backdrops"
  • "meets up his girlfriend" => "meets up with his girlfriend"
  • "where the band is playing" => "where the band are playing"
  • "where sound and colour is completely forbidden." => "where sound and colour are completely forbidden."
  • "who performs on a traveling circus" => "who performs in a traveling circus"
  • "As their work continue" => "As their work continues"
  • "(including Harvey dressed as a koala" - you open a bracket but don't close it
  • "an aspirant ballerina" => "an aspiring ballerina"
  • "Black and white footages of the band performing the song fade into each other" - "footage" can't be plural, so maybe replace with "shots"
  • "An animated version the Ghost Stories (2014) album cover" => "An animated version of the Ghost Stories (2014) album cover"
  • "come across a Beats Bill" - isn't it called a Beats Pill.....?
  • "Each one of them were designed" => "Each one of them was designed"
  • "two silves prizes" - silver is spelt wrongly
  • "The Chainsmokers performing on a festival" => "The Chainsmokers performing at a festival"
  • "while Coldplay performs the song." => "while Coldplay perform the song."
  • "Inspired on George Orwell's Animal Farm" => "Inspired by George Orwell's Animal Farm"
  • "Martin explore its cities and meet" => "Martin explores its cities and meets"
  • None of the descriptions in the TV section should have full stops
  • Same for the films
  • "Commercials" => "Advertisements" (UK term)
  • "Martin took part on the "Garth & Kat" segment" => "Martin took part in the "Garth & Kat" segment"
  • That's what I got........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello Chris, I'll see the other stuff later once I arrive at my house, but the awards are not unsourced, the references are on each video's description. GustavoCza (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha. This sentence is wrong, though: "It was followed by the singles "Shiver", "Yellow", "Trouble" and "Don't Panic" from Parachutes (2000), with the former receiving a MTV Video Music Award for Best Art Direction." In that sentence "the former" is "Shiver", but according to the table it was "Trouble" that won the award -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the notes, I can't believe I let some of this stuff get past me. You left me with one doubt though: one editor at Coldplay's main article said photos don't need a stop/period on their captions, but you're saying they do. So_what_is_the_truth_oprah.gif GustavoCza (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See MOS:CAPFRAG, which says "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments, which should not end with a period or full stop. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then all sentences, and any sentence fragments, in that caption should end with a period or full stop." Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like Wikipedians should just put a period in all captions and call it a day. But anyway, just edited the page according to what you said. Any further notes? -- GustavoCza (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Hopefully, I will not screw this up

  • "released 64 music videos, four video albums and four films," — consistency is needed per MOS:NUM
    • "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". The guidelines don't prohibit me from writing like I did. In fact, it's the most used way I have seen around discography and award pages.
  • "appearing on multiple television shows throughout their career as well" — while I understand what this bit is trying to say, it feels quite awkward to me. Can it be reworded?
    • I've tried before, nothing good so far.
  • ""In My Place" and "The Scientist", which was nominated" — which one was nominated?
    • Solved. It's "The Scientist".
  • "campaign was then completed" — removed then as redundant
    • Solved.
  • "anticipation for their fourth album Viva la Vida" — comma after album
    • Solved.
  • "two versions of "Viva la Vida" available" — I think more context is needed for what "Viva La Vida" is, as I thought it was the album before clicking on the link
    • Album titles are in italic and song titles are in quotes, I think that's very much clear already.
  • "The record also spawned" — ...what is "the record" referring to?
    • "The record" is always referring to the album last mentioned. The Mylo Xyloto record spawned "Princess of China" and "Hurts Like Heaven".
  • "an interactive project" — can you clarify whether it's just the last one or all of them or something?
    • Solved.
  • "(1979) which had its final" — comma before which
    • Solved.
  • "following it with" — is "it" the song or the album?
    • I wrote that thinking about the song, but it also applies to the AHFOD album since "Adventure of a Lifetime" is the only video released prior to 4 December 2015.
  • "The record's marketing campaign" — what is "the record"?
    • "The record" is always referring to the album last mentioned. The A Head Full of Dreams record had its campaign finished with "A Head Full of Dreams" and "Everglow".
  • "Everyday Life (2019) had six music videos" — kinda awkward
    • Solved.
  • Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works (such as albums, films or television shows) should be italicised in citations
    • I'm pretty sure all of them are in this list. --GustavoCza (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of commanders of the British 1st Armoured Division[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of a break, I am back with a new list (will work on the prior failed nom, due to my absence, at a later date and I apologize for not being able to action that more timely). This is the list of commanding officers for the British 1st Armoured Division, which was formed in 1937 and lasted until 1945. It was briefly revived between 1946 and 1947 (a 1st Armoured Division was formed in the 1970s and lasted until the 2000s, but as that was created by the renaming of the 1st Division, its commanding officers are included on a separate list dedicated to the 1st Division). This particular division fought in the Second World War, seeing action in France, North Africa, and Italy with two of its commanding officers becoming wounded in the line of duty. Look forward to all feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "who would receive orders" => "who receives orders" (as the sentence is talking generally about the concept of a GOC - alternatively change the whole thing to past tense but make it refer to this specific division i.e. "The division was commanded by a general officer commanding (GOC), who received orders"
  • "and then use the forces" => "and then uses the forces" (or "used" if you follow the second suggestion above)
    I have opted for the latter choice, and have tried to reword accordingly for both these points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was during this period that it was temporarily renamed the 1st British Armoured Division2 - you haven't mentioned its (apparent) earlier renaming, so probably worth adding that in
    Added inEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ceased to be an operation formation" - should that say "operational".....?
    Yes, and correctedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During Evan's tenure" - apostrophe in wrong place
    Moved to where it should beEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the division mobilized" - UK subject so UK spelling should be used
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Lumsden was wounded in action on 19 July 1942" - complete sentence so needs a full stop. Same with the one on the line below
    Period added to this sentence, and also the one below (which I have just added some extra content to).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 5 April 1943, the division was redesignated as the 1st British Armoured Division" - needs a full stop
    Period added
  • Is it really necessary to put "acting commander" in the notes column when you have "acting" in the first column?
    I was just thinking the same when I was relooking over the article, and now removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to action them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Playfair et all (2004b) is not used and should be removed.
  • Support

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your review, comment, and support. I have removed the excess book.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of scandentians[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 00:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is number 21 in our perpetual journey of animal list FLCs (3 lists for Lagomorpha, 10 for Carnivora, 4 for Artiodactyla, and 1 each for Perissodactyla, Cingulata, and Didelphimorphia), with another in a subseries of single-list orders. In this one we find the 23 species of Scandentia, or treeshrews, which despite the name aren't closely related to shrews or any rodent, but are instead closer to primates. These little mammals are native to the forests and jungles of southeast Asia, especially the islands of Maritime Southeast Asia, and all look fairly similar, though do note the painted treeshrew, which really does look like it was dropped in a bucket of red paint. We're missing a few photos of these guys due to their small and reclusive nature, but the science is up to date and the formatting reflects prior FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "They are all around a similar size, ranging from the Bornean smooth-tailed treeshrew, at 11 cm (4 in) plus a 9 cm (4 in) tail, to the striped treeshrew, at 23 cm (9 in) plus a 13 cm (5 in) tail" - pedantically, are they all really around a "similar" size given that the larger of these two examples has a body more than twice as long as the former.......?
  • This might also be highly pedantic, but is there any nuance intended in the use of "Insects and fruit" versus "Insects as well as fruit", or is that just a way of mixing up the language a bit?
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Hmm, so I'm coming from the out-of-article perspective that 4 to 9 inches is a small range compared to a range e.g. 4 inches to 3 feet- for mammals, it's a small range, though you have a point that in-article the biggest is twice as long as the smallest. Reworded to remove the "similar".
  • The nuance is that "insects as well as fruit" means they (according to the source) primarily eat insects, but also eat fruit, while "insects and fruit" means that they (according to the source) eat both without wording indicating one is more primary. --PresN 15:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • Linking both Scandentia and treeshrews in the lead is redundant since both point to the same page and are unlikely to be split
  • For maps, it would be better for the description pages to cite specific pages instead of the general IUCN Red List link

RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I don't see any prose problems. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the tables.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

53rd Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 07:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1981 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1979, 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, and 2021 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81talk 07:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Just the first table is missing a table caption. In the "Performers" table, "People Alone" is sorting before Orchestral.
  • The 2nd, 6th and 7th images in the multiple image template are missing alt text.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the tables.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank: I've fixed the remaining issues from your comments up above.
--Birdienest81talk 05:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 12:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "The ceremony was originally scheduled the day before" => "The ceremony was originally scheduled for the day before"? Current wording could be interpreted as the Academy only scheduling it (confirming when it would take place) the day before
  • "The nominees for the 53rd Academy Awards were announced on February 17, 1981, by" - can't see any reason for a comma after the date
  • "the festivities would be posted to the following day" - unless this is an unusual US English usage of which I am unaware, surely that should say "postponed".....?
  • "whether or not to televise pre-recorded remarks from Reagan [...] giving remarks" - any way to re-word to avoid this repetition?
  • "an unnamed man later identified as Hungarofilm general manager Istvan Dosai came upstage" - I would imagine that should say "on stage" rather than "upstage", unless he was already standing on the stage, which from the context seems unlikely
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Done - I've addressed your comments by making adjustments based off of them.
--Birdienest81talk 06:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • Norman Jewison should be linked in lead
  • Missing dash for Confidence nomination
  • Is Unsworth's posthumous nom supported by a source?
  • Capitalizing "Visual Effects" feels odd
  • Ref. 29 (McCabe) seems to have the wrong date
  • Ref. 32 (Boyer) appears to misspell "Lowest"
  • ABC should not be linked again in Ratings section
  • "with 31% of households watching with a 58% share" – two uses of "with" in the same sentence is awkward

RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SupportRunningTiger123 (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations[edit]

List of accolades received by Frozen II[edit]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 04:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list since I expanded and improved this list at the parent article, and I created this page to 74 nominations and above 50k bytes. I appreciate that the parent article and its soundtrack respectively promoted to featured and good articles by Wingwatchers recently, so this list goes to featured status. Chompy Ace 04:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*"Made on a production budget of $150 million,[9] it earned $1.450 million worldwide" - think there's a typo in there, unless it was one of the biggest flops of all time......
  • The note looks a little strange IMO - why not just put the refs against the sentence(s) they source?
  • Think that's all I got, nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:14, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All  Done; the first point is correct, since this is an overview of the film for the first two paragraphs in the lead. Chompy Ace 07:34, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chompy Ace: if the first point is correct, then it earned back less than 1% of its budget? Wow, it really was the biggest flop of all time ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done again; the first point was addressed since I omitted the "Made on a production budget of $150 million,[9]" text at Special:Diff/1090949707. Chompy Ace 09:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Chompy Ace: - apologies, I am clearly not expressing myself very well. Feel free to put back in the bit about the budget, that wasn't a problem - the issue I was trying to highlight is that the article says the film "earned $1.450 million worldwide" i.e. less than two million dollars, which is clearly wrong. I presume it's meant to say $1.450 billion -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Done! Fixed it! Considerably. Chompy Ace 10:21, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • There are discrepancies between the infobox and list. The list shows 13 wins from 69 total nominations by my count, but the infobox total says 15 wins/74 nominations, and the full list in the infobox totals to 15 wins/72 nominations.
  • Rotten Tomatoes data should be updated (currently at 77% from 336 reviews)
  • "The film won one of six nominations at the 49th Annie Awards." – incorrect
  • "Various critic circles have also picked it as the best animated feature film of the year." – I couldn't find any critics' groups in the list that gave it an award for "Best Animated Film", so this statement is unsupported.
  • "Peter Del Vecho" should sort by "Del Vecho", not "Vecho"
  • It might be worth mentioning that it set the record for largest opening weekend for an animated film.

RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123:  Done all but the sixth point since No consensus Guinness World Records (RSP entry) is recognized as "marginally reliable" at WP:RSP, so it will not count on the film's awards. Chompy Ace 22:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RunningTiger123? Chompy Ace 07:06, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed the first ping, I don't know why I wasn't notified. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SupportRunningTiger123 (talk) 01:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Hope I won't screw this up

  • The citations in the middle of sentence impair readability a bit; perhaps they could be moved to the end of sentences or after the nearest punctuation?
  • "also writing the screenplay and conceiving the story with Buck" — was she both writing the screenplay and conceiving the story with all these people or only conceiving the story?
  • "the film stars Kristen Bell" — to me, "stars" implies live-action; perhaps "stars the voices of"?

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis:  Done all at Special:PermanentLink/1095358490 Chompy Ace 22:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pamzeis? As of Special:PermanentLink/1095616475, you take another look at it? I have clarified the second point based on List of accolades received by The Big Short (film) with a note for Lee. Chompy Ace 11:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For some reason, I didn't get the first ping; imma go ahead and support this. Pamzeis (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1950[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the latest list of number ones on the antecedent of Billboard's R&B/Hip-Hop chart. This particular year saw the final appearance in the top spot of Louis Jordan after 18 number ones in less than 8 years. Nowadays probably only blues afficionados know his name, but back in the late 1940s he was the Drake or Kanye of his day :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14[edit]

  • in rhythm and blues and related African-American-oriented.. --as you did with the 1948 FL, add enclosure of (R&B)
  • second long-running number one --is it longest-running or was this meant to be a variation for longest-running? If it's the latter I think it's fine too.
  • That's all from me. Another excellently written work in your series!--Pseud 14 (talk) 17:52, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Pseud 14 (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from TRM[edit]

  • " Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs" our article hyphenates Hip-Hop in this formal title.
  • "his 18th and final chart-topper" and "tally of 18 chart-toppers" feels repetitive, perhaps there's an elegant re-word opportunity here?
  • When I see "but his music is considered to have been hugely influential " and see a single reference I guess I'm mildly disappointed. Is there more than just one individual reporting this?
  • You know what, I wonder if at some point we'll need to link juke box? I don't know if this generation of millennials know what that even means!
  • "the highest total achieved" could you say "the most achieved"?
  • I guess you're using Nat "King" Cole with "King" in quotes as that was his contemporaneous billing?
  • Any reason Tympany Five isn't linked in the table?
  • Similar to Cole above, I assume you have "Mistrusting Blues" because that's how it was listed at the time, as opposed to our own article which declares it to be "Mistrustin' Blues"?
  • Is Note [a] referenced anywhere?

