Page move-protected

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

  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:


National Register of Historic Places listings in Linn County, Kansas[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 19:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

This is my first FLC in about a year, and only my second overall, so this may be a bit rusty. This is a list and description of all eight properties in Linn County, Kansas, that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places: two historic sites, two bridges, two schools, a courthouse, and a former jail. Hog Farm Talk 19:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment
  • Colour by itself cannot be used to indicate something per WP:ACCESS - you will need to also use a symbol Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method, such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:32, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments

  • The map is fine, I'm sure, if you know where it is contextually, but for me (for instance) it's basically approximately a square to the right of an approximate rectangle. It would be useful to show it in the context of the US as well as just boxy ol' Kansas.
  • Avoid single-sentence paragraphs, bit clunky to read, we're looking for engaging prose.
  • Last para of lead, "National Register of Historic Places in Linn County, Kansas," all over overlinked.
    • I've removed that whole sentence.
  • Linn County Courthouse is a dab link.
    • Fixed by a dabfixer.
  • "Battle of Mine Creek Site " etc if you're not using the official/formal name, then write this kind of thing in sentence case, so "Site" should be "site".
    • It's listed on the Register as the "Battle of Mine Site", so I'd say this is an official enough name to warrant the current capitalization
  • I think it's useful in the lead to describe what the "National Register of Historic Places" means and why/how things get added to it.
  • Please ensure that the use of templates like {{NRHP row}} meet MOS:DTT.
  • How does the image column sort?! I would make it unsortable.
  • Description being free text, sortability is also not sensible.
  • How does location sort?
  • "City or town" column seems to sort at least three different ways.
  • Ref 3 isn't a ref, it's a footnote.
  • Colourings etc, like Chris says, shouldn't be exclusively used to indicate something. And moreover, we shouldn't have to go to another article to find the key to this article.
  • Ref 13 has spaced hyphen, dash per MOS required.
    • I'm not sure what you're seeing. All of the references with dashes in the title are bringing the dash through {{endash}}, so there shouldn't be any hyphens in there. Although the difference is evidently small enough that I don't see why MOS:DASH compliance is significant for FAC or FLC. Just another MOS hoop to jump through that doesn't really affect content
  • Turns out ref 1 and ref 5 are also footnotes, not refs.
  • If, as I suspect, The Wichita Eagle is a newspaper or similar, it should be in italics.
    • Corrected

I haven't looked at the descriptions or the lead text in detail, the technical issues should be resolved though. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 20:03, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

More comments (some may duplicate the above)
  • The opening could do with an explanation of what the Historic Register actually is, to give context (without the reader having to click away to another article to find out). This would also allow the opening paragraph to be beefed up from its current single sentence
  • "This is intended to be a complete list of the properties on the National Register of Historic Places in Linn County, Kansas, United States." - is there really any need to state this? I would have thought it reasonably obvious that an article entitled National Register of Historic Places listings in Linn County, Kansas would list all the places on the National Register of Historic Places listings in Linn County, Kansas.
    • I've removed this. A holdover from an earlier version of this article where that statement was literally half of the lead.
  • "The locations of National Register properties for which the latitude and longitude coordinates are included below, may be seen in a map" - where's the map? I don't get this sentence at all......
    • Also removed. Another holdover from before I started editing the article,
  • There's a large amount of whitespace between the last paragraph and the heading, can that be reduced?
    • I've shuffled some stuff around and removed a random {{clear}}, and it looks a lot better on my screen now.
  • Could the first column be given a title, even if it is only "No."? It looks weird with a ref just floating there.
  • Also, as TRM pointed out, that ref isn't a ref, it's a footnote and should be formatted as such
  • And it's really weird that the ref/footnote essentially says "there's a key to these colours, but you are going to have to look elsewhere for it". The key to this article should be in this article.
  • Image, location, and description columns shouldn't be sortable
  • No queries on the text other than "The Old Linn County Jail is two stories tall" - is that the US spelling or a typo? In the UK, we spell that "storeys", but maybe the spelling is different in the States.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
    • Stories is the proper spelling in the states.

@The Rambling Man and ChrisTheDude: - So it seems like the standard NRHP templates that the hundreds of lists like this one on WP use is a blazing dumpster. Among other things, the two templates used are set up to where all rows are automatically sortable, the footnotes in the header are automatic and I can't figure out how to remove them, etc. I've cleanup up the extra whitespace at the top by removing a template that just generates whitespace and moving some stuff around, and nixed the "see map" sentence, which appears to be boilerplate for NRHP articles. However, to fix the hot mess with the table, I'm going to have to draft a table by hand in my sandbox, and then manage to convert everything over to that new table method, which could be an interesting process, as I'm not the most familiar with making tables. Would I be better off withdrawing this if it will take a few days to get things sorted out? I'm going to leave a note at WT:NRHP noting that there's a lot of issues with the standards templates used, as the sorting image columns and random unremovable footnotes is a very-widespread thing with these templates. Hog Farm Talk 03:37, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm all for uniformity across lists of similar types but we have to get the basics right. Someone who is familiar with those templates needs to explain how they implement all the needs of MOS:ACCESS and the other various concerns above, and if it's all fine, that's cool. If we can't get the templates to do the "right thing" then they should be ditched. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: - I'm more than happy to help convert the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Also, if the NRHP templates are inappropriate for use, then leave a hidden note on this list explaining why you're not using them, just for the avoidance of doubt should someone come along and re-insert them. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the reviewers so far here (Rambling Man, ChrisTheDude) may want to consult WikiProject NRHP for some of these issues. Many of them are aspects of NRHP list articles are outside of the scope of this nomination, and that have been in place for years, if not a decade or more. This doesn't at all mean that they shouldn't be changed, but what I mean is that they are in place across countless articles, and in the case of the table templates used, would necessitate a larger discussion into how best to modify the existing template. While I appreciate Hog Farm's work to draft what a replacement template could look like, it does not use code that is easily replicable in other articles, unlike {{NRHP row}} (which has MOS issues but nevertheless has advanced coding that allows for easy user functions and tracking). Let's try to avoid reinventing the wheel here. I would suggest overlooking issues that involve editing {{NRHP row}} and {{NRHP header}} for now, while simultaneously requesting those changes on the template talk and NRHP wikiproject talk pages in detail. ɱ (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd personally rather not go through the hard process of changing the article over to my rather clunky homemade template unless there is clear consensus that template is appropriate. But I do agree that there are problems with the standard NRHP templates from access and other perspectives. I'd rather not have to withdraw this nomination, but it looks like it might come to that eventually. Hog Farm Talk 04:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I've handled most of the replies that don't involve the table, will try to get to the rest of the non-table ones soon. Hog Farm Talk 04:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@: - apologies, but if a template has multiple MOS failures and contravenes WP:ACCESS, I can't personally support its use in a potential FL, and the fact that it is used in many other articles isn't really relevant..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Personally for me, being able to sort on the image, location, and description columns is daft but I wouldn't oppose based on that. The weird floating ref attached to nothing in the header of the first column could be fixed quite easily I would have thought. For me the major issues are:
  1. Using colour only as an indicator of type is a clear WP:ACCESS failure
  2. Not having the key in the article and requiring people to click away to find it is very unhelpful and user-unfriendly.
Those are my personal sticking points...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@: It's the other way around. What the NRHP templates do or do not do are not within scope of FLC until an attempt is made to use them in an FL candidate. Hog Farm, you do not need to withdraw at all, the re-coded table looks much better and while it's useful for someone to leave a courtesy note at the NRHP project perhaps making various suggestions to improve those templates, it has no bearing on this candidate. There's no policy that says all NRHP articles need to use these templates, and until they are demonstrably improved, nor should they be for articles we are aiming to make the "best" on offer from Wikipedia. Once the NRHP templates are fixed to the satisfaction of MOS then they can be used in featured material. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude - I think your larger sticking points are addressed in, as Magicpiano mentioned, List of NHLs in MI. And to Rambling Man too - This does not require edits to the templates themselves, and can be implemented in NRHP lists as seen here. Hog Farm can easily make these changes. As for those that involve template editing - you both don't see that this isn't how we make changes on Wikipedia. Problematic templates need to have their issues addressed centrally; complaining about them in an FLC to editors who can't directly make those changes is unhelpful. Your points are valid, but there are several other NRHP lists that are FLs; it seems there is a precedent that changes to template codes is beyond the scope here. ɱ (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
you both don't see that this isn't how we make changes on Wikipedia... Um, not quite, but it's Sunday so it must be the day for patronising me. I said the template issues needed to be addressed centrally at the project. "other stuff exists" is not a valid argument, some of the lists to which you allude are nearly ten years old and would fail FLC quickly these days. In fact, I may go through and get them up at FLRC now you've mentioned it, it's obvious they need work to be considered the best we can do. I'm also not clear on how those templates meet MOS:DTT. But as I said, that's not for here, that's for elsewhere. There's no policy enforcing the use of sub-standard templates, and if an editor wants to use a simple hand-crafted MOS-compliant table, that's not a problem in the slightest. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:12, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't mean to offend, but I am uncertain of your work on NRHP/historic site articles - consistency is important across the project. "Other stuff exists" may not itself be an argument, but when highly-regarded FLC reviewers had accessibility concerns then and mentioned that it's beyond the scope of the review, it sets an important precedent. ɱ (talk) 19:21, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not relevant in any sense. We are here for FLC not to held hostage to a Wikiproject. Other stuff exists and is more than a decade old. Times and standards have changed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I've been following this discussion and agree with ChrisTheDude and The Rambling Man on the accessibility issues. I'd like to jump in and add a comment regarding the use of existing templates in FL candidates. We recently encountered a similar issue at the FLC for Gibraltar national football team results, which originally used templates from WikiProject Football and looked like this. After discussion, it was decided to convert the table away from the templates to use a table format; it now looks like this. In other words, there is established precedent for ignoring problematic templates with accessibility issues. If the relevant WikiProject can create a properly accessible template, FLs should use it, but we can't just ignore the FL criteria. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
I think my example of the FLC for Michigan landmarks is precisely the opposite precedent; we're not about to reinvent what color coding is used for the roughly 88,000 NRHP-related articles (potentially over 100k eventually given 94k NRHP sites listed now), just within the course of this single FLC review, sorry. It's an important idea to bring up at the WikiProject, but breaking the standard here alone is improper. ɱ (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
It's not relevant really what a wikiproject thinks I'm afraid. The tables aren't compliant with MOS, they don't sort properly and that's just scratching the surface. They must be avoided in featured material until they are proven fixed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@: - I think your larger sticking points are addressed in, as Magicpiano mentioned, List of NHLs in MI - that list looks OK to me in terms of having the key actually in the article and not using just colour to signify something. If that was implemented here, I'd be happy with that (although I'd still prefer the first column to have an actual heading, as the "floating ref" just looks weird to me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Again, that latter part is something that requires template editing, which will affect articles across the whole project. If other editors agree that "No." is okay, I can add that, but it's not a reference number, it's just numerically ordering the alphabetical list. ɱ (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Another good reason not to be bound by a project. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

List of Fire temples in Iran[edit]

Nominator(s): POS78 (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because It is important in the lists of historical monuments and has sufficient and reliable sources POS78 (talk) 13:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Two drive-by comments
  • At just four sentences, the lead is far far too short
  • Why is the word "fire" capitalised in the article title? I can see no reason for that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Further comments
  • I would lose the word "see" in the two brackets in the lead
  • "For, one "who sacrifices unto fire with fuel in his hand ..., is given happiness"." - this isn't a complete sentence
  • "The Adrian is a historical Fire Temple" - here you have capitals on both words of "Fire Temple". The title of the article only has a capital on Fire, and the first sentence of the lead doesn't have a capital on either word. Which is correct?
  • "The Adrian is a historical Fire Temple belongs to" => "The Adrian is a historical Fire Temple belonging to"
  • "the story of finding Zarathustra and accepting Vishtaspa's religion is regulated" - the story is "regulated"? What does that mean?
  • Under the second temple, the second sentence is insanely long and needs breaking up. Also, no reason for a capital A on "and" in the middle of a sentence
  • "The Adur Farnbag is a historical Fire Temple belongs to" => "The Adur Farnbag is a historical Fire Temple belonging to"
  • No need to keep wikilinking fire temple
  • No need for capital on Mosque
  • "The Espi Mazget is a historical Fire Temple and mosque belonging to"
  • "It related to the period Sassanid antiquity building." - I think this should just be "It relates to the Sassanid period of antiquity"
  • "The Fire Temple of Aspakhu is a historical Fire Temple belongs to" => belonging to
  • "The Fire Temple of Azar Ju is a historical Fire Temple belongs to" => belonging to (I'm going to stop typing that each time it occurs, just check for all the uses and fix them all)
  • No need to keep wikilinking Sasanian Empire
  • "eight kilometers west of city center" => "eight kilometers west of the city center"
  • Fire Temple of Isfahan description has no sources
  • Is there a way to vary the descriptions a bit? It gets a bit repetitive reading "The Fire Temple of [X] is a Fire Temple belongs to the [Y] dynasty and is located in [Z] County" over and over again............
  • " The Fire Temple of Kusan is a historical Fire Temple belongs to the Early centuries" - no need for capital on Early
  • Fire Temple of Yazd note is only partly sourced
  • "The Temple of Mehr is a historical Temple belongs to the Prehistory" - no need for a capital on Prehistory
  • All sources which are in (I presume) Persian need the language indicated. Also, a translation of the title would be useful
  • Think that's all from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1951[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

With 63 of these lists now at WP:FL and my other current nomination having multiple supports and no outstanding issues, here's the latest in the series for your consideration. An interesting fact about this particular year is that literally every single artist to reach number one has been considered important enough to the history of the genre to be inducted into the Country Music Hall of Fame. Your feedback will be most gratefully received -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass[edit]

  • Consistent all around
  • No issues here. As a side note, AllMusic is being discussed at the RSN (here)—though it looks like most editors agree it is reliable—If you're interested, I'm sure your input would be most welcome, as you seem to have much experience with the site. Aza24 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Have glanced at a couple, no issues.

Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

MewithoutYou discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I will admit that this list is outside of my wheelhouse, but following the example of past FLs I think this is ready --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I might mention in the opening sentence that they are/were a Christian band. I read right through the first paragraph and was quite surprised by the reference right at the end to them charting on the Christian charts
  • "....[A→B] Life. [A→B] Life is an post-hardcore..." - any way to avoid writing the album twice so close together? Also "an post-hardcore" isn't right......
  • I notice that the use of singular/plural to refer to the band is inconsistent - you have "The band was formed in 2001" but then "mewithoutYou released their second album". Personally, being British, I would always use the plural form, but I was under the impression that in the States a band, unless called "The Somethings", was always treated as singular......
  • "By It's All Crazy! It's All False! It's All a Dream! It's Alright in 2009, the band shifted genres" - this should be either "With It's All Crazy! It's All False! It's All a Dream! It's Alright in 2009, the band shifted genres" (if the change was a specific single event with the release of that album) or "By It's All Crazy! It's All False! It's All a Dream! It's Alright in 2009, the band had shifted genres" (if it was more gradual)
  • "The band announced that 2020 would be their last year as an active band in 2019" - wording is mildly confusing, I would suggest "The band announced in 2019 that 2020 would be their last year as an active band" would be clearer
  • Refs against Pale Horses are in the wrong order
  • Live Albums table should not have a capital A
  • Refs against Blood Enough For Us All are in the wrong order
  • Refs in the two Appearances tables should be centred to match the others
  • Refs against Split with Circa Survive are in the wrong order
  • Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • is there really no other refs for the music videos other than mewithoutYou's website? It would be better to avoid primary sources...
    • I can't find the information in a better place --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, just thought I'd check. Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure Jonathan Bautts can count as the publisher for ref 2
  • your inclusion of locations is inconsistent, unless there is some pattern I'm not identifying
  • You link Billboard but no other publishers/works, I suggest unlinking
  • What makes Jonathan Bautts a reliable source?
    • I see that you have been reading my FAC reviews :P It is an interview with one of the band members and the answer comes directly from them. This was a hard one, because of how old the EP is and how rarely people ask the band about Blood Enough For Us All. I can go back to looking for a better source, but I haven't found much. The internet is devoid of references to the EP and there is nothing in newspapers about it. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
      • Sounds good Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
  • What makes Punk news a reliable source?
  • spotchecks not done. Will probably do some later. Aza24 (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Have checked a couple (15, 27, 35, 21), looks good.
@Aza24: please let me know what you think -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:46, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
I was in the middle of looking when you pinged! Given the lesser sourcing restrictions for FLC (vs FAC) I'm inclined to let certain sources be permissible. Give me a second to do some spotchecks... Aza24 (talk) 01:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Alright, pass for source review. Good work! Aza24 (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

List of University of Illinois Presidents[edit]

Nominator(s): Thrakkx (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list features all of the relevant information one would need to know about the office of the president of the University of Illinois System. Thrakkx (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I would integrate the "History" section into the lede.
    • Done
  • Much of the lede/history is unsourced.
    • I assume I was writing too many sentences between my sources, so I added references more frequently.
  • Add links to the image caption
    • Done
  • Why not just spell out the notes?
    • Changed
  • Another image would be nice.
    • Added another image. I could modify the table to resemble the image setup which appears on List of presidents of the United States, but not every president on this list has a picture available.
      • Depends on how many don't have pictures. If it's only a few, go ahead. But if you're missing half, it'll work as is. ~ HAL333 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Link Illinois Industrial University.
    • Done
  • Add sortability to the table.
    • Done

More later. ~ HAL333 18:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Made changes according to your recommendations. Thrakkx (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Captions don't need periods.
    • Changed
  • Could you add scope to the name column?
    • Not sure what you mean here.
  • Link Stanley O. Ikenberry both times in the table.
    • Changed
  • Was White the only president to resign? Did any die in office?
    • Based off of the short bios of each, none died in office. White is the only president to have resigned from a scandal. The next closest to a scandal would be Stoddard's presidency, who was ousted with a no confidence vote.
  • Personal preference, but I think the images would look better if upright.
    • Changed

That's all. A short and simple list, but effective. ~ HAL333 21:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Changes made Thrakkx (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Non-source related, but I find the notes column to take up a lot of space for no real purpose. Most of the entries are blank after all. I wonder if the remaining notes can be converted to literal notes next to the appropriate name (perhaps with the use of the {{efn}} template) to avoid this.
    • Adopted
  • multiple pages should be "pp." not "p."
    • Corrected
  • Your inclusion of locations is inconsitent
    • Corrected. Locations removed from sources
  • there is discontinuity with labeling the University of Illinois System as publisher vs website throughout.
    • Corrected. All listed as publisher.
  • I have no doubts on reliabillity.
  • Spotchecks not done, will probably briefly do at some point. Aza24 (talk) 01:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Made recommended changes. Thrakkx (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

  • Pass for source review (unrelated query below) Aza24 (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)


  • Completely optional, but I thought I'd bring up the potential use of a timeline graph—which I think is rather neat (You can see one I made lower down on the Librarian of Congress page). If you're interested, it may be worth inclusion; you can either make it yourself or I'd be open to doing so, in case you're not sure how to go about it. Aza24 (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

2012 Summer Olympics medal table[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2012 London Summer Olympics medal table for featured list promotion because I've feel that this list meets the criteria for inclusion. These Olympic games are personally my second favorite edition behind the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. This is my first non-film related list I am attempting to submit for featured list status and I based the format on other Olympic medal tables that became FL. Please feel free to make comments or make adjustments yourself. Birdienest81 (talk) 09:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Support – Strong work all around. Hopefully we'll be able to make a new list for the Tokyo Olympics soon... RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Slovakia[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 14:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Slovakia has 7 WHS and 14 sites on the tentative list. The list for Hungary is seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. The style is standard. I am now using a slightly longer version of the intro which should help with the often-seen concern that the intro was short. The style follows the previously promoted FLs. Tone 14:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review – Pass[edit]

  • consistent all around
  • uses UNESCO sources, which is standard with UNESCO lists and certainly reliable
  • have checked a couple, all checks out from what I saw. Aza24 (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 02:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Philip Seymour Hoffman on screen and stage[edit]

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Philip Seymour Hoffman was one of the greatest actors of his generation. This list describes his roles in film, television and the stage. As always I welcome all constructive comments on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

  • No worries - support. What a shame this is one list that won't need any updating going forward........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Municipalities of Jalisco[edit]

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) and Coyatoc (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

We are continuing our goal of bringing all lists of municipalities in Mexico up to a consistent, high standard (9 states already have their municipality lists featured using this standardized format, along with dozens of other list of municipalities in North America). We have updated the information to reflect the most recent census and tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations. The page should be pretty standardized but there can always be improvements. Thanks to everyone who regularly reviews these lists! Mattximus (talk) 16:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  • It's not really a big deal so support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks again for your review! Mattximus (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Is note i written correctly? Same goes with note o and v - not sure the second "and" is needed. Template:Dome
  • I would rewrite note j San Gabriel was renamed Venustiano Carranza between 1934 and 1993. The "between sounds like the date of renaming is sometime within a date range.  Done

That's all. Solid work. I'll go ahead and support given the above is addressed. ~ HAL333

  • Thanks for the review! Mattximus (talk) 23:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

List of Coppa Italia finals[edit]

In your opinion, the page satisfies the FL Criterias? Dr Salvus (talk) 15:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Nominator(s): Dr Salvus (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

I nominate it for the featured list because in my opinion it meets all the criteria to become Featured List. After proposing the appointment a few days ago I made many changes and I also asked for the peer review. Dr Salvus (talk) 10:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Procedural issues
I'm disappointed (but not too surprised) that you have nominated this again already. I wonder whether you have actually read and understood "all the criteria to become Featured List", as you seem to have trouble with instructions, with opening and closing nominations and requests for peer review. For example, the list in question is not what I would call Stable (Criterion 6), as it was just considerably reworked in the last 26 hours before your nomination.
You say you "also asked for the peer review", but where is it? Why did you give up on it? "Asking" means nothing if you don't wait for it to happen. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Nominating a list right after reworking it isn't that bad if no one else is editing it, but yeah, the nomination itself wasn't done right or put in the right spot. The PR is here; it does not appear to be closed, which should be done prior to nominating, and in fact has comments as recently as yesterday. Dr Salvus you need to either close the PR or close this FLC, and please either follow the instructions at WP:PR or make a clear statement here for closing, don't just remove the talk page template. --PresN 18:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@PresN: I closed the PR request. I'd like you to declare yourself for or against. Dr Salvus (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
You have not closed the PR. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Peer review/guidelines#Step 4: Closing a review -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@JohnFromPinckney: I have poor English. I know grammar well but I don't have an extensive vocabulary. There is that he can be wrong. Dr Salvus (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude:  Done

Please tell me if you agree or disagree? Possibly if you are against it, please explain the motivation. Dr Salvus (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Please tell me if the page satisfies the criterias for becoming a Featured List. Dr Salvus (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Nominations are typically open for weeks before getting enough reviews to be closed. Asking three times in the first day for people to review is not going to help. --PresN 23:31, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment: You did not initiate this nomination correctly. When you open a nomination, you should create the page by selecting "initiate the nomination" from the FL header on the talk page. This generates a page with links to the tools to help analyze the article's quality. Also, it appears from this diff that you deleted the original FL nomination header on the talk page. This is a problem, as there is now no record of the first nomination on the talk page. I would urge you to immediately withdraw this nomination, and please listen to the advice people are giving and read the FLC guidelines thoroughly before attempting another nomination. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123:  Done
@PresN: - the nominator has now re-created the FLC at the correct location of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Coppa Italia finals/archive2 (I didn't notice last night that the title of this one was malformed) - does this one need archiving in some way? Merging/redirecting to the new one? Or just leaving here? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
That's actually my fault- the nomination was at the wrong spot (no /archive2) and then I moved it with a double-'Wikipedia:'. Now fixed, this is the only nomination. At this point I think we've finally sorted out the procedural issues, so I'm going to collapse these comments so it can start over with comments towards the list itself. --PresN 14:06, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Dr Salvus: You cannot delete other users' comments from an FLC, as you did here. This is unacceptable behavior for any talk page or discussion. I have added the comments back. While I am willing to accept on good faith that this may have been an accident, if it happens again, I will be forced to oppose on a procedural basis. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: I apologize. I made an error in good faith. I got confused in something. I didn't understood what I had to do. Please leave comments about this page. Are you for or against about the nomination of the page for FL?
In terms of the actual article, sourcing is still a major concern.
  • Source 1 is from AlterVista, which allows anyone to make their own website, so we don't know if it is reliable.
  • Source 2 says nothing about Serie B, Serie C, and Serie D teams, so it isn't a proper source for the statement it follows.
  • Source 3 is about this year's championship, not past years' championships, so it also isn't a proper source for the statement it follows.
  • Source 6 is a book from 2004, so even if it verifies everything before that (I'm assuming it does, but I can't check because I don't have the ISBN, which you should probably add), it leaves the last 15 or so years unsourced.
  • Source 7 contradicts the article and cites Wikipedia, so it is no good. (This was pointed out to you in the peer review.)
Other issues:
  • There are no images; per WP:FLCR #5b, you should probably add one or two.
  • I'm not a fan of writing the team names twice in years with two legs in the finals. At a quick glance, it gives the wrong impression that the team won two years in a row. I would suggest merging the team names in those years to span both rows.
  • Don't use rows that span multiple columns, as in 1937–38, 1940–41, and so on. This causes accessibility and sorting issues. If you need to explain something, put it in an existing box or in a footnote. (The exception is 1926–27, since there was no final.)
If you're looking for similar FL examples, I would suggest looking at List of FA Cup Finals and List of Super Bowl champions as a starting point. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@RunningTiger123: Hi. I made some edits. Is the page ready for FL, or it need of more edits? Unfortunatley I did not find the ISBN of the book I've cited. Dr Salvus (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Dr Salvus: - seriously, you don't need to keep asking over and over again if people think the article is ready for FL. People will support it if they think it's ready, you don't need to keep asking everyone the question...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
You've made some changes, but not everything that I noted was fixed. Right away, I noticed there are still rows spanning multiple columns that cause sorting issues and you did not remove source 1 even though its reliability is unclear (in other words, not acceptable for a FL). Also, the new source 5 does not appear reliable, and the attendance numbers for recent tournaments are still unverified. Additionally, the image does not have alt text, which it needs for accessibility reasons.
When it comes to sourcing, don't just find a random website listing the information you need to verify. You need to use reliable sources – official league or tournament websites, or websites for newspapers and magazines, are ideal. You also must have clear sources for everything in the list. You may not be able to find a single reliable source listing all of the information in the table for every tournament; in that case, find source for individual matches. Is it more work? Absolutely – but FLs aren't easy to do properly; they require a lot of time and research to be thoroughly sourced and verified. Please don't rush this; take the time to find everything you need. That ISBN, for instance, has to be out there somewhere; don't say you can't find it after only a few hours of work. (For reference, my current FL nominee has 172 references, and it took me about a month of dedicated work and research to get it from here to here.) If this needs to happen, maybe you should withdraw the nomination and take the time to find all of those sources. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It appears that the image you used is taken from Getty Images, meaning it is not free to use. I have removed the link here and will be deleting the image from Wikimedia Commons shortly. You cannot add copyrighted images to an article without a detailed explanation of why the image is necessary and why there are no alternatives available, which you have not done here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