No other issues, worked hard to find problems! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:18, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - many thanks for you review, all addressed now I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:20, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Professional Billiards Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it has suitable coverage of the topic. I don't think you will find much else online about the Championship. I wasn't sure if I should attempt a featured list, or GA, nomination for the article but have plumped for FLC. As ever, I'm happy to provide relevant extracts from sources to reviewers. Thanks for all comments and feedback to help improve the article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • The lead seems very short at just four sentences, but maybe that's all there is to say?
  • I'm not sure there is much else to include there, but always open to suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "women players" reads really oddly to me, as "women" isn't an adjective. Would "female players" work better?
  • "their progress in the game has been held back by sexism" - should this be in the past tense? or are they still held back in this way?
  • Given that the relevant sources cited are from 1987 and 1999, I'll see if I can find something more recent. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was agreed with the Billiards Association and Control Council that the WBA would take over the running of the competition as a world championship, with the same trophy used in 1930, from 1932" - so who organised the 1931 tournament?
  • Nicely spotted. I've amended the article and addded another source. For some reason the later books start with the 1931 tournament, so I think I just assumed that was when the WBA ran it from, without checking for consistency in the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. Let me know if there is anything else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2022 (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
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) 21:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

Fascinating read.

  • Mild concern that this is more likely to be a GA than an FL. If we had more critical coverage of the tournaments and finals (and after all, this article is about the competition itself, not just the finals) then we could probably get double the prose here.
  • There is very limited coverage of most of the finals. Some of them get a few paragraphs in The Billiard Player, others almost nothing. There's not much depth in newspapers either. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Oh, and same applies for the other matches. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at some of the reports, and a lot of the details are not suitable to be summarised in Wikipedia. Examples from The Times, 18 May 1938; "[Billiards] it may be, is one of the most difficult of all games for women to play. Careful thought and assiduous practice have to given to it ..."; that year, The Billiard Player contained only passing coverage. Gardner's letter to the editor querying this was published, with a response "we will ... publish all news according to its value". (The June issue, which could have included the women's championship, did have room for reports on the London Busmen's championship and about Horace Lindrum intending to take a holiday in Italy.) On balance, I think keeping the article as a list (perhaps with some refocusing?) might be better than converting it to more a prose-based article, but I'll take advice. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, it's almost like the notes should be part of the main prose, in an expanded "History" section, and the table at the end just summarises the year/finalists/result etc.
  • Four-sentence lead is too brief for me by far.
Not done, yet. See below. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't " Burroughes and Watts" be in the infobox as well as organisers?
Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1,000-960" en-dash. And was the aim to get to 1000 points? What were the winning criteria?
  • Let me see if the sources cover the winning criteria, i.e. which years were first to a target and which were timed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like there are sources on this for some years, but not for all. Shall I add a sentence along the lines "In some years the match winner was the first to reach a pre-determined points target, and in other years the winner was the player to score most points in a set playing time."? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "John Roberts Jr" missing a full stop after Jr?
  • "company Burroughes and Watts organised" you linked this previously...
  • Dislike the split in tables, maybe just footnote or have a row span for the different titles.
  • "Carpenter averaged 11.92 " unexplained what this "average" means.
  • Added, to the effect that it's "points per visit", with a cuegloss link to visit. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1,000-563" en-dash. There are several of these, check throughout.
  • "1,992–1,531, ,2162–1,795, " odd stuff here.

So I enjoyed it, but have some concerns... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thank you. I look forward to your further advice following my responses; I'll expand the lead after hearing from you. (Scope of the lead might change depending on other changes to the article.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Angel Locsin[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked and brought Angel Locsin's filmography to FL status, here's another one of her related list article that I am nominating. I've reworked the list by adding a concise and readable introduction/lead, formatted to a singular table, thoroughly searched for RS (publications, newspapers, etc.) that are available online, since sourcing can be a challenge, especially for Filipino subject(s). Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Her own name in the table should sort under L, not A
How could I have missed this!! Thanks. Fixed now.
  • "Darna (2005), Majika (2006), and Asian Treasures (2007),[4] the latter of which she was nominated" => "Darna (2005), Majika (2006), and Asian Treasures (2007),[4] for the latter of which she was nominated"
Done
  • Presumably the Best Acting Ensemble in a Drama Series award was shared with some other people......?
That's correct, I removed mention in the lead, and instead added an explanatory footnote in the awards table that lists co-stars the award is shared.
Thank you for your review and kind words ChrisTheDude, I have addressed the above comments. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Hopefully not gonna screw this up

  • "her breakthrough role as the" — should it be "roles"?
I've reworded this bit, in conjunction with your second point.
  • "for which she received" — for both productions or only one?
Yes the recognition was for both film and TV. I've reworded to specify as she receive the award "for her roles"
  • "Further critical success came" — I don't think the list mentions any critical success prior to this, so the "further" kinda comes out of nowhere
You're right, fixed.
  • For the result in listicles, is there any result she can get other than "placed"? If not, I would recommend removing this column...
No rankings were announced, just a list of awardees/recipients so I've removed.
Done
  • Check for MOS:QWQ issues within refs
Done
  • ref 18's title is untranslated
Added trans-title and language parameter

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis, thank you for your review. I have addressed above comments. Let me know if I may have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 04:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

Unfortunately the original uploader's Picasa account might already be inactive. I could only find an archive link to the album, which I've updated. Hopefully that would suffice, as it seems the images in Commons with better resolutions came from this uploader.
Thank you for addressing my comment. The archive link is a perfect solution. Aoba47 (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A majority of the lead has citations, except for three spots. The end of the lead's first, second, and third paragraphs should have citations.
Added the citations for each.

I hope my review is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will support this FLC for promotion. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing your review Aoba47, I have addressed the above comments. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14: Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FLC for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current peer review. Either way, have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, thank you for your support. Sure I’d be happy to have a look at your PR this week. Pseud 14 (talk) 04:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note Giants2008, I have made the change (and will do for the earlier ones where I had done the same). Pseud 14 (talk) 02:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM

  • There's a spaced hyphen in reference 54, should be en-dash per MOS.
Fixed
  • Be consistent with the punctuation in the notes.
Added periods for all to be consistent
  • "for which she received a Box Office Entertainment Award for her roles." the table says her "category" was "Princess of Philippine Movies & TV", was this an annual award or something special?
It actually is an annual award, there have been years where it was split and different individuals were recognized for TV and Movies. For that year though it was recognition for playing the same roles in both TV and film. The award organization is based on popularity and commercial excellence (box office returns/TV ratings) and only winners are announced. I guess the award name would fall under "category" in lieu of the usual competitive acting award.
  • "for a Star Award for Best Drama Actress" link Star Award in the lead.
Linked
  • "fledgling lycanthrope in" any reason we're not using the far more common "werewolf" term here?
Switched to "werewolf"
  • "Critical success came..." I'm always wary of using just one source to cite "critical success". Probably needs a few to back this up.
Additional sources have been added that provide commentaries/critique of Locsin's performance.

Otherwise this is excellent and practically good to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review TRM, I have actioned your comments and provided my responses. Let me know if I might have missed anything. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Manga Taishō[edit]

Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Manga Taishō is one of several annually-awarded manga industry prizes recognizing critical achievement in manga. It is somewhat unique in its field in that is judged by a committee of "manga enthusiasts" – mostly bookstore employees – rather than the editors of a given publishing company. I have recently reorganized the list of nominees and winners into a sortable table and significantly expanded the lede, and believe it now meets FLC requirements. I welcome any comments that would improve the list further. Morgan695 (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ChrisTheDude
  • A Bride's Story should sort under B not A
  • I think that's all I've got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: Hi, thanks for your comment. I believe the three instances of A Bride's Story in the primary table are already using Template:Sort to alphabetize under B rather than A. Is there another instance I'm missing? Morgan695 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Link20XX[edit]

After giving this a look-over, it definitely shows great improvement from what it used to be. As for comments:

  • The links for Yugo Kobayashi and Naoya Matsumoto link to individuals that are in no way connected to the manga
    • Fixed.
  • Makoto Kobayashi links to a dab page
    • Fixed.
  • Chica Umino/Chika Umino is inconsistently romanized on the page
    • Fixed.
  • Add a comma after March 28, 2008 in the lead per WP:DATECOMMA
    • Added.

That is all. Link20XX (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Link20XX: Hi, comments above. Morgan695 (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, after giving the article an even more thorough review, I found a couple more issues:
  • Mashiro no Oto has an English title, Those Snow White Notes, which is also the title of the main article, so it should be changed to that
    • Fixed.
  • Kokkoku should have a piped link with its subtitle Moment by Moment since that seems to be how this article treats series titles with subtitles
    • Added.
  • Why does the entry on Sanzoku Diary have a stray comma after it? Is this comma part of the title?
    • Removed.
  • Watashi no Shōnen has an English article at My Boy (manga), so this does not need to link to the Japanese article
    • Fixed.

I promise that this is all this time and I will happily support once these issues are addressed. Link20XX (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Link20XX: No worries, I appreciate your thoroughness. Comments above. Morgan695 (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great job with this. You've earned my support. Link20XX (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • You're good on the accessibility bits, with one small exception: for the 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), if the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup instead of !scope=row. You have this on the first "row", but not after that.
  • 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 00:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe this is resolved now. If anyone who has more experience building tables could double check for me, it would be appreciated. Morgan695 (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by If Beale Street Could Talk[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 07:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If Beale Street Could Talk is a 2018 American romantic drama film directed and written by Barry Jenkins. Based on James Baldwin's novel of the same name, it follows a young African-American woman who, with her family's support, seeks to clear the name of her wrongly charged husband and prove his innocence before the birth of their child. The film's cast includes KiKi Layne, Stephan James, Colman Domingo, Teyonah Parris, Michael Beach, Dave Franco, Diego Luna, Pedro Pascal, Ed Skrein, Brian Tyree Henry and Regina King. The film was nominated for three Academy Awards at the 2019 ceremony and won the award for Best Supporting Actress. This is my seventh film accolades list to be nominated for featured list status, and I largely based the format off of the accolades lists for The Artist, The Big Short, Dunkirk, 1917, The Shape of Water, and Slumdog Millionaire. I will gladly accept your comments to improve this list. Birdienest81talk 07:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I got nothing, nothing at all. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

I hope I will not screw this up

  • "performance as Sharon Rivers" — my first thought was: "who the hell is she?" I mean, I think that sums it up pretty well... but she isn't brought up prior to this, so mentioning her name does not really add anything (at least for me it doesn't)
  • Most titles of works are italicised in citations, but some aren't, e.g. Green Book in ref 62
  • Check for MOS:QWQ issues within refs

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Pamzeis: - Done: I have read your comments and made the necessary corrections based off of them.
--Birdienest81talk 19:33, 9 June 2022 (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 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. You don't need/want them on other cells in the row- so e.g. ! scope="row" rowspan="5"|[[Alliance of Women Film Journalists]] is the right cell, but you don't also need the | scope="row" rowspan="5"| January 10, 2019 right after it, that should just be | rowspan="5"| January 10, 2019. Also, for the "rows" where the primary cell spans multiple actual rows with a rowspan—which appears to be all of them—it should be using scope="rowgroup", e.g. ! scope="rowgroup" rowspan="5"|[[Alliance of Women Film Journalists]].
  • 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 00:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PresN: - Done: I have read your comments and made the appropriate adjustments based off of them.
--Birdienest81talk 09:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have made some small copy-edits, which you are free to revert if you don't like. I don't have any other comments of my own but do address Pamzeis's concerns though. FrB.TG (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Refs 25 and 26 are formatted differently but are the same site. Aza24 (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability
  • No issues
Verifiability
  • No issues Aza24 (talk) 01:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pass for source review, with the expectation that the above comment will be addressed
  • @Aza24: Done - I linked the first mention of Black Reel Awards and delinked the last mention in the references. It should be consistent now.
--Birdienest81talk 12:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • "directed and written" feels like an odd order, usually I see "written and directed"?
  • "her wrongly charged husband" should wrongly-charged be hyphenated in this usage?
  • " $20.6 million" etc, non-breaking spaces before "million" each time please.
  • Last sentence of lead is unreferenced which seems odd considering most of the rest of the lead is (although in several cases, unnecessarily).
  • Ref 7 has a spaced hyphen, make it an en-dash per MOS please.

Otherwise is good work, cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Rambling Man: - Done: I've read your comments, and have made corrections and adjustments based off of them.
--Birdienest81talk 06:33, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melon Music Award for Song of the Year[edit]

Nominator(s): ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my third FLC and second Melon Music Award FLC after Melon Music Award for Album of the Year was recently passed. This category is the next one in the series I would like to do, I think this list presents winners and nominees in a comprehensive matter with reliable sources. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "to base its awards to artists" => "to present awards to artists"
  • "the criteria for accolade" => "the criteria for the accolade"
  • "Wonder Girls received the Best Song award in 2007–08" - this is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
  • Same with "Twice won the award for "Cheer Up" in 2016"
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Done, thanks for the instant comments! ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 07:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • "Quality song containing both lyrics and melody" – this part of the infobox feels superfluous, and it's unsourced. Either cite it (in the infobox or in the lead) or remove it altogether.
  • "becoming one its grand prizes" → "becoming one of its grand prizes"
  • Add timestamps to all cited videos
  • Wonder Girls should be linked in caption like the other groups
  • Don't hide nominees for 2009 (I'm not an expert, but I don't think that hiding table content is good for accessibility)
  • The green navboxes at the bottom of the page fail accessibility requirements (see MOS:COLOR). Please pick a new color scheme and verify that it works using this website or a similar tool.

RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123 Done ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think having "See 2009 Melon Music Awards#Winners and nominees" in the nominees column for 2009 is sufficient? Because I feel that with the way it is now, 2009 alone takes up a lot of room in the table. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally fine with it as is. If you want to link to another page, I would suggest using an anchor in case the section title changes; see MOS:BROKENSECTIONLINKS. Either way, happy to support now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of snooker Triple Crown finals[edit]

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this is a list of all of the Triple Crown (snooker) event finals. Recently created, would love to get it up to FL. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Lead seems incredibly short at just 1024KB (way too short for a DYK). Is there really no more to say?
    • Hmm, I suppose the only things we could really add would be broadcasters and such, but that's more about the events than a list of winners. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the Season column formatted differently for the Masters than the other two?
  • Ref 2 does not support the claim that the WSC is considered part of the Triple Crown but only since 1969, in fact as far as I can see it doesn't support anything in that sentence
  • Winner and runner-up columns should sort on surname, not forename
  • Date formatting in the refs is not consistent (also ref 1 has no dates at all)
  • Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from BennyOnTheLoose
  • I'm not sure it's even covered in the main Triple Crown article, but I think there should be a mention that the idea of a snooker "triple crown" was applied retrosepctively. I have a feeling the phrase wasn't even mentioned in snooker until something like the late 1990s.
    • I only found one suitable ref that kind of talks around it. Hopefully that's suitable. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not seeing the support for this in The Guardian source. (Capitalise The, if retained). If it's not in sources then better to omit it here. I'll see if I can dig anything up, but I don't recall any sources on this TBH. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I haven't found anything earlier than the 1999 quote mentioned at Talk:Triple_Crown_(snooker)/GA1. Clive Everton used the term in an Independent article a few weeks later. In an Irish Independent article published on 5 May 2003, Phil Yates refers to "the game's unofficial triple crown". I think it really only became a thing when the Triple Crown Series icon came out in 2020, but it is a thing, so best to avoid the retro discussion (that I started; sorry!) in this list article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 1, 2 - as per ChrisTheDude's comments.
  • Ref 3 - CueSport book page 10 does not mention Masters being a triple crown event, and doesn't mention the UK Championship at all.
    • Yeah, this now just says that they were founded in these years, not that the source states they are part of the triple crown, which is sourced elsewhere. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ronnie O'Sullivan has contested a record 29 finals, winning 21." Isn't sourced. Are readers expected to count entries in the tables? (Presumably that's how "Players to appear in multiple finals" is derived, as that doesn't have any sources either.)
  • Source 4, from 2013, says Robertson is the "eighth player" to win the triple crown, does not support "Eleven players have won each of the events at least once"
  • I can't see how source 5 supports "Ray Reardon, who won the world championship on six occasions and the Masters once was unable to reach a UK Championship final.[5]"
  • Refs on the UK Championship finals table are untidy- some cited at header, others against years.
  • Refs inconsistent between, e.g. World Snooker Tour, worldsnooker.com. World Snooker. (I think some will be published by WPBSA as they date back before WS/WST.)
  • The refs at the end of "List of Masters finals[28]" aren't very helpful, just refer to other refs., and I don't think they are the right ones anyway. (e.g. the Turner link is to his World Championship page)
  • 1972 World Championship final score was probably 37–31 (see Talk:1972_World_Snooker_Championship)
  • List of World Snooker Championship winners - most recent source was accessed in 2019, but the list goes up to 2022. Again, I don't think just pointing to other refs is very helpful here.
    • Yeah, that's pretty normal, I can update the access-date on the snooker.org ref if you want. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that woudl be better. "Archived from the original on 28 July 2019. Retrieved 24 February 2011." doesn't look right for something going up to 2022. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have another look after your responses. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "called the "modern era" of snooker" - needs a bit of rephrasing. The era is since 1969.
  • "non-ranking Masters" - as this is the only reference to "ranking" in the intro, either wikilink it or explain.
    • Removed, not really relevant Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support - I made a couple of very minor amends. I'm satisfied that this article meets the featured list criteria. The into is short, but I believe it adequately meets criterion 2. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

  • With no evidence found to the contrary, I'll assume good faith that File:Ronnie O’Sullivan at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2015-02-06 10.jpg is in fact the uploader's own work, so image review passes.
  • You shouldn't use italics for BBC Sport, Eurosport, Eurosport UK, Sky Sports, Snooker.org, "cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk", or "worldsnooker.com"
    • But these aren't publishers, so they should be listed under |work on cite web, which is what I have. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "snookerscene.co.uk" is redundant for the refs already naming Snooker Scene
  • Date formats should be consistent within references, which in this case should be DMY per MOS:DATE
  • ,I've run a script for this Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the tables of winners, it looks like you tried to cite whole boxes with one general ref (or bundle) at the top, so is there a particular reason some individual listings have their own citations while others don't?

That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Cheers SNUGGUMS, I've made the changes. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can use "agency" field to remove the erroneous italics that "work" and "website" parameters auto-generate for some reason. Also, there's a formatting error with ref#19, and I forgot to mention that The Guardian should start with a capital T. Not so sure about using italics for "World Snooker Tour". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • But these aren't agencies. That would be something like the Associated Press. If the cite web template is wrong for italicizing website/work information, that would be an issue with that template, not this article. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • In that case, I'll support the nomination, just be sure to link BBC Sport in ref#1 as well as Snooker Scene within ref#6. Hopefully the template can be adjusted so it doesn't add those italics by default (at least for website). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - one thing I only just noticed (maybe it wasn't like that before) - why are there two separate groups of categories at the bottom of the article, one inside the usual box and the other oddly floating above it......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • It really feels like the lead is inadequate for what we're looking to be "among the best content on Wikipedia". Perhaps some consideration needs to be given to expanding to include entry criteria for each of the Triple Crown events, perhaps what the winners of each event got etc.
  • One image in the lead and then nothing? The rest of the list looks pretty bleak with just tables and nothing to enhance the reader's experience.
  • I think, IIRC, templates like {{dagger}} can take an "alt" parameter to explain them for accessibility.
  • Ref 2 lacks a date, either publication or access.
  • What is 888 sport?
  • No archive for ""Hall of Fame". Snooker.org. Retrieved 3 June 2022."?
  • What makes "global-snooker.com" an RS? (note it seems to be hyphenated as well).
  • I don't think this is an article under the "Snooker terminology" category.

That's it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Sportsfan77777[edit]

You did a good job with the list on the Triple Crown (snooker) page, but from that list, I think it's clear that this one isn't up to that standard. Specifically, some differences where I prefer what was done on the Triple Crown page are:

  • I would think the point of this article is to see which players came close to winning the Triple Crown or to track how many finals each player has reached over time. However, it doesn't seem like it can be used for either of those purposes because it's just three separate lists (that also basically just repeat lists on other pages at a lower quality). I would recommend figuring out how to make it a single chronological list like you did with the list on the Triple Crown (snooker) page.
  • Is there a reason for not using the flags?
  • I would recommend having the counts of the finals: e.g. (1/1), (11/15), etc. the same way you have a count for the wins on the other page.
  • I would recommend using color (and symbols) to indicate which players (a) made two finals, (b) made three finals, and (c) won the Triple Crown.

I see others have already pointed out issues with the lead being too short. Some things that are missing are:

  • The article should distinguish that it's referring to the finals of the Triple Crown events, not the finals in which a Triple Crown was won. (As of now, it doesn't specify that the events that constitute the Triple Crown achievement are referred to as Triple Crown events.)
  • The lead could mention more about how many players have made all three finals in the same year, how many of them won all three, and highlight who if anyone won the first two events in a year but messed up their chance in the final of the third one.

It seems like most of the article could be affected, so oppose at the moment, but I have confidence you can figure it out. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of New Zealand[edit]

Nominator(s): YttriumShrew (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list status because I've checked it against the criteria and it seems to match all of them. It is similar to many existing featured lists of officeholders, such as List of prime ministers of India and List of premiers of Prince Edward Island. This was one of the first articles I edited and I have contributed to it a bit over the years, and am reasonably familiar with the source material. However, I would not count myself as a major contributor. Thus I will not take credit for its quality if promoted. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No citations for the list..? Wretchskull (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wretchskull: The list is cited to references 2 and 3. This was not clear from the inlines, and I have now fixed it. YttriumShrew (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Paragraph 1 is unsourced
  • Added some sources.
  • Articles really shouldn't include the wording "This list includes" so try and find a way to reword
  • I've reworded the sentence in a nicer way that hopefully solves the problem.
  • You've changed "this list includes" to "this article lists", which is essentially the same thing. Articles should not contain "meta" references like that (at least not within the prose). I would suggest binning off that sentence completely and starting that paragraph off which something like "The holder of the office originally had the title of colonial secretary; this was changed to premier in 1869" and so on -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. I've reworded it in a way that doesn't mention the article itself. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead feels like it could do with a little more content. Could you add info on the longest-serving PM, the oldest, the youngest, etc?
  • Added oldest-youngest info. I can't think of much else to add, however.
  • Could you put refs 2 and 3 against the "sub-headings" within the table? They look a bit weird just floating at the bottom......
  • Fixed.
  • A couple of entries have a dagger symbol next to the date of leaving office but it is not explained anywhere what this means
  • Fixed. (Indicates the PM died in office.)
@ChrisTheDude: Done the above. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. YttriumShrew (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Not gonna screw this up (hopefully)

  • "The prime minister is the head of government of New Zealand" — This wording implies, to me, that all prime ministers are heads of governments in NZ; perhaps "In New Zealand, the prime minister is the head of government"
  • Okay. I've changed the wording, hopefully this fixes the problem.
  • "The prime minister is always a member of Parliament." — is unsourced?
  • It was originally sourced to reference 1, but the references got moved around. Fixed.
  • "should properly be given that title" — ...why?
  • They are not considered prime ministers because New Zealand did not yet have responsible government. Have added clarification and sources.

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: Hopefully fixed the above problems. YttriumShrew (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2022 (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" | Government becomes !scope=col rowspan="2" | Government. If the cell spans multiple columns, 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. ! style="background:{{party color|Independent politician}};" |2 becomes !scope=row style="background:{{party color|Independent politician}};" |2. If the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Finally, the table-spanning "interrupter" rows are contraindicated. What happens with screen reader software is that it treats it like it's the value for all the columns- so it reads out e.g. "No., Colonial Secretaries (1856–1869); Portrait, Colonial Secretaries (1856–1869); Name, Colonial Secretaries (1856–1869);", etc. Instead, since this isn't a sortable table, just split it into multiple tables and have the "interrupter" row text be the caption of that table.
  • 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 23:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Video Game[edit]

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something for the gaymers now that Pride Month is right around the corner. For anyone unfamiliar, the GLAAD Media Awards are an award ceremony that recognizes various forms of media for their excellent representation of the LGBT community. There are 4 core criteria, but each category is specialized with further criteria being considered. As indicated by the title, this award focuses on video games. It is one of the most recent categories introduced by GLAAD, having being given only during the last 4 ceremonies.

Much of the work done on this article was based on the comments I received during earlier nominations. Having said that, this page is quite different in some areas, having a "Background" section that the others lack, as well as a "Criticism" section which only one other GLAAD Media Award page has; one that was added after the FLC. And in case anyone is curious about me having two featured lists up for candidacy, I asked PresN about and was told that given the state of the earlier nomination, no issues exist. PanagiotisZois (talk) 10:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "2021 marks the only instance" - looks a bit weird starting a sentence with what is essentially a number. Any way to reword?
    • Found a way. Hope you like it.
  • "An important criterion is to what extent the LGBT-inclusive is integrated" - "LGBT-inclusive" is functioning as an adjective so doesn't really work without a noun, so suggest adding the word "content" here too
    • Done.
  • "alternate media that are canononical to the game's world" - isn't the word "canonical"? You seem to have one too many "on"s in there......
    • Fixed. Jesus. :/
  • "Since 2021, only video games from major developers and publishers are eligible, although a game from non-major studios and publishers can still be nominated" - then surely a non-major game is still eligible, contradicting the first part?
    • @ChrisTheDude: To be completely honest I'm not exactly sure what they fully mean by it either. Maybe that while only games from mainstream companies are eligible for candidacy, GLAAD itself does also keep an eye out for other games, and if an indie one manages to receive enough attention akin to a Triple-A game then it can be deemed as "worthy" to be nominated. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:45, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe say "only video games from major developers and publishers are normally eligible" or "only video games from major developers and publishers are eligible as standard" or similar......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for its emphasison mainstream Triple-A video games" - missing gap between two words in there
    • Wonder which ones... Done.
  • "with indie games being better at handling LGBT theme" => "with indie games being better at handling LGBT themes"
    • Done.
  • "In September 2018 GLAAD announced that it introduce a category" => something like "In September 2018 GLAAD announced that it would introduce a category"
    • Reworded it.
  • "Owen S. Good lamented that given the awards eligibility criteria, indie games inclusive" => "Owen S. Good lamented that, given the awards' eligibility criteria, indie games inclusive"
    • Done.
  • "couldn't be nominated" => "could not be nominated"
    • Done.
  • "pointing out that all optional love interests [...] doesn't offer" - doesn't work grammatically, think the second verb should have a different subject that's been omitted
    • You're right. Rereading the sentence a few words were clearly missing. I also made a few additonal changes to ensure the word game isn't repeated twice in close proximity to one another, and omitted the contraction.
  • "Imogen Beckhelling also of Rock Paper Shotgun, would go on" => "Imogen Beckhelling, also of Rock Paper Shotgun, would go on"
    • Done.
  • "arguing that it's still" => "arguing that it was still"
    • Done.
  • "she recognized that progress isn't a linear process" => "she recognized that progress is not a linear process"
    • Done.
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Hope I won't screw this up

  • "in New York City, Los Angeles, and San Francisco between" — commas → semi-colons, as commas may imply NYC is in LA
    • Done.
  • "GLAAD monitors mainstream media to identify which video games will be nominated, while also issuing a Call for Entries that encourages media outlets to submit games for consideration. Video games created by and for an LGBT audience must be submitted in order to be considered for nomination, as GLAAD does not monitor such works for defamation." — I'm just really confused; if games need to be submitted to be considered then what is the point of monitoring the media?
    • @Pamzeis: Given that GLAAD believes in representation being capable of affecting positive changes to society, and one of the core four criteria being "significant 'Impact' on mainstream culture", it's clear that the organization favours mainstream works as those reach the largest possible audience. Ergo, also affecting the most amount of people with their positive representation. GLAAD monitors mainstream developers and publishers to see which games they publish, if any of them contain LGBT characters / themses, and then decide if they're put up for candidacy or not. Indie developers and studios are not monitored by them, which is why those have to be submitted. I'm guessing it's very likely for a mainstream game that GLAAD was already on the look-out for was also submitted by the developers/publishers. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "games being better at handling LGBT themes and more deserving of recognition" — WP:VOICE
  • "regard to LGBT representation in mainstream games, in relation to mainstream games being nominated or winning, has been described as something" — bit clunky
  • "given to 5 video games" → given to five video games (MOS:SPELL09)
    • Done.
  • "In January 2019, following the announcement of the inaugural Outstanding Video Game nominees, GLAAD released a statement regarding the inclusion of Assassin's Creed Odyssey. The game's Legacy of the First Blade downloadable content attracted controversy for featuring a storyline placing the player character Alexios or Kassandra in an unavoidable heterosexual relationship that results in an offspring." — what was this statement... or is the second sentence the statement? Pretty unclear to me
    • I have changed the structure a little bit. Rereading it, I can understand the confusion. I hope now it's more understandable.
  • "While GLAAD's Blair Durkee, Associate Director of Gaming, also criticized the storyline for "send[ing] the harmful message that sexual orientation can be changed at will and that LGBTQ people can choose to conform to heteronormative expectations in spite of their identities",[10] she defended the nomination of Assassin's Creed Odyssey, acknowledging that progress can be complicated and that to "encourage developers and publishers to continue to make these types of bold moves in the future, we must allow for growth, acknowledge that missteps do occur, and give proper credit where credit is due"." — very long one-sentence paragraph...
    • Changed.
  • "given the awards eligibility" → given the award's eligibility
    • Done.
  • "fact, 'outstanding'"" → fact, 'outstanding{{' "}}
    • Done.
  • "in relation to mainstream games being nominated or winning, has been described as something that should be acknowledged and celebrated" — this is really explicitly mentioned in only one source in the Criticism section...