  • The photo caption should be "The Coppa Italia trophy" (no 's)
  • There should not be a space between the end of the second sentence and the ref
  • "Since the first final of the 1922 season between Vado and Udinese" => "Since the first final between Vado and Udinese in 1922" (and no need to link the 1922 season again, you already linked it two sentences earlier)
  • There should not be a space between the full stop and the ref at the end of the second paragraph
  • "Juventus holds the record" => "Juventus hold the record"
  • "Milan lost the greatest" => "Milan have lost the greatest"
  • There should not be a space between the full stop and the ref at the end of the third paragraph
  • "The final match with the highest number of scored goals" => "The highest-scoring final"
  • "Sampdoria–Ancona in 1994, where Sampdoria won 6–1" => "Sampdoria–Ancona in 1994, which Sampdoria won 6–1"
  • The refs immediately after that should be in correct numerical order
  • There should not be a space between the full stop and the ref after "Juventus in 2020"
  • No need to link Juventus again in the last sentence of the lead
  • Refs after the final sentence of the lead should be in correct numerical order
  • Refs at the top of each table should be in correct numerical order
  • There should not be a full stop after "edition not completed" in 1926-27
  • Why were there no finals between 1922 and 1927, between 1927 and 1936, and between 1943 and 1957? This should be explained somewhere, probably in the lead
  • If you sort on any other column and then re-sort by year, some of the rows saying "XXX won on aggregate" appear above the individual legs and some below
  • I find it hard to believe that so many attendances are unknown, especially for finals as recent as the late 1980s
  • Ref 1 is some random person's blog - not a reliable source
  • is not the author of ref 7
  • Date format is different in different refs
  • Quite a bit of work to do, I'm afraid...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)


I made the edits that you advised me. Thank you. I've not understood very well these two comments.
  • If you sort on any other column and then re-sort by year, some of the rows saying "XXX won on aggregate" appear above the individual legs and some below (what do you mean?)
    • If you sort on the "winners" column, and then sort on "season" so that they go back into date order, the row saying "Internazionale won 2–1 on aggregate." for 1981-82 appears below the results of the two matches, but the row saying "2–2 on aggregate: Roma won 4–2 on penalties after extra time." for 1980-81 appears above the results of the two matches??? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I find it hard to believe that so many attendances are unknown, especially for finals as recent as the late 1980s (data about the numbers of spectators for each final from the 1980s to today are present) -- Dr Salvus (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
    • What I meant is that I find it implausible there is no available source for the attendance at the final in, for example, 1986, given that List of FA Cup Finals has (sourced) attendance figures right back to the 1870s.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Thank you very much. I would like know if the page will be suitable for FL when I will find the data about attendance and when I'll make the adjustment which you've advised? Dr Salvus (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
        Dr Salvus, we know you would like to know if the page will be suitable for FL, because you keep asking. This is the 6th time you've explicity asked on this page, not counting the nomination itself (or your first nomination). As you have already been told twice: Don't keep asking. Rather, read about the FL process in the blue box at the top of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates.
        And no, when you have made all of the changes suggested by ChrisTheDude, you need to address the concerns raised by RunningTiger123. There may be more editors looking at the list you've nominated, and they will probably raise other issues. Be patient, and let the process play out. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 04:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
What do you mean? Dr Salvus (talk) 06:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
What does who mean by what? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Further comments
  • There are still lots of spaces between full stops and references, something I pointed out above
  • "and 1943 from 1957" should be "and from 1943 to 1957"
  • "the competition was not concluded on 1926–27" => "the competition was not concluded in 1926–27"
  • "Finals matches of Coppa Italia" (above the table) => "Coppa Italia finals" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Dr Salvus: - do you plan to return and address the outstanding comments, some of which are ten days old? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude:. I did not edit the page because I have not find informations about the attendance of final matches Dr Salvus (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

List of endemic birds of Borneo[edit]

Nominator(s): MeegsC (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

This is my first attempt at a featured list. I've been working on this one for a few months, since finding it on the WP:BIRDS project list of articles in need of improvement, and I think it's ready. We have very few featured lists in the project (and even fewer so thoroughly sourced), and I'd like to help change that. MeegsC (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Quick driveby comments: the table needs colspan and rowspan tags (see MOS:DTAB) for accessibility, and the images need alt text (it can be basic, e.g. "drawing of a green bird"). Also note that you seem to be recreating {{IUCN statuses}} with an infobox, which is fine but just letting you know the option is there. --PresN 16:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
PresN thanks for pointing me to the IUCN statuses template; I didn't know about that one! I've added alt text for all pictures. I'm not clear on where to add the COLSPAN/ROWSPAN tags. Do I need to add those (i.e. |colspan=1 rowspan=1) for each element? Or can I do it once for the table? MeegsC (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I just went ahead and did it as it was quicker than trying to explain (mainly because I mucked it up in the first place by saying "colspan" when I meant "colscopes", e.g. scope="col". That said, now that's done, it is strange that the first column, aka the "main" column, is the "taxon order" instead of the bird name. Taxon order just doesn't seem like the most important thing here; this may be because I don't fully understand it- it seems to just be the ordering that some list put bird genera/species in? E.g. they wrote out the tree of birds and flattened it into an excel table? I don't see how that ordering adds anything to the reader, it seems entirely arbitrary which order/family etc. was listed first, none of which is present in this table anyways. And if it's a fairly arbitrary ordering, even if helpful to bird researchers, to have, then I don't think it should be the primary column in the table even if that's what the table's default sort is. I'd expect the birds' names to be first, even if the table isn't default sorted alphabetical.
A second new point- the EBA column only has one possible value in this list (since Borneo only has one EBA), but I was surprised to see that as I expected to find the secondary EBA ids in that column too. That would make it more useful here; I'm not sure if you were just going for consistency with other lists and it's only odd because of the size of the country. --PresN 03:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
PresN, thanks for fixing the table. I'll have a look, so I know what to do in the future. As to why the list is in taxonomic order, that's standard for lists of birds. Those who are interested in birds are surely the most likely to use this list, and they're well-used to seeing things in this order; it's how all field guides are arranged, for example. Those who aren't used to this order can easily sort it by common or scientific name instead. That's why I used sortable columns. As for the EBA column, there are actually two values in the list; one of the secondary EBAs is there as well. (The other EBAs don't house species endemic only to Borneo.) I thought that readers might be interested to know which of Borneo's endemics could be found in the designated EBA(s), but if you and others think that it's extraneous information, I can certainly remove it. MeegsC (talk) 09:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: Source 9 is probably going to cause issues because it's a Google Docs spreadsheet with no clear author. Is there another source with the same information, or is there some way to prove that this source is reliable and not just a random Google Doc? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

RunningTiger123, I've linked instead to the page that calls the spreadsheet. It shows the editors, publisher, etc. Would that be sufficient? MeegsC (talk) 16:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's better – it makes it clear who the original organization is. I'll try to do a more thorough review later. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment "The following list is" is outdated wording. This could be a note for the first column or simply reworded into something like: "The International Ornithologists' Union provides a taxonomic order for the 56 endemic birds of Borneo based on x". That would work too. Mattximus (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Mattximus I thought that was only for the lede! I've modified this to put it as a note for the Taxonomic Order column. Can you please have another look at tell me if this suffices? MeegsC (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Pop Smoke discography[edit]

Nominator(s): The Ultimate Boss (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is well-sourced and organized. I've used other FL discographies; like Meghan Trainor discography and Bruno Mars discography. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Personally I wouldn't have columns in a table which have no content, but I guess it's not a big deal so OK to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Burnley F.C. players (50–99 appearances)[edit]

Nominator(s): WA8MTWAYC (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Another Burnley F.C. list (and the last one)... This one covers all players who have made between 50 and 99 appearances for the club. Some familiar names might include Charlie Austin and Joey Barton. One of the early pioneering managers and a quite unknown figure in England, Jimmy Hogan, is also included. I'm looking forward to all feedback/reviews! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 12:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose Per criterion 3c. I apologize I missed the other FLC, but I am just baffled why this would be split from List of Burnley F.C. players. Neither list is so long or complex that it needs to be broken up, and doing so reduces the utility of sorting the table. I just test-implemented a combined list and the page is only 70kb (and page length restrictions only apply to readable prose). Reywas92Talk 19:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Reywas92 I proposed a merger between the two lists not too long ago (Talk:List of Burnley F.C. players) but it was rejected. These kind of lists are growing rapidly because a player "only" has to play two seasons to be included. This list was never split in the first place but just created to include Burnley F.C. players who have played between 50 and 99 apps for the team, as is common for other clubs, although most have players included between 25 and 99 apps (see e.g. List of Arsenal F.C. players (25–99 appearances), List of Cardiff City F.C. players (25–99 appearances), List of Gillingham F.C. players (25–49 appearances)). Also, this list is currently about 36kb, which is enough to be a stand-alone list. I hope you want to reconsider your oppose. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 20:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Worth noting that there are already 12 FLs of the type "List of Example F.C. players (nn-nn appearances)"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Chris's comment there was "The merged article would be huge" but I just did a test merge on that page, and it is by no means too huge, smaller than many other FLs. GiantSnowman said there should be "manageable articles" but I see no basis to suggest that this is unmanageable. This combined Burnley article would have 371 names, while List of Gillingham F.C. players (also >50 apps) has 406 names. Is that page manageable? Absolutely. List of Manchester United F.C. players (1–24 appearances) has 477 names but are we actually having trouble managing that? If this were 1-99 two articles may make more sense. I think a few of the other teams' lists could be consolidated too – again, improving sortability and reducing duplication – and the excuse that other pages are split doesn't hold water, especially since it seems all of those go down to 25 or even just 1 appearance! Reywas92Talk 21:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Reywas92 That testmerge shows the list will be quite large and will be much larger within a few seasons per the reasons above (and might cause a split proposal in the near future). Burnley have had about 1,500 players in their history (in +/- 140 years). If we would make a list which includes players who made between 1 and 99 apps, it would consist of at least 1,200 players (too much and the number will grow and grow). I don't see a valid reason why such lists (25/50-99 apps) shouldn't be existing.
GiantSnowman and ChrisTheDude (sorry to bother you both) might explain their reasons better than me... WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd say to cross that bridge when you get to it. Neither the above Manchester and Gillingham articles are unmanageable, nor is this combined one. Reywas92Talk 22:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm getting confused as to what Reywas92 is suggesting - is it that the list of players with 50-99 apps should be merged in with the list of those with 100+ apps, while the 1-49 list should remain separate? Or that all three should be merged together? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh, scratch that, I hadn't noticed (half asleep) that there isn't actually a 1-49 list for Burnley....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
I confess when I commented at the above-linked talk page I think I was skim-reading and thought the proposal was to create a single list for all Burnley players ever, not just one for 50+..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It's standard to split lists like this into separate articles, broken down by number of appearances. I don't understand what the issue is. GiantSnowman 10:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, Chris and Snowman. I should have been clearer in the merge proposal, to save the confusion. This situation leaves us with some options. Firstly, this nom can stay open but won't attract many reviewers because of the real possibility that this nom will be archived (and I don't blame anyone who doesn't want his/her time being wasted on reviewing it). We can also merge both lists. Thirdly, we can leave it as it is and maybe even create a third one (but leave the possibility it will be opposed for the same reason). And there are some more options. I don't really have a strong preference to be honest, but I'm interested what would be the wisest decision. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
"this nom can stay open but won't attract many reviewers" - there's no reason to assume this will be the case....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
People are more than welcome to review the page and overrule my opinion, but I think one topic ought to be reviewed as one featured article rather than separate assessments, and I see no basis for this split other than "but other pages have been split!" since the other split pages have a greater total number of entries. IMHO the need to a split for "manageability" is not there as the merged list is still an easily editable size, in accordance with 3c. You've done really fine work on this and I otherwise support but keeping it on one page would still have it all featured. Reywas92Talk 19:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Reywas92 Fair enough. Thank you for the kind words, I appreciate it. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I genuinely couldn't find anything to pick up, and I don't have an issue with the list being separate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you as ever for the comments and review, Chris! WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Sculptures of the National Statuary Hall Collection[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 16:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