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 07:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: Thank you for the comments. Things are coming up, so I might be a little slow in responding. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

I"m a little concerned that this seems better suited to a GAN than FLC as there have only been four winners of this award and we normally work on an unwritten rule of around ten. I'm not going to oppose based on that, but thought I should bring it up to remain consistent and fair to other nominations which have failed for the same reason. Other comments:

  • Lead is too long, five paras is way too much per MOS:LEAD.
    • @The Rambling Man: Having looked at a few other articles that are featured articles / lists, I wouldn't say the leade is that long. If the issue is paragraphs, I could combine the first and second ones. Alternatively, if the issue of size remains, I can remove the information about the criticism the award has received and unite the last sentence with the previous paragraph.
  • There appears to be stuff in the lead which isn't expanded upon in the subsequent sections. This isn't normally a major problem for a genuine list article but here perhaps it's anomalous, e.g. "games from major developers and publishers are eligible" (what's a "major" dev btw?) is not really mentioned in the main part of the article.
  • No need to split into decades, it won't become unmanageably large for a few years yet!
    • True. Changed it.
  • How did Overwatch get into the 2020 awards when it was released four years prior? I guess it was for the Switch release, but that needs to be noted.
    • That's actually brought up in the lead; mostly. A video game that was released outside the eligibility period can still be nominated "if substantial new first-party content is released during the eligibility period". Specifically, if you go to GLAAD's website it states: "If released prior to January 1, 2019, the video game must contain substantial new first-party content publicly released for the game between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2019, where the new content is the subject of consideration". In January 2019, Blizzard published an in-game short story revealing that Soldier 76 is gay.
  • Ref 3 and 4 need spaced hyphens to become spaced en-dashes.

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs written by Marius Moga[edit]

Nominator(s): Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After bringing a similar list to FL, List of songs written by Alexandru Cotoi, I am nominating this list as well. I've taken note of all the comments from it although, this list is lengthier. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Hopefully not gonna screw this up

  • "Moga contributed to all tracks on the album, with its lead single, "Ți-am promis", peaking at number five on the Romanian Top 100." — the lack of relation or relatedness or whatever it is between the first (from Moga to album) and second (from with to 100) parts of this... portion make it kinda confusing. I feel like a hypocrite because the way I phrased my comment seems really hard to understand.
    • Removed the bit about the peak position and reworded the sentence. Sebbirrrr (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "released three albums, Reverse, Mind Fields and N3XT, the latter including" — the commas are sorta ambiguous as its possible that "Reverse, Mind Fields and N3XT" could either be the three albums or something else being listed alongside the albums
  • Optional but septuple seems like a rather uncommon word; perhaps replace it with seven-time?
  • "Some of the commercially successful songs which reached the summit on the Romanian music charts that were co-written by him" — kinda clunky and awkward...
  • "He had several attempts at" — ...were these successful or unsucccessful?

Pamzeis (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: thanks for reviewing the lead, I've addressed all your comments. Sebbirrrr (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. One last comment: for any names of albums or things that would normally be italicised, they should be italicised in citations as well per MOS:CONFORMTITLE. Pamzeis (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, fixed the citations as well. Sebbirrrr (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "The album, [...] to which Moga contributed entirely" - what does this mean?
    • He wrote every song on it. Sebbirrrr (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then write "for which he wrote every song". What is there at the moment does not make sense in English -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was released in January 2002 and receive a platinum certification later that year by the" => "was released in January 2002 and received a platinum certification later that year from the"
  • "their third album was certified platinum and four times platinum in Russia" - both platinum and four-times platinum?
    • Rewrote the entire sentence, hopefully it makes sense now. Sebbirrrr (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which reached number one the Airplay 100 chart" => "which reached number one on the Airplay 100 chart"
  • Notes b and d should not have full stops as they are not complete sentences -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: thanks for reviewing, I've addressed your comments. Sebbirrrr (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • Is he really a singer-songwriter?
    • I'm confused by this as I said "singer, songwriter", I didn't hyphenate the two. Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "other singers as well.[" "as well" not really needed.
  • "He began earning money by..." this sentence goes on a bit, maybe split.
  • "when Akcent's" who or what is that?
  • "platinum certification" link appropriate "certification" article.
  • "Their first and third albums were ..." this is interesting but the article is about the songs, not the albums.
  • "topped the Airplay 100" is there an article for Airplay 100?
  • Why does 2Night sort before 0721?
  • Not sure on the comprehensiveness of sourcing for, say, the "unknown" dates, e.g. I clicked on ref 43 for "Adderall" and saw no mention of "Ross Golan" but there was "Golan Ross Jacob", why is the name being tinkered with?
    • Repertoires list the surname first and then the first name (and then middle name if any). I believe that adding the middle names will make the list look clunky and that would be too much detail (eg: Samantha Castel from ref 58 has 4 first names). Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of spaced hyphens in the ref titles, should be en-dashes.

That's it for me for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for reviewing, I've addressed your comments. Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Los Angeles Chargers first-round draft picks[edit]

Nominator(s): Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... I've gone through and hopefully added sufficient citations for the list, as well as notes on trades and basic stats.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:43, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • In general, the lead needs citations unless it is directly supported by the list itself
  • "the NFL Annual Player Selection Meeting" – remove quotes around phrase per MOS:BADEMPHASIS
  • Current players are only represented by a color; they need a corresponding symbol to meet accessibility requirements
  • Images need alt text
  • Notes column doesn't need to use small text

Overall, looks pretty good to me! RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've made the necessary changes, so happy to support. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • As mentioned above, vast chunks of the lead are unsourced
  • I think you need to state specifically that they are an American football team. I know the first sentence says "The Los Angeles Chargers are a National Football League (NFL) franchise", but that is not completely clear given how many other sports are known as "football" to different people (and there is even a league called the NFL in a different sport entirely)
  • "The AFL were formed" => "The AFL was formed"
  • "meaning that they had to compete directly with an NFL club" - with one specific NFL club?
  • "overall, the Chargers were unable to sign their 1st-round selection" - you use a digit here but the title writes it as a word?
  • "they traded the #1 pick to Atlanta before the draft for three draft picks and one player; the Falcons selected Michael Vick" - write the team name in full so that people know that Atlanta and the Falcons are one and the same
  • "Signed for the NFL's Pittsburgh Steelers." - this and similar notes are not complete sentences so should not have a full stop
  • "Pick received in trade with Broncos" - write team name in full and link it (with all similar notes)
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude RunningTiger123 Thanks both, I've hopefully covered these points now. Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Pick received in trade with Washington" - appreciate that the nickname used by the team at that point in time might be a bit of a touchy subject these days, but it should still be used here, to be consistent with all the other notes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude Fair enough; I've made the switch. Also, the pictures were giving me trouble, as they were showing up in one long vertical line above the table on non-widescreen monitors. I've cut it down to just Herbert and the three Hall of Famers. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • 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. | align="center" | [[1960 American Football League Draft|1960]] becomes !scope=row align="center" | [[1960 American Football League Draft|1960]]. If the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 01:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now added for all main three tables. I wasn't sure whether the Table Key needed a header row or not.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 18:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • Not sure you need to link major geographical locations like Los Angeles.
  • If you do, don't overlink, San Diego is linked twice in the lead.
  • Our article on the draft says it's officially called "Player Selection Meeting" without "Annual" being part of the official name.
  • "an NFL club " can't we be specific?
  • "of the #1 overall" etc, per MOS:HASH don't use that symbol to mean "number".
  • You've got Pro Bowls in the table but zero mention of appearances in these in the lead.
  • Position needs a key as well.
  • "draft Hall of Fame tight end Kellen Winslow" I assume he was HoF when he was drafted, re-word.
  • "drafted #5 overall" hash thing again.
  • "selected #5 overall" ditto.
  • Where are all the footnotes referenced?
  • There's a mixture of "access-date" formats, make it consistent.
  • Several refs missing work/website/publisher e.g. 70, 113, 153 etc etc etc.

That's enough. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've gone through these now. With regard to the footnotes, their references are in the same row of the table. I wasn't entirely sure whether to put them inside the notes themselves, but felt keeping all the references in one column was more straightforward. Harper J. Cole (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frances McDormand on screen and stage[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Frances McDormand is one of the greatest actors of her generation. Here's a list of her roles, as always I am open to constructive criticism on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maile66[edit]

  • Scope Columns - The scope="col" is picked up by screen readers, and should be the film titles, not the years.
  • Image - This is one of only two images of McDormand on Commons, where it's credited to McDormand as the source, but uploaded on Flicker by someone else. Cropped and up close in the article, it's somewhat blurred and looks like it might be a screen shot from someone's device. If she is otherwise FL worthy, seems there ought to be clearer and better images out there.

— Maile (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: I've fixed the scoping. As you've said there are only two images of McDormand that are free to use on Commons. I had a look on Flickr and Google and it was the same scenario (with the caveat that I'm not well-versed at searching for CC images). I wanted to have a different image to the main article (the image there is unfortunately the clearer of the two). Cowlibob (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Comments
  • "her performance as an overprotective mother in Cameron Crowe-directed comedy-drama" => "her performance as an overprotective mother in the Cameron Crowe-directed comedy-drama"
  • "She starred in drama North Country and science fiction action film Æon Flux with Charlize Theron" - she starred with Theron in both?
  • The relatively obscure word "garnered" is used quite a lot. Maybe change the usage at the start of the last paragraph to simply "McDormand won...."
  • "playing a mother striving for justice for the unsolved murder of her daughter in Martin McDonagh-directed crime drama" => "playing a mother striving for justice for the unsolved murder of her daughter in the Martin McDonagh-directed crime drama"
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: I've fixed the above. Cowlibob (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • " Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress " is overlinked in the lead.
  • Would it be ok to describe Hill Street Blues as a "police procedural drama"?
  • Ref 3, it should be the title of the article linked, not the Guardian itself.
  • "She starred with Charlize..." "McDormand starred with..."
  • "n Chloe Zhao's" diacritic.
  • Why is her second theatre performance noted in the lead, and not the first one?
  • Also interested as to why her first TV performance isn't noted in the lead.
  • Show end dates aren't shown in ref 61, e.g. An Oak Tree (interestingly shown as an oak tree) has a start date (4 Nov 2006) but no end date shown. And it's also tagged with REPLACEMENT, is that notable?
  • Be consistent with linking of source names.

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your comments. I have fixed most of above. Linked refs at first occurrence. An Oak Tree is in lower caps stylistically per [[3]] and a different actor plays Father each performance. I couldn't find an exact date when McDormand appeared but did find a ref that suggested that it was in late November 2006 [[4]]. I didn't mention her first theatre performance as she was just an understudy. Cowlibob (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs written by Ricky Vela[edit]

Nominator(s): – jona 19:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created this list as part of the 2022 Latin music edit a thon competition. This is a list of songs written by Ricky Vela, who was a keyboardist for Selena y Los Dinos, spanning the years 1986 through 2003. – jona 19:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the lead
  • "a collaborative effort with the producer of the group A.B" - earlier he was referred to as A.B. Quintanilla. Is he primarily known simply as "A.B."?
  • Yes
  • "became her first critically acclaim single" => "became her first critically acclaimed single"
  • Done
  • "Vela was closer to the guitarist of the group, Roger Garcia and A.B." - multiple issues here. Firstly, if "the guitarist of the group" refers just to Garcia then you need a comma after his name. Secondly "Vela was closer to the guitarist of the group" - than to whom?
  • Done
  • "In 1989, Selena signed with EMI Latin, stepping away from the Texas indie labels they recorded under" - if the subject is Selena, why is the pronoun "they" used in the second clause?
  • Done
  • "Vela wrote "Tengo Ganas de Llorar" for Selena's eponymous debut." - you previously said she released an album in 1986, so how can she only now be releasing her debut album?
  • Done
  • "Vela wrote "No Debes Jugar" for Selena Live!," - as the previous sentence talked about a track on the same album, I would suggest saying "Vela also wrote". Also you need a semi-colon rather than a comma after Selena Live!
  • Done
  • "hid the lyrics that he wrote from it" - what's "it"?
  • His feelings
  • Then write "and hid the lyrics that he wrote based on these feelings". What is there currently doesn't make grammatical sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Abraham" - per MOS:SURNAME, subjects should not be referred to by their forename only
  • Not done. Selena, A.B., Suzette, and Abraham all share the same surname.
  • Then write his full name. Forename should never be used by itself -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Vela continued an active presence" = "Vela remained an active presence"
  • Done
  • "with his final songwriting credit "Contigo"" - assuming he is not dead, how do we know it was his final credit? He might write more....
  • Well he has not received any writing credits in the last two decades, so "Contigo" is his last known songwriting credit.
  • That's what I got on a first pass. I haven't looked at the table yet..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review! – jona 18:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed everything you brought to my attention. – jona 15:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
  • My only comments on the table are that people's names in the writer(s) column should be written in full and linked each time, and that names in the artists column should sort based on surname not forename (eg Pete Astudillo should sort under A not P)
  • The note is not a complete sentence so it should not have a full stop -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies if I was unclear above - when I said "names in the artists column should sort based on surname not forename" I did not mean that you needed to show the surnames of artists even if they did not use their surnames publicly (i.e. Selena, Thalia). You should still just show the names under which the artists released their music (eg just show Selena for Selena). But if that name consists of a forename and a surname, the sorting should be based on the surname (eg Pete Astudillo should sort under A not P). Also, you don't need to write "Astudillo, Pete", you can use a sorting template e.g. put {{sortname|Pete|Astudillo}} This will still make it appears as Pete Astudillo but will make it sort under A -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad, I believe I have fixed those issues now. Thanks – jona 22:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed one for you (Leones Del Norte is a group, not a person with the surname "Del Norte" so is fine to sort under L) and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support and review. – jona 13:19, 23 May 2022 (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.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 01:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the note. Thanks – jona 20:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • First line is a bit of a slog. Maybe you could just introduce him as a songwriter from X who has written songs since Y, and then in a subsequent sentence discuss the groups in detail.
  •  Done
  •  Done
  • "resurgence in popularity in the 21st century" why?
  •  Done
  • "in Who Was...Selena? (2018), " I don't think that's the link you're looking for.
  •  Done
  • "Chris Perez," missing a diacritic.
  •  Done
  • "Vela written "Quiero..." do you mean "wrote"?
  •  Done
  • "certified platinum" include "certified" in the link.
  •  Done
  • "Ricky Vela often collobrated with A.B. Quintanilla (pictured), " spacing again, and I normally see (pictured) in italics.
  •  Done
  • In a sortable table, all linked items should be linked every time, check the Album and Artist columns.
  •  Done
  • Our article on Dulce Amor calls it Dulce amor.
  •  Done
  • Cruz Martinez is missing a diacritic.
  •  Done