I had been working on this list for several months before the events of January 6. Fortunately none of the statues were seriously damaged. I hope this serves as an effective catalogue of the National Statuary Hall Collection. ~ HAL333 16:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Since the table is sortable, duplicate wikilinks should probably be used in the Medium and Location columns.
Fixed. ~ HAL333 23:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • While the statues of Douglass and Parks are both significant, their relevant sources (here and here) both clearly state that they are not part of the National Statuary Hall Collection.
Removed. ~ HAL333 23:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Should the sculptor Felix de Weldon sort by "Weldon" or "de Weldon"? I'm genuinely asking; I'm not sure how last names like this work.
I had to look it up myself. Apparently, a name like that sorts with "de" only if what follows is a single syllable. How specific. ~ HAL333 23:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Other than that, it looks really good; I found the statues fascinating when I visited the Capitol and am happy to see this as an FLC. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Support – I removed the key (no need for it anymore if every statue is from a state), but everything else looks good to go. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Support: I can think of a couple minor improvements, but I think this list serves Wikipedia's readers well and should be promoted to FL status. ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Ham II[edit]

  • Would readers expect to find this information at National Statuary Hall Collection? It seems a shame for the "Demographics" section of that article, in particular, to be separate from this list.
I don't really know how to address this. Do you feel strongly about this? If really necessary, I guess I could merge them, but it would require a bit of work. I'll think more about this. ~ HAL333 19:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The lede picture's caption should mention that the room depicted is the National Statuary Hall.
  • Is "labelled" American English?
Nope. Nice catch. ~ HAL333 15:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • There are two successive sentences starting with the word "only" in the lede.
  • The flags of Illinois, Massachusetts and Rhode Island are mostly white. They'd stand out more from their backgrounds if the "Commissioned by" column had the same dark background as the "Statue" column. Then the "Statue" column text might have to be bold, to stand out further.
I changed the column to a light yellow color. Hopefully that works. I was hesitant to bold due to the issues Chris touched on above. ~ HAL333 22:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Done. ~ HAL333 19:54, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Should "Constitution Hall; Lansing, Michigan" and the rest have a comma instead of the semicolon? And should it be "Lansing, Michigan"? Ham II (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of presidents of Georgetown University[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 20:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

This is my first FL nomination, so feedback from the FL regulars would be much appreciated. I've improved this article several times over the years, most significantly in the past week, and believe it meets the FL criteria. Thanks in advance. Ergo Sum 20:13, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Support ~ HAL333 22:00, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Humphrey Bogart on stage, screen, radio and television[edit]

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This was a rescue of an un-sourced filmography created in 2005, with very little context or sourcing since then. Given that Humphrey Bogart was an iconic figure during his lifetime, and a film legend ever since, I decided to clean this up and source it. Let's see how it measures up by FLC standards. — Maile (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comments
  • Don't have time for a full review right now, but two things that immediately jump out are as follows:
    • There is no reason for the abbreviation "misc" to be used in a section heading - write the word in full
 Done — Maile (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Towards the end of the article, prose is suddenly abruptly replaced with bullet points. Turn these into proper prose.
 Done — Maile (talk) 22:41, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I will look at the article properly later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support ~ HAL333 18:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

M. Night Shyamalan filmography[edit]


Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC) ; Some Dude From North Carolina

I am nominating this for featured list because in my opinion it is well referenced and written. With the help of Some Dude From North Carolina we have joined forces in the creation and writing of the article. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HAL
  • Remove the first and third use of "also"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
  • Would place scope on the film titles.
  • In ref 38, just call the work Vulture.
Fixed Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
  • You should make some sections of the table sortable.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk?
  • I despise row span, but that's just my personal preference.

Overall, looks pretty good. ~ HAL333 15:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: Done. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 17:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Happy to support. ~ HAL333 01:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

List of carnivorans[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 03:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

For nearly two years, I've been nominating lists of species in Carnivora (felids/canids/mustelids/procyonids/ursids/mephitids/viverrids/herpestids/pinnipeds), covering all of the families of animals in the order that could support a list. Above them, however, was a parent list: List of carnivorans (ex. List of species in order Carnivora), which was a simple bulleted list of all of the species in the order. It couldn't be supplanted by the child lists: 4 of the 15 families are too small to support a list, and the concept of "everything in the order" made sense. But a list that had 11 "main" templates and 4 tiny sections wasn't much use to readers, nor was a mile-long duplicative series of tables. So, we arrive at a capstone FLC: Instead of duplicating the child lists by using the same tables to cover all 285 species, we pull back a level to match the scope going up a level, and have tables covering the 129 genera in the order Carnivora, letting viewers see the relationships at that level with child lists to drill down further into individual families. I hope it is interesting to read! Thanks for reviewing. --PresN 03:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Good choice to do by genus!
  • "different" before "body plans" is superfluous
  • Collage selection is nice
  • Subfamily Ailurinae (Gray, 1843) – one genera" and elsewhere: should be one genus
  • "Members of the Canidae family are canids, and include..." and similar elsewhere shouldn't have a comma.
  • "Members of the Mustelidae family are mustelids, and are composed of" It's not 'members are composed of', should be 'members include' like the others
  • I see the pattern for those with multiple species but it's not clear why some genus names have a common name under them and not others
  • I think the diets overuse the word "Primarily". I think it can generally be assumed these are not exhaustive or exclusive lists of everything they can eat. Heck, you can leave off the "eats" and just have a plain list without being a sentence. Though looking at some of the other lists this is used in all of them and I'm surprised I hadn't noticed it before.
  • Odobenidae: lowercase walrus
Looking forward to supporting at FTC as well! Reywas92Talk 20:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@Reywas92: Addressed all issues, thanks for the compliment! The common names are where the genus has one (and has more than one species); most don't- for example, Canis includes both some wolves and the coyote and golden jackal; there's no common name for the group. It's uncommon enough that I'm willing to drop the whole thing as being awkward for readers. --PresN 03:36, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I would otherwise suggest removing the parentheses and putting the common name with every genus but yeah since many don't have a single one maybe someone else has a suggestion. Nice work, Support. If you have a chance, a review at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National recreation area/archive1 would be appreciated. Reywas92Talk 19:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "Carnivora can be divided into two suborders: the cat-like Feliformia and the dog-like Caniformia, which are differentiated based on the structure of their ear bones and cranial features." - is there a ref for that sentence in the lead, particularly the last clause? I can't see it sourced anywhere in the body of the article (everything else not cited in the lead seems to be covered by citations in the tables)
  • I can see both "molluscs" and "mollusks" used - personally I didn't even realise it could be spelt both ways but better to be consistent on one or the other
  • That's all I got - fantastic work on this list (and the whole topic)! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Now cited; fixed spelling to "molluscs" - that's the 'correct' scientific spelling (since the genus is mollusca), even if 'mollusks' is a used variant, and it was actually a typo- I didn't realize the k version was a thing and my browser's spellcheck didn't flag it. Thanks! --PresN 03:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Nothing caught my eye. Admirable work. ~ HAL333 15:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Billboard Top Holiday Albums number ones of the 2010s[edit]

Nominator(s): Carbrera (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a list of works that reached number one on the US Top Holiday Albums chart in the 2010s decade. I have noticed that there are several other Billboard-related featured list candidates, and I am hoping to bring this one along too. I am the primary contributor to the list and it could become my sixth featured list if given support. I welcome all suggestions and feedback. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC).

  • It might seem obvious but it might be worth stating in the lead that the chart is specifically for Christmas-themed albums, in case anyone thinks it's simply for the biggest-selling albums during the Christmas period (which could be any album)
  • "Other musicians, like Blake Shelton,.....,amongst others" - any particular reason for singling out these seven? I'd be tempted to scrap this sentence entirely and replace it with a brief comment on how many of these albums were actually the biggest-selling album in the country at the time and therefore also topped the Billboard 200. I know the Susan Boyle album did, but I don't think many of the others did. You could also mention some/all of the albums which also topped genre charts e.g. the Duck Dynasty one (somehow) also topped the country albums chart.........
  • Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude – thank you for posting some comments so quickly. I have made edits to the list based upon your suggestions above. Let me know how it looks now, and thanks again. Carbrera (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC).
  • ChrisTheDude – thank you for the support. Would you mind commenting on the notability issue? Carbrera (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC).
  • Although the topic is not notable at all, this should be presented more like List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 2010s, with only a new line when a different album reaches number one. There is zero need to have 9 or 10 lines for one album. Just indicate the number of weeks on the right in another column. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:46, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars – I revised the table. It is not exactly like the list you suggested, partly due to the difficulty I had in attempting to convey that many albums reappear on the holiday charts every year (specifically Christmas by Michael Bublé and the first 2 Pentatonix releases), but I tried my best in making them similar. What do you think of it, now? Carbrera (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2021 (UTC).

Comments from HĐ[edit]

  • The lead is kind of fragmented. Why are some albums given specific sales figures, and why some aren't? Is it necessary to mention some artists' popularity/relevance during the holiday season (I could get it for Mariah Carey somewhat)? Some data are backed up by Billboard chart history of certain artists, which I am quite concerned whether it is a case of OR (i.e. returned to the top spot in 2016 after previously reaching it in 1998; I'd include a release year instead). I understand that as this is a decade-focused list, the lead may be particularly challenging to be engaging. I hope some of my comments help (and ping me when you've revised the lead). For the table, I concur with Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars as above. (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
– What do you think of the lead and table now? Carbrera (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC).
I have some remaining comments--
  • best-selling Christmas and holiday albums Isn't "Christmas album" and "holiday album" synonymous?
  • I still think Phil Robertson's homophobic remarks unnecessary.
  • Forbes is not entirely reliable per WP:RSP.
  • Center-aligning the ref. column would be great.
  • Other than that I am happy to support this FLC. I believe my comments are trivial and feasible. (talk) 01:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
– I settled on just "holiday albums", removed Robertson's remarks, and center-aligned the Ref. column. I can still remove Forbes if you feel it is unreliable, but I only kept it because the author of the article appears to have written for several other publications that were deemed reliable at RSP. (see [1]). Carbrera (talk) 15:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC).

I am still not confident in this author's credentials. He claimed himself to be a "freelance writer". At RSP for Forbes it says that it discourages "contributors" and only considers staff writers as reliable. This author is sorted as a "contributor". But I'll leave it up to the source reviewer-- (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)


I disagree with the edits made at Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's suggestion. It is now unclear when albums return to the charts after leaving the top spot. For instance, Lady Antebellum's A Merry Little Christmas entered the top spot on October 30, 2010, for two weeks, but the next album listed is from November 20, 2010, which is three weeks later. It takes a lot of undue digging to realize that The Taylor Swift Holiday Collection snuck in there for a week. As I see it, there are two options: return to the original formatting (which I personally see no issue with), or restate an album every time it reappears in the chart. In the latter case, the number of weeks would refer to the number of consecutive weeks it was at number one during that run. So, for example, 2010 would have 2 weeks for My Christmas, 1 week for The Taylor Swift Holiday Collection, 2 weeks for Celtic Thunder: Christmas, 2 weeks for A Merry Little Christmas, and then 1 more week for The Taylor Swift Holiday Collection.

Other comments:

RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I do see your point in how the chart is seasonal that an album returning to number one in December 2010 then again in December 2011. I prefer this layout, however, and List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s provides a way of showing returning number ones in a way you suggest. There's still a major concern about notability of the chart itself and this list, failing criteria 3c (it must meet all of the requirements for stand-alone lists, including WP:NLIST). None of the non-Billboard sources listed mention this chart and List of Billboard Holiday 100 number-one songs was deleted at AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talkcontribs)
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars – I do not share your same concern. If it is a matter of finding sources that refer to the chart, I have come across many in my research and can incorporate more into the article if necessary. The Forbes source I recently added to the list is one of them. Personally, I don't believe the other holiday chart is relevant to this discussion. The Top Holiday Albums chart has been around for decades, whereas the Holiday 100 has existed for less than 10 years according to the linked discussion. Carbrera (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2021 (UTC).
I also share the same concern with RunningTiger123. The List of UK Singles Chart number ones of the 2010s contains the same accessibility issue that was mentioned above, whereas the original layout I used does not. Switching to the format style on the UK list would require that each album be numbered in the table, which I don't know if I find very necessary. Carbrera (talk) 00:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC).
I think that the example provided by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars works well. It's possible to simply exclude the "No." column while repeating entries that charted at separate times. As to criterion #3c... Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars is right in that the only non-Billboard source that actually mentions the Top Holiday Albums charts (at least that I could find) is the Forbes article, and that's tangential at best. However, since Billboard is established as a major record chart producer, I don't know that we have to find standalone sources for this specific chart. It's like the numerous pages in Category:Primetime Emmy Awards; many don't have third-party sources to back them up, but since the Emmys are the most prestigious award in American television, it isn't necessary to establish notability for each individual category. They're notable because they're Emmys and the Emmys in general are notable; maybe the same applies to Billboard charts. If he doesn't mind, I'd like to ping @ChrisTheDude on this, since he's worked a lot on country charts and probably has a better understanding of chart notability. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
In regards to the chart's appearance, I can agree to that. I will begin making edits to the list. Thanks for your suggestions so far. Carbrera (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC).
Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, RunningTiger123 – Apologies for not pinging sooner but I recently changed the table's appearance. Thoughts? Carbrera (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC).
Yes, that looks a lot better. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Support (assuming that any issues with criteria #3c are resolved) – RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Formula One seasons[edit]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

This list is about the 71 seasons of the FIA Formula One World Championship that have been held thus far. I have redone this list and hope that it meets the necessary criteria to become a featured list. Looking forward to all comments in this review. MWright96 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  • "a series of races, known as Grands Prix, held usually on purpose-built circuits, and in a few cases on closed city streets,[4] the most prestigious of which is the Monaco Grand Prix in Monte Carlo" - wording is ambiguous as to whether Monte Carlo is the most prestigious of the street GPs or of all GPS, might be worth clarifying
  • Note a - might be worth adding a few words to explain why
  • Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Have made the appropriate changes MWright96 (talk) 09:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Apologies, but "Grands Prix, held usually on purpose-built circuits, and in a few cases on closed city streets, the most prestigious event of the year which is the Monaco Grand Prix" doesn't really make sense gramatically. Assuming that you mean that Monte Carlo is the most prestigious of the street GPs specifically, I would suggest "Grands Prix, held usually on purpose-built circuits, and in a few cases on closed city streets; the most prestigious of the street circuits is the Monaco Grand Prix" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
      • @ChrisTheDude: Made the change MWright96 (talk) 09:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:01, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from HumanBodyPiloter5[edit]

  • No image illustrating the article, although it's unclear what image one would use. Possibly a picture of a 1950 Formula One car alongside a 2020 Formula One car?
  • Needs a go over with regards to MOS:NUMBER.
  • Opening statement is potentially contentious. Qualifying that you mean world championship seasons specifically in the first sentence may be worthwhile.
  • Not familiar with ChicaneF1 as a source. I see that it is used on some FA-class Formula One related articles however. Will assume in good faith that it's a reliable source unless someone wants to challenge that.
  • A secondary/independent source on the FIA stuff may be prefereable but isn't really necessary as it's not a contentious statement to someone who knows about the subject.
    • Have replaced the FIA source with a secondary reference in AtlasF1 and have made clarifications with it MWright96 (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ESPN source backs up the potentially contentious nature of the opening statement, as it suggests that the first Formula One season may have been in 1946 (although some sources will say 1947 or 1948) with 1950 being the first world championship season. The ESPN source is somewhat ambiguous on the matter, to the degree that it might look self-contradictary to someone without background knowledge.
  • The ESPN source does back up the statement that preceeds it although the wording is rather close to the source. Also I just know it's correct anyway.
    • Reworded to make it less close to the source MWright96 (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • You may want to add a "not a typo" template to uses of "Grands Prix" since occasionally drive-by editors/bots try to correct it to "Grand Prixs" or "Grand Prix".
  • Can't access book source (ISBN 0-75258-766-8) but the statement is uncontentious so I'll take it on good faith.
  • I would change "the most prestigious of the street circuits is the Monaco Grand Prix held in Monte Carlo" to say "the most prestigous of the street races is the Monaco Grand Prix" as the circuit is the Circuit de Monaco and I'm not sure if it's necessary to specify Monte Carlo here. Source is behind a paywall but the statement isn't contentious so I'll take it on good faith.
  • We know that the minimum number was eight in 2020. It presumably wasn't in 1950 when there were less than eight races. Some sort of "as of" qualifier may make this clearer. Source checks out.
  • 2020 only visited Europe and Asia so a statement regarding force majeure may be worthwhile here. Similarly 1950 only had races in Europe and North America.
  • Explanatory footnote regarding the Indianapolis 500 may be sensible when talking about the number of Grands Prix in a season. If I wanted to be pedantic then I'd argue in favour of using the term "Grandes Épreuves" in the footnote but it's probably not necessary.
  • A secondary source which shows that the rules have always been as they are in the current regulations may be preferable to using the 2020 sporting regulations as a primary source, but again the statements being sourced are not contentious ones.
    • Replaced FIA source with a secondary academic journal source MWright96 (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Telegraph source has limited access. Statement is in no way contentious though.
    • Added mention the source is behind a paywall MWright96 (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "Different car make/engine combinations" is a slightly awkward wording. Personally I would word this as "different combinations of car and engine makes" or "different combinations of chassis and engine makes".
  • Explanatory footnote regarding the 1981 changes may be worthwhile (particularly regarding the Constructors' Championship), provided a source can be found.
  • Another book source I can't access (ISBN 0-946132-63-1), but I will take it on good faith as to my knowledge based off of other sources I've read in the past the statement is true.
  • Forix/8W lists European Champions alongside World Champions. Not massively relevant to this article but I do think a mention of the status of the World Drivers' Championship as the effective successor to the pre-Second World War European Driver's Championship may be warranted, provided suitable sourcing is available.
  • I agree that "a total of 1,035 Formula One World Championship races have been held" is the clearest wording for the average reader. Again a footnote somewhere explaining the somewhat convoluted history of the World Championship may be warranted, but it shouldn't be given undue weight lest it prove distracting and confusing.
  • Checking the stats against sources they all seem correct.
  • I think it would be better to say that "Over 71 seasons there have been 33 participants from 14 different nationalities who have won the World Drivers' Championship. Over 63 seasons there have been 15 teams representing 5 individual nations that have claimed the World Constructors' Championship." than the current phrasing, which puts the "71 seasons" statistic nearer to the Constructors.
  • The list itself is a little on the bare side. I understand that there's a fine balancing act to manage between not including enough information and bombarding the reader with confusing miscellanea, but maybe some information about when the first and last race of each season was held and how many countries held races in each season would be appropriate, providing it can be sourced.
    • Added first and last races of each season to the table MWright96 (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Have now added how many countries staged Grands Prix each season MWright96 (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Unsure if it's correct to say that McLaren had 15 points deducted at the 2007 Hungarian Grand Prix as to my knowledge they were never awarded those points to begin with. The source given appears to align with my belief.
There's nothing major keeping this from featured status. It needs a little bit more work but if that gets done then I'd happily support this gaining the status.
HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @HumanBodyPiloter5: I think I have addressed your concerns appropriately. Let me know if there is anything else that needs addressing. MWright96 (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Piece of cake: comments resolved, striked to support.

  • First sentence is hard to navigate. The "the highest class" fragment follows "Formula 1", so it's safe to assume that F1 is "the highest class of open wheeled auto racing defined by the Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA)." Then there's "motorsport's world governing body". Mind explaining the structure of this sentence?
  • "This can be declared invalid if the FIA grants F1 an waiver for its "long‐established use of the word “World”." Should be ended with an end-quote. Per MOS, replace the curvies with apostrophes (').
  • "Different combinations of chassis and engine makes are considered to be different constructors for the purposes of the Championship. Constructors' Championship points are calculated by adding points scored in each race by any driver for that constructor." Duplicate use of ref 11.
  • "as determined by a points system based on Grand Prix results." Duplicate points system link there. GeraldWL 07:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "for F1 Manufacturers in 1958 and its current name"-- I'd have a comma there, to be "for F1 Manufacturers in 1958, and its current name".
  • The header "Races" has ref 13. But below the table there is a sources footer. Should it be rather placed there instead?
  • Recommend adding portals, and if a relevant Wikimedia Commons category exist, that's worth a link too, using Template:Commons-category inline.

That's all I have on this article. Well-composed, overall. As a short Image review, all have suitable license, appropriate captions, and have alt texts. GeraldWL 07:38, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

1st Central Committee of the Workers' Party of North Korea[edit]

Nominator(s): --Ruling party (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I've nominated the list 1st Central Committee of the Workers' Party of North Korea. It shows the composition of the communist leadership for a given period. I'm planning to nominate the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th as well.

I've also tried to give short historical summaries of the given period in question; what the communist leadership did and of course the steady accumulation of power by Kim Il-sung and the Kim family. Hopefully the eighth lists will be able to give the common folk a basic understanding of how Kim Il-sung became the Supreme Leader and how the country became the oxymoronic communist monarchy.

I'm happy to get any comments. --Ruling party (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - the hidden content thing isn't that big a deal I guess -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Lana Del Rey discography[edit]

Nominator(s): (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

This list is about the discography of Lana Del Rey, known by her admirers as one of the greatest living American songwriters, and by her detractors as one of the causes of Generation Z's glorification of depression. Whichever she is, you could listen to her music and have your own judgement. I have removed OR, unsourced, and unreleased songs from this list, and for now, I think it meets the FL criteria for being comprehensive and well sourced.

While I acknowledge I am having another FLC for MTV Video Music Award for Video of the Year, since the FLC has gotten two supports, I feel like nominating this for FLC would not be against the advice. Any comment is very much appreciated. Thank you, (talk) 11:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Outside of my normal grumbling about the use of streaming services as a source, the sourcing is impeccable --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your support. (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Comments on the lead
  • "....and her debut studio album, Lana Del Ray (2010), under the name Lana Del Ray.[3] Lana Del Ray was shelved shortly after.[4] In 2011, Del Rey self-released her debut single, "Video Games", under her current stage name Lana Del Rey" - it would be more succinct to simply say "and her debut studio album, Lana Del Ray (2010), under the name Lana Del Ray, a stage name she has retained ever since.[3] Lana Del Ray was shelved shortly after.[4] In 2011, Del Rey self-released her debut single, "Video Games"."
    • Ignore the above, I hadn't noticed the ever-so-slightly different spelling -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I agree it is hard to notice firsthand. (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "The single was certified multi-platinum platinum" - spot the stray word :-)
    • Removed. (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ""Lust for Life" (featuring The Weeknd)" - wikilink The Weeknd
    • Linked. (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "Del Rey released her sixth studio album, Norman Fucking Rockwell!, in 2019. Norman Fucking Rockwell! peaked atop" - is there a way to not repeat the album title twice in such quick succession?
    • Changed to "the album". (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Will look at the tables later...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Nothing to add on the tables -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Thank you very much for your comments. (talk) 04:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • Please add ALT text for the infobox image.
  • Done, (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to combine the last two sentences of the first paragraph? Something like As of August 2019, her albums have sold 3.2 million copies in the U.S. and her single sales in the U.K. have reached 5.2. million? I am recommending this as a way to avoid the repetition of the 2019 part, and that way you can clarify the U.K. single sales were also as of August 2019.
  • Revised, (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This part, Lana Del Ray was shelved shortly after, seems incomplete to me. I know what the sentence means, but I am not certain if it is grammatically correct to end a sentence with the word "after", particularly in this manner.
  • Reworded, but I'm not very confident with the new wording... (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Added. Good catch. (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it is better to wait till the official release, cue WP:CRYSTALBALL, (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Wonderful work with the list. I find your first comment to be interesting. I used to love Lana Del Rey (and she is still a huge influence on me), but for me at least, I became more critical of her after some questionable behavior, like that mask nonsense and not the "Generation Z's glorification of depression". But that's just me. I hope these comments are helpful. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

My assessment of her as a "glorification of depression" is somewhat subjective and limited to her early releases only (I mean, look at the title of Born to Die... which was very provocative to me). I remember people around me describing her as "emo queen" or "sad pop queen" lol. But after 2015's "Lust for Life", I guess critics have appreciated her artistry more. I particularly enjoy her Ultraviolence songs and some songs off her newest album. Her mask thing was, however, quite a total turn-off for me at least (but I guess I'd have to "separate the artist and the art" if I want to listen to her music lol). Thank you very much for your comments. I have addressed them accordingly. Hope you have a great week ahead also! (talk) 09:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the prompt responses. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:26, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I will look through the FLC later this week if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – I made a few edits to the list regarding captions and updating a few reference access-dates. Outside of that, I believe this FLC satisfies the featured list criteria. Carbrera (talk) 22:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC).
    • Thank you for your support. (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Bilorv[edit]

(Ref numbers as of this version; not all comments are necessarily about sources.)