That's enough for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your review, I believe I addressed everything. Best – jona 18:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of didelphimorphs[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 17:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is number 20 in our perpetual journey of animal list FLCs (3 lists for Lagomorpha, 10 for Carnivora, 4 for Artiodactyla, 1 for Perissodactyla, and 1 for Cingulata), with another in a series of single-list orders. We continue from the other open FLC for the order Cingulata (armadillos) to here with the 129 species of Didelphimorphia, aka opossums. These animals come in a fairly wide variety of shapes and sizes, though they're all long-tailed marsupials who mostly eat fruit and insects. This order has a lot of similarities to Cingulata, in that it has a single species—the Virginia opossum—up in North America (where I'm from), but a ton down in Mexico and South America. Also like that order, there's been a bunch of research in the past couple of decades, resulting in species being split into multiples and new subfamilies created where opossums that looked similar turned out to be very different on a genetic level, but this list is up to date on the latest research. As always, this list should reflect comments from prior FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 17:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Is the diet of the Peruvian opossum unknown? If so, it might be worth specifically writing that so it doesn't just look like it's been missed
  • Under the Junin slender opossum, you have "Size: 9–11 cm (4–4 in) long", which looks a bit odd. I presume this is due to a template, but is there any way to get round it?
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Fixed both, as well as a few others that had 4-4 in. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow I had no idea there were so many opossums, lots of cute ones! Same quality as your others and I couldn't find any issues. Support Reywas92Talk 19:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

72nd Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This list is my second FL nomination for a Creative Arts ceremony, following the 73rd Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards; my work here has been heavily modeled on that list. The list also pairs with the 72nd Primetime Emmy Awards, which was itself promoted to FL recently, to fully cover the Emmys* for this year. (*Okay, just the Primetime Emmys, not all of the other, lesser-known ceremonies, but you get the idea.) Assuming this goes well, I'd like to keep going with the awards for the 71st ceremony. All feedback is appreciated! RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Birdienest81[edit]

I can't really find anything wrong with this list. The only thing I would suggest is mentioning that host Nicole Byer hosted her part of the show from the Television Academy's headquarters in North Hollywood, California. Here are some sources to back that fact up.[5][6][7]. Other than that this list earns my support.

By the way, I was thinking that sometime in October, you could help me copyedit the 62nd and 64th Primetime Emmy Awards in preparation for featured list promotion.

--Birdienest81talk 09:57, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdienest81: Done. As to the other lists, I'd be more than happy to help! Just message me on my talk page when you're interested. RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:22, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14[edit]

Great work on this Emmy Awards list (as usual). Nothing to nitpick about, except for one very minor comment really, in the 'Nominations and wins by program' tables since the 'Network' column is sortable, every instance should be linked, as you did with the tables on 'wins by network'. That's all I have. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pseud 14: Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have some spare time or inclination, would appreciate feedback on my FLC as well. Though not mandatory at all.

Aoba47[edit]

  • The American link in American prime time television seems like overlinking to me since it is a location that a majority if not all Wikipedia readers are at least familiar with.
  • I think it would be beneficial to link streaming in the lead. While it is quite ubiquitous at this point, it would still be helpful as a resource for some readers who want to learn more about the subject.
    • Done.
  • This is more of a FAC note than a FLC one, but I would avoid sentence structures like: with Nicole Byer hosting the event (i.e. with X verb-ing). I have primarily seen this note in the FAC space so I am not sure it translates over here as well, but I've been told avoid this in featured content.
    • Done (in two places).

Wonderful work with the list. I could only find very minor, nitpick-y things for my review. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Have a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Replies above; thanks for the review! RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would appreciate any feedback on my current FAC, but either way, I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review – All of the sources are sufficiently reliable and well-formatted, and no dead links were detected by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review – All photographs have appropriate free licenses and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson singles discography[edit]

Nominator(s): TheWikiholic (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets FLC criteria. Any comment is very much welcomed. Thanks to all who participate :).— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment
  • There is a lot of unsourced content. Any single which did chart in any of the listed territories will need referencing to confirm that it existed..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Any single which did chart in any of the listed territories are referenced to confirm that it existed. For example, reference number 23 have all the information about each Jackson song that charted in the US. If you have not found any references to confirm that it existed, please let me know. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, my comment should have read "any single which did not chart". There are over 30 entries in the "Promotional or limited release" table which at present are unreferenced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • "In 1982 Jackson released..." → "In 1982, Jackson released..." (for consistency with similar sentences)
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similarly, "In 1983 Jackson again..." → "In 1983, Jackson again..."
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a collaboration with Paul McCartney was released" → "a collaboration with Paul McCartney, was released"
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Billie Jean', released as the second single, ..." – sentence fragment, needs to be reworded
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "collabortaed" → "collaborated"
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the United States ," → "in the United States,"
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including one number-one hit" → "...including number-one hit..."
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...which produced and performed by Jackson the theme for the film Free Willy" − sentence is unclear (missing a word?)
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "'Scream', a duet with Jackson's youngest sister Janet Jackson, 'Earth Song', 'They Don't Care About Us', and 'You Are Not Alone'" → "'Scream', a duet with Jackson's youngest sister Janet Jackson; 'Earth Song'; 'They Don't Care About Us'; and 'You Are Not Alone'" (note where commas become semicolons)
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and it sold over 1.2 million copies" → "and sold over 1.2 million copies"
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making it Jackson's one of the most successful single in the UK" → "making it one of Jackson's most successful singles in the UK"
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sony renews its deal" → "Sony renewed its deal"
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnotes b and c are generally unsourced – how do we know that a given single was not released in the United States or many overseas territories? And what does "many overseas territories" mean?
  • Reference 7 is attributed to "George", but there is no full citation anywhere
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar issue for reference 12, attributed to "Barrow"
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 45 has an improperly formatted link
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the citation format is wildly inconsistent. Some citations use "Last, First" for author names while others use "First Last"; some authors aren't even correct (i.e., "News, A. B. C." in reference 22); some citations omit website names; and so on. Unless I specifically noted it above, it's not significant enough for me to oppose the nomination, but I would highly suggest revising the citations for consistency if you have time.

RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up note (mainly for other reviewers): While I noticed citation issues, I didn't have time for a full source review – I just focused on the most glaring issues in formatting for the current sourcing. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*In the infobox, having the two entries as "Singles" and "Other singles" looks odd
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the United States, Jackson had amassed" => "In the United States, Jackson amassed"
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2012, Jackson was ranked fifth best selling singles artist in United Kingdom" => "In 2012, Jackson was ranked fifth best selling singles artist in the United Kingdom"
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson continued to release singles through the 1970s" - "through the 1970s"??
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both are certified Platinum [..] for sales in excess of 4 million and 2 million copies respectively" - platinum can't be awarded for both selling 2 million and 4 million, it can only be one or the other, surely?
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Billie Jean", released as the second single, which topped the charts in 13 countries including United States" => ""Billie Jean", released as the second single, topped the charts in 13 countries including United States"
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The single sold more than six million copies in the United States[10] and over 1.4 million" => "The single sold more than 6 million copies in the United States[10] and over 1.4 million"
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " "Say Say Say" was released as the first single to McCartney's 1983 album Pipes of Peace" => " "Say Say Say" was released as the first single from McCartney's 1983 album Pipes of Peace"
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album produced four top ten singles on the Billboard Hot 100, including one number-one hit "Black or White", "Remember the Time", "In the Closet" and "Will You Be There" which produced and performed by Jackson the theme for the film Free Willy." - this makes no sense. I think what you mean is "The album produced four top ten singles on the Billboard Hot 100, including one number-one hit "Black or White", as well as "Remember the Time", "In the Closet" and "Will You Be There", which was produced and performed by Jackson as the theme for the film Free Willy."
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "making it one of Jackson's most successful single in the UK" => "making it one of Jackson's most successful singles in the UK"
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sales of his previous work soared and Jackson became the first act to sell more than 1 million song downloads in the first week" - in the first week of what?
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Don't Matter to Me" was released as by Drake featuring Michael Jackson, so shouldn't it be in the "as featured artist" table?
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am assuming that "other appearances" refers to releases where Jackson was not credited on the record as either a main or featured artist (eg he just did background vocals)? if so, why are two remixes of his own songs, on which he was obviously credited) in there?
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes b, c and g do not need full stops as they are not complete sentences
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having been a non-single track in its initial appearance in Forever, Michael in 1975" => "having been a non-single track in its initial appearance on Forever, Michael in 1975"
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On August 23, 2018, Sony admitted in court that the vocals on the three Casico songs were not performed by Jackson" - no explanation is given as to who or what "Casico" is/was
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got on a first pass. I also echo the comment above that there are a lot of formatting issues with the refs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • "American singer Michael Jackson released 67 of his songs as singles, including 10 as a featured artist" - infobox has 67 as lead artist and 10 as featured artist -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.-- TheWikiholic (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Won't screw this up... won't screw this up...

  • "singles as lead artist, 10 as a featured" — and 10
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "singles Throughout the" — why is "Throughout" capitalised...?
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "album Off the Wall (1979) spawned five" — I'm iffy on the usage of "spawned"... perhaps "contained" or something?
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "released his sixth album Thriller" — comma after album
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Paul McCartney and" → with McCartney (MOS:SURNAME)
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "album Bad (1987) produced" → album, Bad (1987), produced
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and "Will You Be There" which produced and performed by Jackson as the theme for the film Free Willy." — this bit doesn't make any sense to me...
  • "album, HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I, a double album" — album, album; feels a bit repetitive
  • "features the hits" — MOS:PUFFERY?
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "deal for $250 million which" — comma after million?
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Italy[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 07:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go! Italy is the country with the highest number of World Heritage Sites, so this article is appropriately massive. The map is a bit busy but I think I managed to keep it readable with some organizing. The list of Romania, which is currently also nominated, is already seeing support. Feel free to fix some minor grammatical issues etc. on the run, so that this discussion does not get excessively long. Thanks! Tone 07:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "Over 300,000 carvings have been created" => "Over 300,000 carvings were created"
  • "Galileo Galilei who was conducting his experiments there" => "Galileo Galilei, who conducted his experiments there"
  • "built between the 11th and the 13th century the noble families and upper middle-class merchants" - think the word "by" is missing
  • "Fourteen of these towers have survived to present day" => "Fourteen of these towers have survived to the present day"
  • "Naples, Founded in 470 BCE by Greek colonists" - founded should not have a capital F
  • "during the Italian Renaissance of the 15th and 16th century" => "during the Italian Renaissance of the 15th and 16th centuries"
  • "They have been constructed at least since the mid-14th century" => "They were constructed from at least the mid-14th century"
  • "that mix motives from Western and Byzantine arts" => "that mix motifs from Western and Byzantine arts"
  • "There are also three islands off coast" => "There are also three islands off the coast"
  • "It played a major role in spreading of Christianity" => "It played a major role in the spreading of Christianity"
  • "The complex includes residential and recreative buildings" => "The complex includes residential and recreational buildings"
  • "originating in Roman times and preserving structures from the 11th century, was renovated in the 15th and 16th century" => "originating in Roman times and preserving structures from the 11th century, was renovated in the 15th and 16th centuries"
  • "Winegrowing and processing area for Piemonte wine took place already at least in the 5th century BC" - I can't figure out this sentence. I think what it's meant to say is "Winegrowing and processing for Piemonte wine took place in this area since at least the 5th century BC"
  • "The frescos are innovative in view of in their way" => "The frescos are innovative in view of their way"
  • "and use new way of perspective" => "and use new ways of perspective"
  • "with constructing villas and gardens on the coasts of lakes and on the islands for the wealthy owners" => "with villas and gardens constructed on the coasts of lakes and on the islands for wealthy owners"
  • "reached its peak between the 6th 4th century BCE" => "reached its peak between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE"
  • "Between the 6th and 11th century" => "Between the 6th and 11th centuries"
  • "Sea floor is covered" => "The sea floor is covered"
  • "indicating that the area was at some poin" => "indicating that the area was at some point"
  • "Technical herigate from different periods" - second word is spelt incorrectly
  • "In Italy, this practice has origin in pre-Roman times and continues in present day" => "In Italy, this practice has origins in pre-Roman times and continues to the present day"
  • " The Lagerstätte around Verona is exceptionally rich with fosils" - last word is missing an S
  • "Fosils include fish and marine mammals" - and again :-)
  • "Studies of fosils have been taking place" - and again again :-)
  • "The design of the theatres was changing through centuries" => "The design of the theatres changed through centuries"
  • That's what I got. Looking forward to visiting two of these sites next week :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Fixed all, many thanks! And enjoy the trip :) Tone 09:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
  • Made some edits that were quicker to do than list here and seemed uncontroversial.
  • Could the lead map be shrunk down? At over half the page width, it is far too big.
    • It works better on a bit larger screens (I checked on some different ones). I think this is a compromise, map as small as possible but the items still not overlapping. What can I say, over 50 sites marked, and I don't want to put numbers.
  • "58 inscribed properties" → "58 listed sites"
  • "Albula / Bernina" → Why the gaps before and after the slash?
    • This is the official name in the source, I left it just in the table but removed from the intro.
  • "theatre, or sports centre" → "theatre, and sports centre"?
  • "took place in this area since at least the 5th century BCE" → Should be "has taken place" if it still occurs.
    • It was suggested to use past in the above revision.
  • "extra-European exotic" → non-European exotic"?
  • "monasteries, often in caves" → "monasteries, often situated in caves"
  • All mentions of "x million" years needs a nbsp between the number and "million".
  • The Caserta garden photo needs alt text.
  • That's what I got.
    • @AryKun: Done, thanks! Btw, you forgot to sign the revision ;) --Tone 19:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the basis of prose. AryKun (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TRM[edit]

This is a big list, so I'll probably do it in sections. Unless I get lucky and find half an hour to hit it in one shot! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

  • Italy has a total of 58 listed sites -> Italy has 58 listed sites
  • Sites just -> Sites, just
  • A total of 25 -> Twenty-five
  • no comma after specifically (or remove and use a colon)
  • whereas -> and
  • has been developing uninterruptedly -> has developed uninterrupted

Reywas92Talk 02:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed these above, I assume more is coming :) Tone 16:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Music Bank Chart winners (2021)[edit]

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk), Ladidadida123 (talk) and Ïvana (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This list contains the winners of Music Bank in 2021. This is my second FLC nomination. I had previously nominated the 2020 list which is now a featured list. I have expanded the article in the past few days and believe that the article now meets the FL criteria. I added Ladidadida123 and Ïvana as nominators since they have significantly contributed to this article. -- EN-Jungwon 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*"a methodology that had been used since November 2020" => "a methodology that has been used since November 2020"
    • Done.
  • "Oh My Girl member Arin and Tomorrow X Together member Choi Soo-bin had hosted the show since July 2020 and continued to do so until October 1, 2021"
    • Done.
  • "The year began with "Dynamite" by BTS at number one; it had been in the top spot on the last chart of 2020"
    • Done.
  • "The single along with "Celebrity" by IU won" => "The single, along with "Celebrity" by IU, won"
    • Done.
  • "BTS had 3 number one singles" => "BTS had three number one singles"
    • Done.
  • "The three songs spent a total of 8 weeks" => "The three songs spent a total of eight weeks"
    • Done.
  • "Brave Girls won their first Music Bank award for Rollin'" - song title should be in quote marks
    • Done.
  • "over four years after it's release" => "over four years after its release"
    • Done.
  • "Blackpink member Rosé received first number one trophy" => "Blackpink member Rosé received her first number one trophy"
    • Done.
  • "Lisa was one of a number of soloist who achieved their first career music show win in 2021" => "Lisa was one of a number of soloists who achieved their first career music show wins in 2021"
    • Done.
  • "Girl group Aespa won their first Music Bank trophy with "Savage" on the October 15 broadcast." - unsourced
    • Removed.
  • "Up10tion's Kim Wooseok (upper left), Astro (upper right), The Boyz (lower left), and Stray Kids (lower right) won their first broadcast channel music show awards with their Music Bank wins for "Sugar", "After Midnight", "Thrill Ride", and "Thunderous" respectively." - all unsourced
    • Removed Wooseok. Done for others
  • "TXT (top), Enhypen (middle), and Ive (bottom) received their first broadcast music show wins on Music Bank for "0X1=Lovesong (I Know I Love You)" "Drunk-Dazed", and "Eleven", respectively." - unsourced
    • Done.
  • Think that's all from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude thank you for your comments. I have finished making the changes you requested. Thank you. -- EN-Jungwon 12:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* "Music Bank Chart" should not be bolded in lead per MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD
    • Done.
  • Link Music Bank (TV series) at the end of the first sentence
    • Done.
  • "Music Bank" should be consistently italicized
    • Done.
  • "Dynamite" and "Permission to Dance" should not be linked twice in lead
    • Done.
  • Link YouTube at first occurrence in lead
    • Done.
  • Use Template:-" for closing quotation mark on "Rollin'"
    • Done.
  • "number one in August and TVXQ member U-Know Yunho who gained his first number one" → "number one in August, and TVXQ member U-Know Yunho, who gained his first number one"
    • Done.
  • "won her first broadcast music show" → "won her first broadcast music show award"
    • Done.
  • "'Lalisa.'" → "'Lalisa'."
    • Done.
  • "'0X1=Lovesong (I Know I Love You)' 'Drunk-Dazed'" → "'0X1=Lovesong (I Know I Love You)', 'Drunk-Dazed'"
    • Done.
  • NCT U should be linked at all occurrences in table
    • Removed links as they don't have their own article.
  • "The Boyz" should sort by "Boyz", not "The"
    • Done.
  • Highest score needs to be identified by a symbol in addition to a color for accessibility
    • Done.
  • "due to a staff" → "due to a staff member"
    • Done.

RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123 thank you very much for the suggestions. All of these are done now. -- EN-Jungwon 05:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SupportRunningTiger123 (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Shiva Baby[edit]

Nominator(s): Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My first FLC, though not the first list article I have worked extensively on. Having worked on the film article this awards list relates to (and, more specifically, having had a news alert for that), I know it is a comprehensive list of all accolades received which are sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia list article. It has been in draft until yesterday because of a simmering but ongoing discussion over the color of certain awards results boxes - the main issue being over "pending" and, with the last pending awards for this film announced yesterday, that is no longer an issue. I hope that the perceived newness (it has been a public draft, and other editors have contributed if just by adding and updating the awards table on the film article, which this replaces) does not work against the FLC, but understand if it does. In keeping with featured lists of the same scope, the prose is all in the lead, with some notes throughout the sectioned tables. I believe this prose to be well-written and properly sourced, but welcome comments for improvement. Similarly, any comments to improve the sectioning, too, are welcome. The ref formatting is a style derived from harv refs which I began using a few years ago, and which has been warmly welcomed by others as a style particularly helpful to readers looking for refs, but I of course also welcome feedback on this (including if the sub-headers "News", "Web", etc. should indeed by sub-headers rather than bold text). Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • For the infobox image, I would expand the caption to include where it was taken to provide the full context to readers. I would also add ALT text to the image.
  • I am uncertain about the current placement of the short film paragraph at the end of the lede. The second paragraph mentions that this film was adapted, but it is not immediately clear until the end of the lede that it was adapted from a short. I understand the rationale for its inclusion as it is part of the film's awards reception, but would it be possible to integrate into the prose earlier rather than sectioning it off at the end?
  • What makes Hetedik Sor a strong enough source to mention in the lead? To be clear, I do not have any issue with it, and I just want to get a clearer understanding of this as I have not heard of this website before.
  • Shouldn't this line, the ceremony marked a return to fully in-person events, have a small bit about the COVID-19 context to how this return to in-person events is notable?
  • While this quote, "were seen toasting with champagne several times", is cute, I do not think it is notable or particularly informative enough to put in the lede or the list in general.
  • For the MVFF citation at the bottom of the page, I would avoid putting "Behind the Screens" in all caps even if the site did that. In general, I would avoid all caps unless it is an acronym so I would also avoid instances when the film title is presented this way.

Great work with this list. I have heard a lot about this film, mostly from film critics who believe this movie should have received attention from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, but I have not actually watched it. I get what the Vulture citation is saying about why it did not receive major nomination, but in my opinion, it more so boils down to that it was not picked up by a major distributor and did not get the awards campaign that other films did. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I'll respond down here to make who's saying what clearer.
  • I've added these; I had believed that alt text was not necessary when the comment described the image sufficiently, but have added some basic alt text anyway.
  • I have both moved the sentence about the short film, to follow the sentence in the second paragraph where the adapted screenplay is mentioned, and I have edited the short film sentence for flow.
  • Hetedik Sor, from reading the website and looking at its references on the Hungarian Wikipedia, is a website akin to Gold Derby and AwardsWatch: a film awards season/Oscars race website that may serve as a year-round bookies but is popular and reliable for film coverage during awards season. At least one film article on the Hungarian Wikipedia also uses the website as an external link along with IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes (Birds of Passage (film), so not a small film, either). The 'editorials' of GoldDerby and AwardsWatch do not commonly rank films by number of all awards, which is why they are not used here. Hetedik Sor, as I see it, is an equivalent source.
  • I have added "following the COVID-19 pandemic" (with wikilink to the impact on cinema article); as the pandemic is not really over, any better wording suggestions would be appreciated.
  • I have removed this (I also thought it was cute).
  • I have removed all-caps where I've seen it; if there are any instances I've missed, please tell me!
Thank you! While Utopia did their absolute best to promote the movie, and made more of a name for themselves in the process, I have to agree with you; I was watching the Indie Spirits and, there, the director said that they had no money and it was nice that the Spirits gave awards to films that couldn't afford to campaign (i.e. Shiva Baby) - but I haven't seen that soundbite repeated in any source (though they're probably doing her a favor, as you expect some people would interpret it as a dig at the Oscars). Kingsif (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your responses. To be honest, I am not entirely sure if ALT text is helpful, and it is a subject that I really should read more about as I have seen some conflicting opinions about it. I do not have a strong opinion, and I only brought it because it is something that seems expected for featured content. Thank you for the explanation for the Hetedik Sor source. That makes sense to me. You are right that the pandemic is not over, and I appreciate that you added context to this part of the list. For better or for worse, a lot of the Academy nominations and wins boil down to their campaigns. I doubt CODA would have had the same success if Apple TV+ did not distribute and promote it. I've seen some speculation that CODA wins may translate to bigger company and distributors picking up more films at festivals like the Sundance Film Festival, and I'd be interested in seeing if that really happens. I'd imagine that this film helped Emma Seligman in the end as critics were very positive about it.
  • Anyway, apologies for that long paragraph. I support this FLC for promotion. It does look somewhat different than other film awards list which put all the awards and nominations into a singular table, but I can see the advantages to this set-up and I do not really have a strong opinion either way. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't be surprised if more studios picked up films out of festivals, especially streaming; there was actually a Variety (VIP) article that I think was a source in this list but has been replaced, which inferred the same about Shiva Baby and various other TIFF/SXSW/Sundance/general fall festival films - saying that streamers were picking up the audience award winners to try and boost films that would otherwise be acclaimed but obscure. It didn't really happen, but maybe with CODA's win, there will be even more attempts, and surely a few more hits. Apologies for continuing your long paragraph, and thanks for the support! Kingsif (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: I was looking over the article yesterday, and think it may be improved by swapping the third and fourth paragraphs of the lead (para 2 ending on an Oscars discussion will lead into current para 4 mentioning similar, and the end of current para 4 that kinda mentions lack of campaign will lead into current para 3 starting with another theory of fewer noms) - since you have already indicated support, I wanted to notify you before making the change. Kingsif (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the message. That sounds good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2022 (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. You actually sort of have a caption with that header bar, so just change it to be a standard caption instead.
  • I have done this for the non-collapsible tables. Adding this row, from my attempts to add it, at least, prevent collapsible tables from doing so properly, and these tables are already captioned in the first row, anyway (i.e. the first thing a screen reader will read, even if not labelled as a caption). As suggested, due to the section headers, I have made the captions screen reader only. Kingsif (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the tables shouldn't be collapsible. The tables are the primary information for the list, and as per MOS:COLLAPSE should not be collapsed or even collapsible as a result. Captions are also not just for reading out by screen readers, but allow screen reader software to jump straight to a named table the same way a visual reader can scroll right to a table since it looks different than plain text. Why do you want the tables to be collapsible? --PresN 13:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just how I've seen it in similar articles; consistency is what I prioritized before getting into functionality (and my accessibility knowledge is mostly limited to colors). Kingsif (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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. ! ''[[Another Magazine|AnOther Magazine]]'' becomes !scope=row | ''[[Another Magazine|AnOther Magazine]]''. If the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • @PresN: I have done this for the year-end rankings; the other tables don't already use rowspans, should I also add to those? (The row header box does not seem to be used for these lists among FLs of similar scope, is why I ask). Also, is there any way to center back the text; adding a style parameter doesn't do it. Kingsif (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the left-aligning is because of the plainrowheaders class on the table, if you remove that they go back to being centered. When you do that, though, you'll see that you're actually doing some odd things with bolding- you can just remove the bolding marks, it's trying to double-bold them in the cases where you put the italics outside the link but the bolding inside for some reason. If you didn't know, in general, stick all of the ticks outside of the link, and if you want both italics and bold (in general, not in this case) you just use 5 ticks (2 for italics, 3 for bold) like this. And yes, all tables should use rowscopes - !scope=row normally, and !scope=rowgroup if the cell has rowspan=whatever, e.g. | rowspan="2"| [[Dorian Awards]] becomes !scope=row rowspan="2"| [[Dorian Awards]] - note the change to use a ! instead of a | at the beginning, that's what makes it a "header" cell instead of a regular one. --PresN 13:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Auto-bolding (goes inside) isn't my favorite thing, either ;) Thanks for the headers note. Kingsif (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 23:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be all done! Thanks! Kingsif (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • In the juried awards section, the recipients currently sort in order of forename. They should sort in order of surname.
  • Same with the critics' awards
  • also, shouldn't the heading for that section be Critics' awards....?
  • Same sorting issue with the media awards
  • (The recipients in the festival awards section do support correctly, but I think that may be by coincidence :-) )
  • "Shared with Woody Norman for C'mon C'mon." and "Shared with Passing and Pig." are not complete sentences so shouldn't have full stops
  • Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: I think I've addressed all these. I've added sortname parameters, suppressing redlinks for all but the first instance. I also haven't sorted by anything other than the film title in the instances of the film and then named cast/crew being nominated/winning - should those be sorted by the first alphabetical surname (e.g. the two Apolo Awards for the film, should one be sorted as "Filmin" and the other as "Agron", or as "Shiva Baby Filmin" and so on?) Kingsif (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

I am still getting used to reviewing FLCs, so feedback and comments are appreciated.