  • "Lana Del Ray has been pulled from music stores." – Raises more questions than it answers. Mention why as briefly as possible, or drop.
  • Added. (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Why is reliable—what are its authors credentials and what's its editorial process? Same questions for Charts in France and Aficia.
  • Update. I am not very certain, but I think "Charts in France" monitors radio plays/internet hits, a-la-All-Access [2]. Cannot find much about Aficia, but from my experience with Taylor Swift articles, it was used to promote certain songs to radio by record labels [3]. (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Linked. (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • What's the rule for whether the chart is linked in Footnotes? If it's to link on first occurrence only then I think a link to Billboard Hot 100 is missing.
  • I link the charts on first instance. Added the link to the Hot 100. (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "WW" is not immediately obvious, so WW would be good on the first mention. Maybe also FRA as that's not a universal abbreviation of the country name (unlike UK and US).
  • Added. (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The figures 1,174,000 and 1,608,000 are to four significant figures, which I think is likely false precision. Even the three significant figures numbers given the date of one of the sources in particular might be too much. I would prefer two significant figures (e.g. 1,170,000 and 1,600,000).
  • Done. (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Spotchecks: 14, 23, 27, 43, 63, 75, 78, 82, 107, 109, 116, 117, 119, 122. #23 doesn't seem to cite the singles "As lead artist" table—I can change the search to "Song" to get some of them but not e.g. "Video Games" and "Summertime Sadness". (I can eventually navigate to e.g. [4] and [5] but can this links be given directly?). I don't think ref #107 takes me to where it should ( isn't "Irish Charts Week Ending 6 Sep 2019 Top 100"). Ref #109 says it's from 2012 but it doesn't say the song comes from Born to Die, does it?
  • Fixed the Swiss chart link. I also replaced all Irish chart with the Hung Medien-powered site. I hope everything is okay now.

Looking very good overall. Couldn't find a wrong figure anywhere. — Bilorv (talk) 00:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the source review. (talk) 04:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Happy with the responses to all of the above. Fixed one typo here and I'm happy to support on sourcing. — Bilorv (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Found it a smooth read and I think it satisfies WP:FLCR.--NØ 13:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

National recreation area[edit]

Nominator(s): Reywas92Talk 03:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Next in my series of protected places (after parks, monuments, memorials, and lakeshores and seashores) is recreation areas! I've only been to 5 of the 40 of these (and very near to another couple) but I sure hope to visit more! This was a fascinating bit of history as the concept of a place meant for recreation rather than conservation in a location that has been irreversibly changed by flooding really challenged and transformed the mission of the National Park Service. While they all combine recreation and preservation (with varying degrees of extractive uses), Congress got somewhat haphazard in designating these, and those managed by the Forest Service really differ in how much attention they get! I know the prose is longer than an average FL, but I think it's all interesting stuff that needs to be kept together. Looking forward to your comments. Reywas92Talk 03:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, overall a nice work. There is so much prose that this could in fact be a valid FA candidate as well, but FL works fine. A possible improvement would be a footnote in Visitors (2019), explaining why some cells are empty - there is a line above but one has to look for it. Up to you. --Tone 14:51, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Victoria Cross recipients from the British 2nd Division[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

In an effort to save space on the 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) article, a series of sub-articles was created. This list documents the ~40 gentlemen who earned the Victoria Cross, while they served with the division throughout four different wars (the Crimean War, the Second Boer War, and the First and Second World Wars). I initially put this up reviewed at A-Class standard, but was advised to proceed to here. I look forward to feedback and improving the list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

  • "published in the The London Gazette" - stray word there
    Thanks for the catch, and removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Does ref 1 cover the whole first paragraph
    Yes. I could split the ref into two, although it would then be one ref for the first three sentences and another for the final sentence.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "eighteen members of the division were earned VCs" => "eighteen members of the division earned VCs"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Refs look better centred, IMHO
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a difference between Lieutenant (Acting Captain) and Lieutenant (temporary Captain)?
    Yes, but I cannot explain the difference. The Gazette uses that wording for those individual's ranks. I have looked at various sources, but cannot offer an explanation to what the difference between each (the explanations I have seen are, for me at least, beyond confusing). I have seen examples of acting officers becoming temporary officers and vice versa.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The article isn't linked in the template at the bottom. It should either be linked or the template removed
    I have added the article to the template.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the review and comments. I have attempted to address your concerns with either comments or tweaks to the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Support – Whoever suggested posting this here had a great idea; this is a great list! RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Further comment
  • The table has been made sortable since I looked previously. I am afraid this means you will now need to wikilink any item that appears multiple times each time it appears, not just the first. Hopefully this can be done relatively painlessly with a search-and-replace...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    I have just made an edit to the article to add in links for everything. It looks really wrong to me lol. But, hopefully, this is the now in the correct standard for a list?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support (I fixed a redlink for you) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Image is freely licensed, per my evaluation at the ACR.[6] (t · c) buidhe 10:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • I am not sure that "Russian Empire" is a "country". I mean, you use "India" or "Colony of Natal", not British Empire.
  • Why are we told that Natal is a colony. You don't use Republic of France' or 'Kingdom of Belgium'.
    I have not made changes in reference to either of these two point just yet. My understanding is that "Russian Empire" was the name of the state, the Crimea being part of it, and not one of the empire's colonies or territories outside of the core (i.e. Alaska, Finland, Poland etc.). I am more than happy to reword this, but I don't think "Russia" would suffice as it would appear to refer more to the modern state? I concede the point on Natal, I can change that to just Natal?
Russia was Russia before it was an empire, while it was an empire and after it ceased to be an empire. Just like Britain. If the fighting had been in Kent, not Crimeria, would you not have written "Britain", not "British Empire"?
That is a fair point. I have piped the link to the Russian Empire to just state Russia. Likewise, for Natal.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • For the hyphenated ranks see MOS:HYPHEN: "Do not use a capital letter after a hyphen except for a proper name".
    I just wanted to check in on this one, prior to making changes. The Gazette capitalizes both parts of the rank, and this is the way the rank is wrote in other sources. Would this not be considered a proper name then? Or, would that only apply if it was used in a sentence i.e. "blah blah Brevet-Major John Conolly..."? Checking in primarily for my own confusion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Bleh! Usually I am strong on the MoS, but you raise a good point - which I had missed - and the Gazette is the RS. False alarm, apologies, leave them as they are.
  • Why do you give the departments for some locations - Oppy, Pas-de-Calais - but not others - Delville Wood?
    For Oppy, I had just left it alone based off the article name. I have piped it, so there is conformity.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • In cites 3 and 4, several uses of "p." should be 'pp.'.
    Thanks for the catch, I have fixed these.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "Victoria Cross Heroes" is missing a publisher location.
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • As is "The Evolution of the Victoria Cross".
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "Midas books" → 'Midas Books'.
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "after the conclusion of hostilities, it was stood-down." I am not sure that "stood-down" is the appropriate expression. Eg, see Wikt:stand-down: A time when soldiers are not on alert.
    I have reworded this to disbandedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "It was again raised". Perhaps 'formed' instead of "raised"?
    Tweaked accordinglyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "so its forces could be reassigned elsewhere". "elsewhere" from where? (I suggest deletion.)
    Word removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "by soldiers who had been part of the division" → 'by soldiers who were part of the division'.
    Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "the division had not been in battle". "had" → 'has'.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

A great list. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

As always, thank you for your time in reviewing another article. I have attempted to address the majority of your comments, and left a few of my own were changes have not been made just yet.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Responses to your responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1953[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

With 63 of these lists already at WP:FL, here's the next in the series. This particular year was dominated by Hank Williams, whose lifestyle finally caught up with him in the early hours of January 1. Ironically, he had just released a single called "I'll Never Get Out of This World Alive"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Support Great work as always. (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I can't find any faults --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass[edit]

  • Consistent all around, page numbers, retrieval dates, linking etc.
  • No issues here.
  • checked 29, 36, 48 & 3 — all good
  • Another solid list, great work Chris. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Hungary[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 12:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hungary has 8 WHS and 11 sites on the tentatative list. The style is following the WHS lists that have been promoted so far. Since Greece and Cypruss are seeing good support so far, I am nominating a new list. Tone 12:11, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Not wishing to be a party pooper, but I've been told in the past (by the FL director) that an editor shouldn't have three FLCs open at one time, so it might be best to wait until either Cyprus or Greece has been promoted........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I've had three open if the other two had a strong support (which I interpret they have at the moment). But if this is a problem, this one can be put on stand-by. --Tone 21:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
  • You don't need "As of 2021", this isn't something rapidly going out of date.
  • Budapest row has an extra column
  • "within the Hungarian nation" is really weird, "of the Hungarian people" or something reads better. You're paraphrasing too closely to the source again.
  • "erected to commemorate the thousandth anniversary of the conquest of Hungary in 896" is lifted straight from the source without even paraphrase. Please write everything in your own voice.
  • "The Hungarians arrived in the Carpathian Basin at the end of the 9th century" again just copied.
  • Esztergom should have a description even if the UNESCO site doesn't
  • The external link should have (in Hungarian) after the link
Reywas92Talk 02:51, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    • @Reywas92: I think I'm done. I'd leave "as of 2021", since nominations at least are updated rather often in some cases, and new sites are added every year (not to every country, of course). Are you using some tool to find paraphrasings too close? I know there used to be one, that would be helpful in future. Thank you for the review! --Tone 10:00, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
      • No, I can just tell when the wording doesn't sound as natural like the above ("thousandth") and ctrl-F on the unesco site. There were others I found but these were the longest that needed to be changed. Noticing in your edit that Esztergom has been rolled into the newer Royal Seats nomination, I'm guessing it could just be deleted. I'm wondering if the Hungarian cultural office has its own site like [7]/[8] that has its own list rather than all sources being only to UNESCO. Anyway, Support, and a review at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National recreation area/archive1 would be appreciated if you have a chance. Reywas92Talk 20:33, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Well, sometimes the old nominations are removed by the committee and sometimes they persist. There does not seem to be a strict rule. But, as long they are listed on the UNESCO site, they should be here as well... I will have a look at the list you mention. --Tone 22:42, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Works for me, now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


  • Spaced hyphens in refs 23, 24 and in the "Komárno - Komárom*" title, should all be en-dashes.
  • You link "Buda Castle" in "Buda Castle Quarter" in the title of the site and then in the description you don't link castle but link the quarter, despite mentioning the castle first. I would link the quarter in the title and the castle itself in the description.
  • Where's the Metro Line M1 mentioned in the source?
  • "Counties" no reason for that to be capitalised.
  • "landscape.The " space before The.
  • "Several 18th and 19th-century" I would have "18th- and 19th-century" here.
  • Don't link empty cells, put a centred em-dash for sites with no images in the image column.
  • "The largest ... the largest..." repetitive prose.
  • Could find a link for stud farm.