  • "it won a variety of critics', festival, and media titles;" I think it should be "critic"?
  • "it was included on many best-of lists." Who compliled these best-of lists? Was it media companies? Was these best-of film lists, screenplay lists, or something similar?
  • "The short film from which it was adapted, also called Shiva Baby and written and directed by Seligman, was released in 2018 and nominated in the Best Narrative Short category at the 2018 South by Southwest film festival." Since this list is about the 2020 film, and not the 2018 short film, I think this sentence is a little off-topic and belongs in the movie's main article instead.
  • The lede spends a lot of time on the movie's possible Academy Awards nominations, with one and a half paragraphs talking about it. Since this list is for all awards, not just the Oscars, I would move all the Academy Awards information to one paragraph and trim it.
  • " the ceremony marked a return to fully in-person events following the COVID-19 pandemic[22] and, when the film won, the cast and crew all accepted the award on stage." I think this information is more about the award, and less about the film winning the award, and is off-topic for this article. It can be removed.
  • "One of the film's stars, Agron, also presented an award at the ceremony." I definitely think this is off-topic for this article and too much detail, and should be removed.
  • "Shiva Baby placed on various best-of lists for both 2020, the year of its festival debut, and 2021, when it was released in movie theaters and on streaming. It has been included on overall lists as well as lists specifically for independent, debut, comedy, horror, Jewish, and LGBTQ+ movies." I think this sentence should be cited.
  • I think the notes in the list should be in the rank column, as it is explaining why there is no rank for the film on this list.
  • Should note a and b have citations?

Those are my thoughts on the prose. Z1720 (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the comments, @Z1720:, I'll again go through from top to bottom. Kingsif (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ping me when you are ready for me to take another look. Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720: See below - I made two edits, but, yeah, your comments had me think a bit, but treating it as the whole coverage as intended/expected? calls for detail. Kingsif (talk)

(edit conflict)

  • I don't think so - take away the rest of the list, that would make it "critic titles", and the section to which it refers would have to be "critic awards". Since each award is given by a collective of critics, not a single critic, then pertaining to multiple critics (so, critics') is correct and standard. Both for the titles of awards and as I have seen it across Wikipedia.
  • Re. what kind of best-of lists; it is a film, so that seems redundant to restate. Like, it hasn't specified film festival awards, just festival. Of course, one of the lists mentioned in the section is for "moments of 2021"; this and the fact the scope of each list is different would make it impossible to concisely summarize such. So, I think any amendment here is both unnecessary and would result in poor prose.
  • The reason I included the mention of the nomination for the 2018 short film, is something that I will refer to when addressing some of your other points: I wrote the prose as if it was an in-depth article looking at the entire background and history of coverage of the awards season for this film. So, its "precursor" film being nominated for an award seems important in that respect. Regarding your suggestion it goes at the film (2020?) article: another, less strong, really, reason for inclusion is that people might be looking for the information at this awards article; the pageviews tool suggests very few people are even looking for the article altogether, but both films share a title (among nearly everything else), and the title of the article is not disambiguated - i.e. the title is "List of accolades received by Shiva Baby", not "List of accolades received by Shiva Baby (2020)". As there is no article for the short film (though there's definitely enough media coverage for one, it's well-covered at the 2020 film article), there isn't a more-appropriate place for this mention, either.
  • I think my concern the inclusion of the precursor film is that this is an article about the list of accolades received by the 2020 film. I felt that this sentence, about an award that the 2018 short film received, is not pertinent to this article. In other words, as a reader of this list article, I do not need to know this information. If this is going to be an article about the awards that both the 2018 short film and the 2020 film received, then I think the first sentence will need to specify this, as currently the first sentence says that this list is only about the 2020 film. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the article shouldn't be, kind of, inclusive of the 2018 short film, I didn't mean to suggest that. My main thought was that, well, for a practical example, the article for the film Pieces of a Woman has a whole section on the play it is based on, talking about some specifics that don't seem to have anything to do with the film, but then the techniques from the play were used in the film adaptation. The Shiva Baby article mentions some themes of the short film, that are expanded upon in the 2020 film. So, it makes sense to have "background" information of an original work in a (prose) article about the film adaptations of said works, and so I thought it was appropriate to include similar information here (and, hey, is it not interesting that both short and feature versions were nominated at SXSW?) - of course, I am most familiar with writing prose articles, with relevant-comprehensive-concise background information included... like with your other outstanding point, do you think an explanatory footnote (and this would be at the SXSW table entry) would be an improvement? Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think an explanatory footnote stating that the 2018 short film was also nominated would be more appropriate than putting it in the prose. I don't think this article needs as much background information about the film, as that information is more appropriate in the Shiva Baby parent article. I am always mindful of how much information is in an article, as the more prose there is the less likely readers are going to read the information. It's a careful balance and I tend to lean towards having less information. Z1720 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a lot more media discussion of the Oscars than all other awards combined. Cutting down on such would be creating false balance. We base articles on sources; if most of the features on the film's award season discuss the Oscars, a lot of the article prose will discuss the Oscars.
  • I agree that there is often lots of media coverage about the Oscars. Upon looking at the article again, I think my original concern was that a paragraph and a half was devoted to speaking about the Oscars in some way. I think I got that impression because of the Hetedik Sor quote. I do not know if there is a fix to this, because the flow does work well, and if there isn't a way to put all the Oscar stuff in one paragraph, then it should just be left as-is. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at it, and to address what you bring up here, do you think it would work better than the current to end that sentence at "best of the rest", and then put the explanatory information feat. Oscars mention in a footnote? Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the above comment on writing about the whole award season for the film. This includes some context, including the effect of the pandemic, so the first completely in-person ceremony is context for saying the cast and crew were all together accepting the award - which I'd contend is directly about the film winning the award - (continued in next point, about the same part)
  • and someone in the cast presenting is the (implicit) contextual information that the organizers were confident in the film's chances. Of course, this is also mentioned more directly, so though it's still part of the film's whole awards season, I'll remove this line as you suggest.
  • It's a summary of the table, I don't know it would be "cited" besides adding a note that says "look down"...
  • Those notes are in rows that have reference boxes at the end; the refs at the end are for the whole row, including the note. Note c has an inline citation as it uses a quotation. This has reminded me to add such a cite for the FOX alpha note, though.
  • This feels like a lot of saying no; I'm not attached to the prose as-is, I honestly don't think the changes suggested in your comments would be an improvement to the article. I hope I've explained why well, and I'm happy to discuss, and welcome to other opinions. Kingsif (talk) 14:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: I wanted to take some time away from this article to (hopefully) give myself a renewed look on the article, or at least try to read it again from a fresh perspective. To keep my comments organised on which point I am speaking to, I have commented below your bullet points above. If I did not respond to the bullet point, it means that I have nothing further to add and I am no longer concerned about it. I am very much in favour of editors telling me why they disagree, and if I feel strongly about something then I will comment further about it. Generally, I am not that bothered by prose differences, so I didn't respond to most of those comments. Thanks for your patience in addressing my comments. I'll try to respond more quickly next time. Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Thank you for leaving comments! I hope I responded thoughtfully, and I expect you will have done the same, so I will read them (soon) when I have time to properly focus on this. Kingsif (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Added replies :) Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Thanks, and done. Kingsif (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One additional comment:

  • "for 2020 and, especially, 2021, it was included on many best-of lists." Lot of commas here. Perhaps, "for 2020, and especially 2021, it was included on many best-of lists." or something similar.

Please ping when ready. Z1720 (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720: I've gone with "for 2021, and also 2020, it was…" - the many commas were to keep it grammatically sound while not putting the 2021 mention, really the whole point, in a subordinate clause (which makes it read somewhat like an aside); putting 2021 first seemed to work better, and it matches the order of the tables in that section. Hopefully the achronology isn't an issue, though the paragraph is already basically in reverse order. Kingsif (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support my concerns, per above, have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review

The way you're doing sources is technically fine, but legitimately horrifying. It's twice as long for no reason, makes it impossible to go from a source to what it's citing (as opposed to the other way around), and requires you to misuse date fields like "(October 7, 2021b)" so that the sfn links work. Like I said, it's technically fine, though, so, actual issues:

  • Most of the sources are fine, except for TIFF2020 where you cite IMDB.
  • You're mixing date formats, please standardize on either Month dd, yyyy or yyyy-mm-dd. I guess Month dd, yyyy, since the cite templates complain if you add "a" to the end of a date in the yyyy-mm-dd format.
  • Speaking of cite templates complaining, the second one in "press releases" should be cite web, not cite document- document needs a journal name, and that's a pdf on a website
  • "the Guardian" should be "The Guardian" everywhere
  • You have trans-titles on some non-English cites, but ideally all non-English cite titles should have them. --PresN 22:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • legitimately horrifying I mean, okay. Your reasons aren't really detrimental and a big benefit is that it's a more visual-fronted system that aids readers, but whatever.
  • WP:CITEIMDB; since awards are not user-editable, it is in the "meh" section. There hasn't been recent discussion on moving it, but last there was, there were concerns with some awards listed at IMDb being indiscriminate; since that concern is otherwise handled with different policy, and in this case as a supporting ref, it's acceptable.
  • I'll standardize the other things you bring up; I haven't had a lot of time recently but should be done by end of week if not much sooner. Kingsif (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PresN: Including removing the superfluous IMDb ref, addressed everything now. Kingsif (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • I personally don't think the "Best-of lists" section should be included. It's fairly indiscriminate, and it sets a bad precedent. Imagine if a more "popular" film (at least in terms of awards buzz) like The Power of the Dog or Dune had a similar table – with inclusion standards like this, it would easily have several hundred entries, overwhelming the article. For instance, Metacritic compiled a bunch of end-of-year lists for 2021, and The Power of the Dog was on almost 180 of them – and I'm certain there are plenty of other lists that Metacritic omitted. Maybe placing first on a list would be notable, but being 10th on some random website's annual list probably isn't notable enough. Overall, this is my biggest concern with the article, and I honestly don't think I could !vote support with this included. (But if consensus is to promote despite this, I obviously won't stop it.)
    • If it does stay, the following edits need to be made:
      • "Mejores películas 2021 para Javier Quintanar Polanco" – translate to English
      • Same for "21 películas de 2021 que deberías haber visto"
      • "The Arts Fuse" should sort by "Arts", not "The"
  • Why are the tables for different awards split up? The general format for similar lists is to create a single large table for all awards.
  • In the infobox, wins are typically counted again as nominations (so, for instance, the Artios Awards should list 1 win/1 nom instead of 1 win/0 noms)
  • Link John Cassavetes Award in lead
  • Sorting for the "Media awards" table is confusing: If "Braddies", "Cal Arts", "Golden Brick", and "Golden Tomato" are going to be the sort terms, they should be listed first.
  • The Daily Californian is a student newspaper and probably isn't notable enough to include.
  • Why does "Listed" use the runner-up template for the Braddies but the win template for all other cases?
  • I agree with PresN's concerns that date formats should be standardize and that the citation from IMDb should be removed (it's not reliable and it's not even needed in this case).
  • I also agree with PresN's comments about the citation format; it's needlessly complicated for a list like this where most sources are cited once and page numbers aren't needed.
  • The Best-of lists is something I have seen across similar articles, so included; it is also selected, as this film would be on hundreds, too. At the talk page I wrote some notes about entries I removed for not being selective enough. Knowing that such lists exists, list articles would surely be incomplete without inclusion? Very happy to discuss more criteria for cutting it down, though, I tried my best before! Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I answered the table splitting somewhere above, but navigability, really. Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • But merging the tables allows for more useful sorting. And again, the selection of FLs I searched all used a single table. Obviously there is no single correct format, but the widespread usage of the single-table format would suggest it has some consensus behind it. (If anything, the standard used to be to split tables and has swung towards a single table; see this 2020 discussion for a TV awards list.) Finally, it introduces unneeded subjectivity into an article; for instance, should the National Board of Review be counted as a juried award or a critics' award? Sorting alphabetically in a single list makes it much easier to find a given organization instead of guessing which table it falls under. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox, the template has a preformatted note saying For simplification and to avoid errors, each award in this list has been presumed to have had a prior nomination. - so, no? I've never seen wins doubled up as a nom count, and this note clearly says to assume every win was previously nom, so suggests that not doubling up is how it should be done. Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not great wording, but I think it means that awards that only announce winners are still credited with a nomination. The three most recent film accolade FLs all use this standard, and from experience, I'm fairly confident most others do as well. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's already linked in the lead? Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll organise the sorting. Been busy, also why I haven't addressed PresN's comments yet. Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just noticed, this was probably because the column was titled as Outlet/Award, so I suppose I put the outlet first then sorted by award. Anyway, amended now. Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll remove Daily Cal then (fun note: that particular win set film twitter ablaze, Cal Arts is a university but a very respected one). Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, that paper is from UC Berkeley, not Cal Arts. (Still a respected university, but probably not notable.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I'm trying to get to the dates PresN mentioned. Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I disregarded PresN's comments about the citation formatting for being unconstructive; how do you think it's overcomplicated? To wit, I have a widescreen monitor and still the auto style of formatting just gives a lot of jumbled columns of refs so clickthroughs are really needed to find what you're looking for, and it doesn't have whitespace around it to be read without, like, concerted effort. Anything that mitigates that is a win, and any organisation is helpful. The section relationship seems logical, what readerly issues do you think the formatting causes? Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I missed your "listed" question; this was a bit of personal interpretation, as these colors typically are. While in most cases getting on a list is "winning", among a group, the Braddies don't have winners (this is mentioned in a footnote), and so the lists are essentially all runners-up. Kingsif (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RunningTiger123: Made changes, and otherwise responded to comments. I am honestly intrigued as to what you think makes the citation formatting harder to use when in my experience (and in comments I've received up to now) it's been the opposite - it's been a small mission for me to create the best readerly sources section to direct our readers to go to said sources! Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't speak for RunningTiger123, but I'll chime in with what I was talking about with sources:
  • So, usually when you see this kind of split between a short citation linking to a longer full citation, it's because the article is citing a long work, like a book, multiple times for different page numbers. So, having "author, pg. 3", "author, pg. 43", etc. all linking to the single full book citation is helpful, because it means each reference points solely to the page(s) being cited instead of having one book citation like "blah blah pp. 3, 43, 64, etc." where you don't know what was for page 3 and what was for page 43, or the alternative where you have two citations to the same book with the full citation repetitively listed out both times.
Except, that's not what's going on here. Instead, almost every single citation is used only once- twice in a couple cases. So what you end up with is a "Citations" subsection that's basically superfluous. It's a repetition of the citation, just shorter.
  • So, if that's not the use case being solved for here, what other purpose does this split cause? Well, it seems like your goal is to be able to put the full citations into sections, which you wouldn't be able to do otherwise. But... does this matter? Does this help anyone? You've split out the BFI and NYT cites from the "features" and the "news" as "literature", but what source would go in what section is entirely opaque to me and doesn't seem obvious or helpful to readers. And never mind that you have a "web" section like almost every other cite isn't also online. Do readers care what the "genre" of source is? Can they follow what your categorization scheme is here without explanation? I get that you feel that 160+ citations without subsections is hard to read through, but I really doubt anyone actually reads through a citation list. They click a superscripted number and jump straight to the citation they care about, because they want to know what is being cited for a specific fact- the surrounding cites don't matter.
  • Additionally, and this may be more an editor thing than a reader thing, the way you have this split means you can't go backwards- for instance, when I saw that IMDB source, I wanted to see what it was being referenced for, but unlike a normal citation section, I can't click a little ^ to go to where it's being used. Instead, I had to see what the author's name was, find it in the "Citations" subsection, and then click there. This is annoying but fine when it's a handful of books being referenced multiple times - I can just look - but when every single citation is like that it's a bit of a slog without ctrl-f. --PresN 23:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that said, though, these are just my personal opinions here, I'm not speaking as an FLC delegate that it must be changed. The only firm rule on Wikipedia, even at FLC/FAC, is that the citations should be consistently formatted, and beyond that style is up to the editors. So, tl;dr - I don't like it, but it wouldn't stop me from promoting. --PresN 23:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other comments above. PresN also did a good job describing many of my concerns for the sources. In the end, it just adds a step between hovering over the reference and seeing the full citation for no discernible reason. It's not wrong, it's just more work to create and use it that way. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks[edit]