That's it on a quick run. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 09:27, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

  • @The Rambling Man: Fixed, thanks! As for the dashes in the empty figures, in lists such as Cyprus I am not using anything. I'd like to be consistent on that. --Tone 09:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • You link the second use of 'Buda Castle'.
    • Fixed.
  • I cannot see in the citation where it says that Buda Castle was the residence of Hungarian monarchs.
    • Removed, this is indeed not directly stated.
  • The only dates in the Budapest description are in the 19th century. I think you should give the age of the sites.
    • I added some. The architecture styles also indicate the age, indirectly.
  • Perhaps worth quoting that Budapest is "one of the world's outstanding urban landscapes"?
    • I somehow suspect that another reviewer will call this "tourist brochure talk" ;)
  • "the thousandth anniversary of the conquest of Hungary". By who?
    • Rewritten, does it makes sense now? I didn't want to write "Hungarian conquest of Hungary", that is just superflouos.
  • That is OK, but how about "Magyar conquest ofHungary"?
  • I was considering it but Hungary got its name only afterwards, after Hungarians, so that's still not perfect.
  • "the area has no permanent residents". The citation says "almost no permanent residents"
    • Fixed.
  • "Several 18th- and 19th-century villages and castles" The citation does not mention castles. It says 12 and 13C towns and villages and 18 and 19C palaces.
    • I actually copied that from the description in Austria's list. Good that you spotted it, I will fix it there as well. Not sure how this happened.
  • "Tokaj Wine Region, which was formally established in 1737 by Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor". Perhaps worth saying that wine production is documented back to 1561.
    • Sounds good, added.
  • "It contains the remains of a shallow sea from the Miocene epoch." This is wrong. The Miocene started 23 million years ago and the citation says the sea dates to 24 million years ago.
    • Good point, I added "mostly" since 23-19 MA is Miocene. Neogene starts together with Neogene, if I wanted to cover broader I'd have to write Paleogene and Neogene, which is very broad. Makes sense?
  • I am still not sure it is correct. The source says 24 million years old, not starting then and continuing into the Miocene. Why not just say 24 million years old?
  • The way I read the reference is that the sediments were piling up from 24 MA to 19 MA when they were covered following a volcanic eruption. So it is not only 24, it is the entire period.
  • The expert report at [9] says 24 to 21 mya. The Oligocene was from 34 to 23 mya and the Miocene from 23 to 5 mya, so how about "late Oligocene and early Miocene"? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I like that. Great :)
  • "Hungarian architect Ödön Lechner". Is there a reason the link is here and not in the first mention in 'Site'?
    • Where there is no dedicated article (such as The Architectural Work of Le Corbusier), I try to link the geographic article in the site, but here it is a person. Not sure if this is the best reasoning.
  • "in the 17th and 18th centuries, following the 150-year Ottoman reign". This is odd on several counts. Ottoman rule is not mentioned in the citation, it only covered part of Hungary, and it ended in 1699 so some of the towers were built during Ottoman rule.
    • It mentions the Ottomans (Turks) but I agree, the whole sentence is confusing. I rewrote that part, in a more extensive manner.
  • This is an interesting article, but checking a few points shows up several errors. I think it needs a thorough source check. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
    • @Dudley Miles: I'm through. Thank you for a detailed review, as always! --Tone 20:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

List of Memphis Tigers head football coaches[edit]

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 07:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I have created the article, it is comprehensive in the history of Memphis head football coaches, and has a lead that is well-sourced. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 07:44, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - thanks for bearing with someone who knows little about the topic (although way back in my student days I was actually friends with someone who played for the university American football team. I was occasionally one of the 20 or 30 people (all friends of the players) who used to make up the "crowd" watching the game - that's how different university sport is in the UK :-) ) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I think these kinds of lists now look for a lot more info on the topic, e.g. look at List of Arsenal F.C. managers. I'm not sure that other sports should be getting a free pass on this. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:27, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Brooklyn Nine-Nine[edit]

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 23:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL-criteria. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 23:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - as an aside, writing the words "Anne Robinson" definitely brought back some mildly traumatising memories of when I was on The Weakest Link :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:06, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "The series has also received particular praise for its portrayal of serious issues whilst retaining a sense of humor." – That is a bit too far of a jump from the table alone; it needs a citation or should be removed.
  • While not every award has its own page, the ones that do not can be wikilinked to a relevant article about the presenting organization or a section in that article (for instance, Motion Picture Sound Editors#Golden Reel Awards for MPSE Golden Reel Awards).
  • Years for NAACP Image Awards can be wikilinked to specific ceremonies.
  • Year and categories for TCA Awards can be wikilinked.
  • Replace hyphens (-) with en dashes (–) for Gracie Award categories.
  • For consistency with other categories at the same awards ceremony, change "Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series" to "Best Actor, Comedy" for the 2016 Poppy Awards.
  • From a quick scroll through IMDb, 2020 Gracie Awards can be added (relevant source).
  • Also from IMDb, I noticed the Imagen Awards are missing – I've seen those in similar lists, so consider adding them here if sources can be found.

RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: All of your suggestions have been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 01:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Awesome! I changed one of the years for the Imagen Awards from 2018 to 2019 (I'm assuming it was a typo), but other than that, it's all top-notch work. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

SupportRunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


  • Don't use NYPD without first explaining it.
  • "critics for its cast" presumably you mean "for the performances of its cast"?
  • You single out Samberg and Braugher but then go straight into series accolades without noting anything they individually won.
Some of their awards are already mentioned in the second paragraph.
I understand, but you have "It has won two Creative Arts Emmy Awards ..." awkwardly in between. Move it so the individuals are mention and then some of their awards. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I think I managed to fix it, so all done with these edits.
  • "its portrayal" is repeated too quickly.
  • Ref 19 has a spaced hyphen, should en-dash.

That's about it for a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Mario role-playing games[edit]

Nominator(s): Panini🥪 03:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The Mario franchise capitalized on the success of the role-playing video game genre in the 1990s, releasing Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and Paper Mario. Both series received critical acclaim, so why not keep going? Paper Mario proceeded to receive two more releases, with a new series, Mario & Luigi, being started for Nintendo's handheld consoles. However, these two series met a decline in the 2010s; Paper Mario started evolving to the action-adventure genre, and everybody hated it; the recent Mario & Luigi games saw less positive reception, and the developers, AlphaDream, went bankrupt in 2019.

Despite this, I'm still attempting to promote this list to FL; I recently had a peer review and further guidance from Alexandra IDV. Panini🥪 03:59, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Support and comments from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

I am supporting this! Not many problems, as I can see. No duplicate links, which is always an awesome thing. I do have some comments though; I think I missed these on the PR.

  • "The original Paper Mario games are role-playing games, though newer installments in the series, since Sticker Star, also incorporate action-adventure elements." Errr. Maybe change it to "The original Paper Mario games are role-playing games, though installments in the series since Sticker Star also incorporate action-adventure elements."
  • "...but changes to gameplay has received mixed reception between games, such as in combat and use of gimmicks." --> "...but changes to gameplay, such as in combat and use of gimmicks, has received mixed reception."

GeraldWL 09:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Both have been fixed. Thanks for your support! Panini🥪 16:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts from Guerillero[edit]

  • At 1.6 k, the leade is a bit short. Can you flesh it out some more.
  • I'm not a fan of how much information is thrust into each cell.
    • Release years by system should be its own sortable column
    • Title should be sortable as well
  • Visually, this looks like a bear for screen readers. Is {{Video game titles}} WP:ACESS compliant?
  • "iQue Ltd" is not the page title
  • You sometimes translate and sometimes don't translate article titles into English
  • I don't see any quality problems with the sourcing

--Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:50, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

  • This is not my nomination, but responding to the points about the formatting and accessibility (not the content)-- this is the standard format for this type of list, which the FLC delegate PresN brought up in his "How to Write Featured Lists of Video Games" as accessibility-compliant. PresN, can you give input on this?--AlexandraIDV 19:28, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I did write that guide almost 6 years ago, but yeah. To the best of my knowledge, this template format is ACCESS-compliant (feel free to double-check with them though!); it's just a wikitable behind the scenes, with col/row-scopes. I know the template format isn't every editor's favorite, but I've personally used it in... looks like 10 FLs? Latest was promoted in April 2019? And there are several by other people as well who've used it. Sortability is not a requirement for FL tables where it doesn't give benefit to the reader, and in lists like this it's not at all needed: each table is a video game subseries, presented in the order they were created (and not too long). There's no benefit to the reader to give the option to sort by alphabetical title instead of production order, any more than there would be in a table of television show episodes. --PresN 04:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Bilorv[edit]

Bilorv, I believe I fixed these concerns. Do you spot any other formatting inconsistencies that I didn't? Additionally, although I've considered adding Puzzle & Dragons Z + Super Mario Bros. Edition but it's more of a compilation game with more rather than a unique game. I believe it's part of the navbox because it is still an RPG will Mario elements in it. Nintendo did not develop the game, they only blended their property. Panini🥪 13:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I'll double check now if the rest of the fixes are good but there's still the first point left to reply to. — Bilorv (talk) 12:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Explained myself above. Panini🥪 12:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm still struggling to see how Puzzle & Dragons Z doesn't fit the scope of the list as established by the first sentence: The Mario franchise, which originated as platform games, has inspired a variety of role-playing video games (RPGs) released on multiple Nintendo video game consoles. Nintendo console, has RPG elements and features Mario, right? Two more things: I didn't mean that you have to link every work always, just works which have articles (I see that this was ambiguous), so Nintendo World Report, RPGFan, Square Enix Music Online and Video Game Music Database can be unlinked, or kept as redlinks if you think they're notable; and I'm not seeing that "First Paper Mario game in high definition" is verified by the new source either. Rest of the changes look good. — Bilorv (talk) 13:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Bilorv, Added it in, fixed the changes, left Nintendo World Report linked as it has a chance of being notable. 13:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Alright great, happy to support now that these have been fixed. — Bilorv (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)


  • "which originated as platform games," this just doesn't seem right to me, perhaps "originated as a series of platform games" or "had its origins in platform games"?
  • Changed.
  • You abbreviate RPG and then don't use it.
  • Removed.
  • Is there a decent link for "crossover"?
  • "Most games in the series ..." the links really only reflect a handful of those in the entire list so saying "most" here is a stretch with the current referencing.
  • "two characters that have grown a cult following." unreferenced.
  • Looks like somebody added that in when I wasn't looking. Removed.
  • "a two disk soundtrack" hyphenate two-disk.
  • Done.
  • Check that all online refs have access dates (to be consistent) e.g. 22, 23, 55.
    Should be done.
  • "after licensing rights were revealed" is "revealed" correct here? Do you mean "arranged" or "organised" or something?
  • I don't think so, Nintendo later showed the public when the lawsuit began that the rights exist.
  • "for the GBA" what's that?
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 14, 16, both have spaced hyphens, should be spaced en-dashes.

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 18:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The Rambling Man, I have addressed your concerns. Panini🥪 01:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, probably missed my last ping so just checking to make sure. Panini🥪 13:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "The two primary sub-series, Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi, follows" => "The two primary sub-series, Paper Mario and Mario & Luigi, follow" (subject is plural)
  • "the first game being Paper Mario and was released for the Nintendo 64 in 2000" => "the first game being Paper Mario which was released for the Nintendo 64 in 2000"
  • "The Paper Mario series is developed......The Mario & Luigi series was developed" - any reason for the difference in tense?
    Yes, actually; the Paper Mario series is healthy and still kicking, while the Mario & Luigi series was developed by AlphaDream which went bankrupt in 2019.
    That makes sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "The series has generally received critical acclaim,[6] being praised for their writing" - singular/plural disagreement
  • Notes like "Developed by Square." are not complete sentences so shouldn't have full stops (looks like this applies to almost all the notes, in fact)
  • Think that's it from me...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
    ChrisTheDude, that should take care of it. Panini🥪 13:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Mad Men[edit]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

In Mad Men's pilot, Don Draper notes that "advertising is based on one thing — happiness." Unfortunately, I can't come up with such a concise and elegant quip to explain the show to others, but what I can do – and what I've done – is bring this list up to FL standard to properly list its accolades so that others can better understand its achievements. The work I did was modeled on my West Wing FL nomination, taking this from an average page to what I believe is my best FL nominee to date. As always, any and all comments are appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - literally the only thing I could pick up on was.....if the awards are in alphabetical order, shouldn't the Primetime Creative Arts Emmys come before the Primetime Emmys.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I wanted the Creative Arts Emmys to be separate since they're awarded at a separate ceremony, but I also thought the major Emmy awards should be listed first (kind of like the awards for Game of Thrones, though that one is admittedly different given its length and that the Emmys are in a separate table). In other words, if I had combined the major and Creative Arts Emmys, I would have still put the series, acting, writing, and directing awards first, and I wanted to keep that order after splitting the two. If you think it would be better to swap them, I'd be happy to do it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
      • No, that makes sense, happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Found nothing. ~ HAL333 21:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

List of Indian Academy Award winners and nominees[edit]

Nominator(s): Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Nominating a list after a while. I have worked on this important list and I feel it meets the criteria. Constructive feedbacks are welcome. Yashthepunisher (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment
  • I am a bit confused by some of the entries - almost all are for categories recognising the best film, and yet you list the nominee as a person?? As an example, I checked the source for 1989, and it just lists the winner of Best Foreign Language Film as "Salaam Bombay! (India)" - Mira Nair is not mentioned at all. Similarly the source for 2007 lists the winner of the same category as "Water (Canada)" - no mention of Deepa Mehta. On what grounds have you determined that those individuals were the nominees.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude Fixed now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
That's actually made it more confusing. You now have simply Howard's End listed, but that film was a US-UK-Japan co-production, so how does that make it an Indian nominee? In the case of the Best Picture Oscar, the award goes to the producers of the film (the source in this article confirms this), so your listing of Ismail Merchant as a nominee was in fact correct. So for categories where the producer wins it is OK to list the producer, but for best foreign film I think you should just name the film as that is what wins (this means you will need to find a source that confirms that Water was officially a Canada-India co-production, as the source just lists Canada)...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude Done. Howard's End is produced by an Indian and since it was nominated for best picture, the producer should be mentioned. I have removed Water from the list per Shahid's comment as it was indeed nominated from Canada. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Shahid[edit]