Nominator(s): Debartolo2917 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this page has failed a featured list candidate nomination before (in 2011). Since then, it has been substantially improved, now at the standard other lists for first-round draft picks of NFL teams (such as List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks). In addition, this page simplifies the code in other, already featured lists, by utilizing a key with position links and a central 'align="center"' function. Debartolo2917 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments on refs
  • A significant number of the refs do not list a publisher
  • Ref 25 is tagged as dead
  • The two general refs are both listed as having been retrieved in 2009 yet they (seemingly) source data right up to 2021 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be up to speed now. It's incredible how so many old links just completely break. Debartolo2917 (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I forgot about this one. The article now seems to be sourced entirely to six "general references" at the bottom. Per WP:IC, inline citations are mandatory for featured content, so everything in the article should have a reference against it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Updates on links
  • Links have been updated and I have rescinded a nomination for the Cincinnati Bengals first-round draft pick page. One think to note, I changed the notes next to each draft pick to footnotes. I do not know if that is compatible with in-line citations in the rest of the page (currently sourced as just references without direct placement). Do you know of a way to separate footnotes with references? Debartolo2917 (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2022 (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. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! style="{{NFLPrimaryStyle|Chicago Bears|border=2}};"|Year becomes !scope=col style="{{NFLPrimaryStyle|Chicago Bears|border=2}};"|Year.
  • 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. | [[1936 NFL Draft|1936]] becomes !scope=row | [[1936 NFL Draft|1936]].
  • Note that these apply to the "Key" table as well, though that table also needs a caption: 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.
  • 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 23:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PresN: Just went ahead and updated both the main table and the key tables (which I split) with these formats. The only thing of note was in the position key, I did not find any reason to have row headers. It just doesn't make sense for how the key is constructed. One last thing to have your opinion on: I split the keys in a way that saved space (one underneath the other left a lot of blank, white space which did not look very nice. This construction (with column breaks) looks a little bit better, but the keys being differently shaped looks somewhat awkward. Let me know your opinion on the matter. Thanks! Debartolo2917 (talk) 08:06, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TRM[edit]

  • Some overlinking in the lead:
    • Pro Football Hall of Fame
    • Super Bowl
  • "North division " our article uses "Northern Division" with an en-dash before for the formal title. Not seeing "North division" used in this way.
  • You call Joe Stydahar a "tackle" but the key for T is "offensive tackle"?
  • "Stydahar went to have..." He went on...
  • "have a stellar career" according to who?
  • Just a quick aside, really not keen on the referencing in the lead.
  • "The Bears have not ... The Bears have only..." repetitive.
  • It seems odd that you wait to the second paragraph to tell me about the mechanics of the draft after you've already told me a whole heap about who was drafted and when...!
  • "previous Super Bowl; the Super Bowl champion selects 32nd overall, and the Super Bowl loser" repetitive, threepeat of Super Bowl in one sentence.
  • In the image captions, you have "first" but "4th" etc. As these are below 10, I'd use words every time.
  • The colour scheme in the column headings is distracting and prevents me from knowing the table is sortable.
  • No Pick -> No pick
  • The "specific" references are really footnotes so should be in a section entitled "footnotes".
  • I would much prefer to see each of the entrants cited properly and directly with a specific reference.

That's all I have on a quick blast. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Debartolo2917: Are you still pursuing this nomination? --PresN 21:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am, just have been busy and not really focused on the page right now. I should be able to get to it within the week. Debartolo2917 (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should all be updated now. Debartolo2917 (talk) 01:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of chief ministers from the Indian National Congress[edit]

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 07:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second political list nomination. I am nominating this for featured list because I've worked on revamping this list over the last few weeks and feel that it's up to a pretty good standard. Contains everything needed to become a FL such as a good lead, sources and a clear table. Criticism, suggesting improvements most welcome. Thank you.. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 07:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

  • I have few initial concerns about the notability of the list itself. This is just a huge compilation of list of all the chief ministers of a particular political party. Is there any reason why this meets WP:NLIST? Are there relevant reliable source discussion (not verifying) that "List of chief ministers from the Indian National Congress" is a topic of scholar interest? Because a collection of data can be classified in any possible manner, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. So, while I am not opposing now, I wanted to know your (and others) opinion regarding this. What further concerns me is that List of chief ministers from the Bharatiya Janata Party is already a FL, but my concerns yet stand. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for respoding. Honestly, I had no intention developing this list initially, but then I saw List of chief ministers from the Bharatiya Janata Party which is FL. I thought such lists might be meeting WP:NLIST, otherwise we would not had FL like this. In my opinion, such list should be relevant, also we cannot add it in main article. Moreover, we have several list including List of chief ministers from the Aam Aadmi Party, List of chief ministers from the Communist Party of India (Marxist). So, the idea of having a list that could possibly explain a political party's leadership in different states of India seems fine to me.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 09:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do have other lists, but I am concerned about the notability of all those lists, not just this one. Another thing to note is that we do have lists for CMs of individual states (like List of chief ministers of [state's name]). I presume all those lists have a column on the CMs political affiliation. So what information does this list/these lists add to the reader? All information available here is already available in individual lists (including name, constituency, term, assemble, etc.). I see this as a violation of WP:FL?#3c Additionally, if I am not wrong, most of the list is cited to http://www.worldstatesmen.org/India_states.html. Why is that particular source a WP:RS? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think such lists are useful if someone wants to know list of CMs for all states from a particular party, at one place; be it incumbant or previous. I have removed [[8]] ref. I do not know who added and what could be the reason. Also, I do not see its significance here.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 13:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that the reason for adding that source would be that it verifies the tenure and term of office of each CM. The individual references the list have do not verify that. For example, Ref#7 (after "Chief Minister of Andhra State") has no mention of either of the 2 chief ministers, or their tenure, etc. Currently, most of the list fails WP:V, and that was the only reference supporting everything. Assuming that other agree with the notability of the list, we'll still need inline citations verifying everything present in the table, which currently is not the case. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Honestly, I cannot explain about others than this since I am not a contributor to those lists. I can solved list of concerns raised with regards to this list. Besides, I am in process of adding sources to individual table. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • All of these comments apply to all tables.
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
 Done
  • 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" |Name becomes !scope=col rowspan="2" |Name. If the cell spans multiple columns, then use !scope=colgroup instead. Note that in the case that you have two levels of column headers, both cells need colscopes.
 Done
Not done- where you have !scope=col colspan=3 (e.g. 'Term of office') it needs to be !scope=colgroup colspan=3, and for the sub-header cells ('From', 'To', and 'Days in office'), you need colscopes, so ! From becomes !scope=col| From. --PresN 00:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Apologies. Please have a look now.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1 becomes !scope=row | 1. If the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
 Done
  • The table-spanning cells (e.g. Chief Ministers of Hyderabad State (1948–1956)) can't be used. Not only do they result in weird results for screen readers (e.g. the screen reader reads out the first column header and the cell, then the second column header and the same cell again, etc. even though no column headers actually apply to the text in the cell at all), but they don't even work for fully-sighted viewers- just sort the table and they all stop being in any useful place. If you want to logically divide a table with three subsections into three parts, make it three tables or else move that information to a new column.
 Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 13:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 23:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. Please allow me sufficient time to make the changes, since the list is quite lengthy. I will let you know after I address all concerns raised. Thanks. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 15:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @TheWikiholic: can you please help me resolving table issues raised here. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 13:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @PresN:, all issues raised have been addressed. Please have a look and let me know if anything is missing. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 14:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways[edit]

Nominator(s):  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the List of Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways for featured list because it presents information about the scenic and historic byways of Colorado in a straightforward manner with ample documentation and notes.

Comments from Reywas92
  • The lead is too short, could you summarize the list a bit more, maybe the total length of the byways, highlight some important ones.
  • Describe a little bit of the process for how these are selected. The All-American Roads, National Scenic Byways, National Forest Scenic Byways, and Back Country Byways are all federal programs, so this needs to specify the difference between a state and federal designation. I know the National Scenic Byways require state nomination, but talk about how these overlap with the state-level designation. Seems like 5 are state only, and the rest are both?
  • Mention the difference between the scenic byways and the historic byways. Some are only scenic, some are both. What sort of themes do some of these share?
  • What does designation actually mean? It says there's signage, but is there some sort of funding or other programming involved for these roads and sites on them? Or just listings in tourism guides?
  • "the most national byways of any state." Source?? Looking at the maps on the three program articles, it looks like California has more.
  • The section header should probably be "Scenic and Historic Byways"
  • The table header doesn't need to specify it's a table.
  • With most having both state and federal designation (and a few with multiple federal), what does the year represent? I don't see 1989 in either source for San Juan or 1993 in either for Top of the Rockies.
  • The Description column doesn't need period for incomplete sentences.
  • It also doesn't need to repeatedly link the designations since they're in the lead
  • The first three see also links don't need to be there if they're already elsewhere.
  • The Highways of Colorado by Matthew Salek external link seems unreliable and doesn't add anything beyond the comprehensive codot.gov site
  • Interesting list – National Parkway is somewhere on my to-do list!

Reywas92Talk 01:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Thank you very much for your helpful comments. I will see what I can do for this list. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 03:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments:

  • Don't link Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways Commission when that redirects to a section of this article
  • Why does the Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways Commission section have zero citations?
  • The lead could also use a few more citations, like for "established in March 1989"
  • Not quite sure what "The Trail Ridge Road/Beaver Meadow National Scenic Byway is entirely within Rocky Mountain National Park, and thus does not have a National Parkway designation." implies. Skyline Drive is entirely within Shenendoah NP but is still listed at National Parkway, but then again I'm not entirely sure how that list was created since [9] says only six parkways have been congressionally designated and Skyline isn't one of them.
  • "intended to provide recreational, educational, and economic benefits to residents and visitors by designating, interpreting, protecting, and promoting a system of outstanding touring routes in Colorado." is plagiarized from [10]. You're welcome to use blockquote or otherwise quote the source, especially for the five selection criteria, but use quotation marks and proper citations. You should know this.

Reywas92Talk 22:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose—this just isn't ready yet.
    • As noted above, there's some confusion in the content between this state-level program and national-level programs. For example, the table row for Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric Highway National Scenic Byway implies that a Colorado Scenic and Historic Byway designation extends into Utah. Is the 512-mile length just the portion in Colorado with the state-level designation? Does that length include the part in Utah? It's very unclear. The entire table needs a rewrite so that the content focuses on only what has a state-level designation. Sure, note if a byway also has a national-level designation, but per the title of this list, it must focus on just what Colorado designated.
    • There's a lot of missing content. How are these byways nominated? What kind of approval process is there? What are the criteria for approval? What about a general history of the program? There should be some more content beyond the lead and the table. Take a look at Pure Michigan Byway for some inspiration.
    • Several of the items listed in the See also section should be removed per MOS:NOTSEEALSO; if it's already linked in the body of the article, it should not be linked there.
      Unfortunately, I cannot support promotion until more content is added what is there is fixed. Imzadi 1979  04:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979: As stated in the header, all 26 of the byways are designated by the Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways Commission and 21 of these currently have a federal designation as well. The four byways that extend into adjoining states show the total mileage. I will add notes for mileage and dates. I know that Michigan is impeccable, so I will attempt to bring this list up to snuff. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 05:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buaidh: I see that there was some edits after this comment a while back; are you still pursuing this nomination? Is it ready for another look by Imzadi1979? --PresN 21:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92, Imzadi1979, and PresN: The List of Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways has been extensively updated using Pure Michigan Byway as a model. Please give me your comments and suggestions. Thanks,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 17:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This list still conflates state and federal designations inappropriately, and thus my oppose from over two months ago still stands. Entries in the list should be using their state-level byway designation names and the Colorado-only mileage. Dates of federal designation are irrelevant here and should be removed. I cannot support promotion until this basic structural flaw of the content is rectified, as I stated on 24 March.
(The see also list feels like a link farm, and the notes list also seems overly detailed. Others my disagree, though. This is secondary to the issues previously stated.) Imzadi 1979  03:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove the federal designations, mileage, and dates. I will also eliminate most of the see also entries.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 05:26, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Imzadi1979: Done. What else can I do to improve this page?  Buaidh  talk e-mail 21:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92, Imzadi1979, and PresN: Can you either approve this list or give me specific suggestions for improvement. Thank you very much. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 19:57, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did so in this edit three weeks ago.... Reywas92