  • My first concern was going to be exactly the one raised by Chris, about the films that won the Best Foreign Film award (the director usually accepts the award but the official winner seems to be the country). Now that you've changed the winners, I'm not sure Water should be there because it represented Canada.
Hope its resolved now.
  • In the case of Howards End, the producer's name should be there because it is the producer who wins the award.
  • It could be just me but I honestly think the name of the article should be changed because it's ambiguous: "List of Indian Academy Award winners and nominees" - this wording makes it sound as though there is some sort of "Indian Academy Award", namely the award is Indian and not the winners and nominees. I think it should be "List of Indian winners and nominees of the Academy Awards".
The name is consistent with other similar lists like List of Canadian Academy Award winners and nominees and List of Pakistani Academy Award winners and nominees.
Still doesn't justify this ambiguous wording in my opinion (the pages you're citing are not recognised as featured content). What do you personally think about it? ShahidTalk2me 16:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I personally don't think the name needs to be changed. There isn't any Indian Academy award, but there is one for television. Still, I would want ChrisTheDude to have a say on this. Yashthepunisher (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "have received or have been nominated" - the second "have" seems redundant to me.
  • "11 Indians have been nominated for a total of 14 Oscars, six of whom have won seven Oscars." - is it your own calculation or there might be some source supporting it? Just wondering, no big deal if there isn't.
Tweaked. It's my own calculation per the entries. Since every entry is sourced in the list, I didn't source the sentence.
  • I do not understand the "Scientific and Technical Awards" section - what's that? What were they nominated for?
@Shshshsh: - see Academy Scientific and Technical Award -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Well then in this case it should be linked or be presented with introductory sentence. ShahidTalk2me 23:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
I have mentioned it in the lead. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Shshshsh Please have a look. I have hopefully resolved your queries. Yashthepunisher (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yashthepunisher, I'm leaning support but just unsure about the name of the article. I wonder what others like Chris and yourself think about it, regardless of what other similar articles are named. ShahidTalk2me 16:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Further comments
  • As a song title, Jai Ho should be in quote marks
  • "Several Indian Americans have received the Oscars in the technical category like Vanitha Rangaraju" - Ranagraju is not an Indian American according to her article - she was born in India and did not move to the US till she was 26 years old.
  • You need to work in a link somewhere to Academy Scientific and Technical Award and also specify which award they won (there is more than one category)
  • Film titles which start with A, An or The should sort based on the next word
  • Can't see any reason for the note to be squashed into the left hand side of the page, it looks a bit silly IMO
  • Think that's it from me -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
All done except the forth one. I'm having some issue with the sorting. Yashthepunisher (talk) 12:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
One more comment
  • You have Vanitha Rangaraju listed in the "scientific and technical awards" section but you give the award as Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, which is not a technical award. The Oscar in that category is presented to the film's producer (in this case Aron Warner), not jointly to every single person who worked on it. I can't find any evidence that Vanitha Rangaraju was awarded an Oscar, and the source against her entry doesn't support it, it just says that the film won an Oscar and she was one of many people who worked on it. That's not the same thing at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude Fully agree. I have removed the entry. Thanks for your comments. Can you please also address the 3rd query of Shshshsh? Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude Done now. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I think so too. I do not condition my support upon it. I support the nomination but strongly recommend the name change and I see that Chris is of the same opinion. ShahidTalk2me 10:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Comments from zmbro
  • Tables have scope cols but not scope rows per MOS:ACCESS; add these to the recipient
  • Tables also need headings
  • Note cols don't need to be sortable
  • Per WP:Sorting, individuals need to be sorted by their last names not their first, and films that start with "A, An, The, etc." need to be sorted by the next word (i.e. Creation of Woman not The Creation of Woman)
  • Can we archive ref 1, 25, and 29?

Rest looks good for me. – zmbro (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  • @Zmbro: The nominator is busy at the moment, so I addressed your comments except for the archiving of the sources as they work well. ShahidTalk2me 11:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – Looks good to me now. Good for you taking over! – zmbro (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

MTV Video Music Award for Video of the Year[edit]

Nominator(s): (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... I think it satisfies FL criteria. Information in this list is sourced (which is rather easy given MTV's comprehensive archives), and it is also informative regarding the awards' history and selection. Any comment will be very much appreciated. Cheers, (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "Eminem holds the record for the most nominations, with seven nominations as a solo artist" - are the words "as a solo artist" actually needed here?
  • There is one extra nomination as a group member of D12, so I think it's better to include "as a solo artist", (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "For artists who are not from the U.S." - I think "Among artists who are not from the U.S." would be better, personally
  • Fixed, (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Road to Nowhere is missing it closing quote mark
  • Added, (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "David Lee Roth (1985), U2 (1988), and Lady Gaga (2010) are the only performers to have two Video of the Year nominations in one night" - Missy Elliott had two in 2001, Rihanna had two in 2012, and Kendrick Lamar had two in 2015 as well
  • Curiously MTV (apparently) does not count featured/guest appearances. For instance, the "Telephone" (Lady Gaga ft. Beyonce) win for Best Collaboration was counted for Gaga only ([10]). Revised "as a lead artist", (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In 2013 there's a random stray curly bracket at the end of the first nominee
  • I think it's fixed now, (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Think that's it from me - great work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comments! I have responded as above. (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Support from Ashleyyoursmile
  • I think the first link on MTV should be on ref 2 and not on ref. 6. Accordingly, any target on MTV should be removed from subsequent references.
  • Link on Billboard should be removed from refs 8 and 43, since its already linked on ref 5.

Great work with the list. --Ashleyyoursmile! 16:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your comments. I have added wikilinks to all references, as it does not constitute WP:OVERLINK. (talk) 08:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for clarifying. I support this for promotion. Ashleyyoursmile! 10:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments

  • In the lead, you have both 2019 and 2020 as years that You Need to Calm Down was awarded. According to the table, it looks like the 2020 one at the end of the second paragraph is incorrect.
    • Whoops, corrected. (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • According to WP:LAYOUT, the see also section should go before the notes. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the comments. I have addressed them accordingly, (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would encourage you to add ALT text to the MTV logo in the infobox.
  • Added. (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • For this part, is the most prestigious competitive award, is it necessary to clarify that it is a competitive award? I know the VMAs do honorary awards, like the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award, but I am uncertain this clarification is really necessary.
  • I think it could be removed altogether. I don't think keeping it as merely the most prestigious would be convincing given that the Vanguard is more (or less) celebrated. (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • This is more of a clarification question, but does this award only go to the performer(s) and not the music video director or anyone else associated with production?
  • Yes, the award goes to the performers, as indicated at MTV's archive list. The directors/producers have their own category (Best Direction/Editing/Cinematography, if I am correct). I was kind of surprised to find out so, but I guess that's probably why the MTV VMAs are more popular than the Grammys for Music Videos in terms of teen popularity. (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the explanation! That was what I got from the list, but I just wanted to make sure. Aoba47 (talk)
  • I think this part, the winners are determined by viewers' votes through MTV's website, would read better like, viewers vote for the winners through MTV's website, as it would put it in the active tense and avoid having two similar sentences in a row.
  • I think it's okay to keep it as it is, to make in consistent with the previous sentence's wording. (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Understandable. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed. (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I hope these comments are helpful. My suggestions are very nitpick-y as the list is already very strong. It is interesting to think about how the VMAs (and award ceremonies in general) have changed over the years. Maybe it's because I'm getting older and far more out of touch with new music trends, but I did not even watch or remember much of the last VMA show lol. Either way, I will support this when my comments are addressed, and I hope you are having a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have responded to them accordingly. Your help is always very much appreciated! (talk) 06:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I am glad that I can help. I support this list for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


  • Some sources, e.g. NYT appear to require a subscription, so that means adding url-access=subscription to the citations.
  • Does ref 1 refer to this as "the most prestigious"?
  • "Since 2006, the " bit Easter eggy, so perhaps "Since the 2006 awards," and pipe "the 2006 awards".
  • "most nominations, with seven nominations " repetitive use of nominations.
  • "second most" should be hyphenated when used adjetively.
  • And do you need "is the artist with" or would "has" just suffice?
  • " in one night" odd, maybe "in one ceremony" or "at a single awards" or something.
  • " Video Vanguard Award " what's that? Not explained anywhere here.
  • Image captions which are complete sentences should end with a full stop.
  • "Girls Just Want to Have Fun " is unnecessarily piped.
  • Why is "This Note's for You" linked? Is it not notable?
  • "Cryin'" is unnecessarily piped.
  • "featuring The LOX" should be "the LOX".
  • "Jesus Walks" is unnecessarily piped.
  • Pussycat Dolls has "The" in front of it.
  • You use different pipes for Humble in table and image caption.
  • Worth noting how many of these also won the MTV Europe Music Award for Best Video.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 13:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all of them. (talk) 11:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Wales national football team results (1960–1979)[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Number five in the series. Once again, thanks to HawkAussie for their work on the table conversion. The format follows the same style as the previous four lists which have all gone up for FL status. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "Their first match of the period was a 3–2 victory over Northern Ireland secured a...." - think there's at least one word missing here
  • "The second leg at Ninian Park proved controversial while crowd trouble led Wales...." - was the game controversial because of the crowd trouble? The word "while" kinda implies that it was controversial for a different reason but then you don't say what that was......
  • "For the 1976 tournament, quarter-finals were played" - should this be "the quarter-finals"?
  • "....with the finals hosting only the semi-finals and beyond" - reads very oddly - the finals hosted the semi-finals?
  • "The 1966–67 and 1967-68 British Home Championship was used" => "The 1966–67 and 1967-68 British Home Championships were used"
  • "would qualify for the UEFA Euro 1968" - the Euro 19XX name style was not in use at the time, this should just say 1968 UEFA European Football Championships. Also, this note is missing its full stop.
  • Having a webpage covering Scotland's international results as a general ref seems a bit weird
  • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: Thanks as ever for the review. I've addressed all of the points above. Let me know what you think, cheers. Kosack (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a reference for Note b?
  • What happened to the usual note saying: "Table information sourced from the references listed in the statistics section below"?

That's all. Nice work. ~ HAL333 17:45, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: Thanks for taking a look. I've amended both points above. Kosack (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support ~ HAL333 14:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


  • '"Between 1960 and 1979 the side played 132 matches" table starts with match number 234 and ends 351. That's 118 matches inclusive, right? What's not quite right here?
  • I also count 31 wins, not 30, but I might have made a mistake because...
    Thanks for spotting those, you're correct on both counts, the numbers were off on. I've found the errors and fixed them. Kosack (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ... I've noticed that you can't sort by wins. I think the Score column should be "hidden sorted" to sort by best win down to worst win, then highest scoring draws down to 0-0's, then least bad loss to worst loss...
    When I started these lists, I used the same format as the existing FLs. At this point, being five lists into a series with only two to go, I'm loathe to be restructuring at this point. Is this likely to be a deal-breaker? Kosack (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    The only issue I have is that the lead talks about numbers of wins (hence the comment above), it does seem strange that you can sort by the result that you give in the key, literally no way of sorting the table by "success" which does (in retrospect on the other reviews) seem like an oversight.... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I think attendance should be right aligned.
    May I ask why? I'm viewing on mobile so spacing issues are always slightly different, but the attendance column appears to match the positioning of the other columns for me? Kosack (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    It's just that the numbers, when less than 10,000, look odd to me, numbers like that should really line up units to units. Even centre-alignment would be better than left-aligned. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 17:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That's it but forgive me if I've made some kind of fundamental misunderstanding with the numbers... The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review TRM, I've added comments above. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: I've added the sort function in for the scorelines now but I'm having a little trouble with the centre-alignment of the attendance column. I can't seem to figure if I'm adding it wrong or if the mobile view is causing it to look different. Would you be able to add it to the first listing so I can do the rest in the correct manner? Kosack (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    I've done one using the {{center}} template. I think you could probably get away with just doing that for entries less than 10,000! The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 08:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
    @The Rambling Man: Thanks for the assist. I've added that in for the lower entries, let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 12:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Harry Styles discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Ashleyyoursmile! 15:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating Harry Styles discography for featured list because it is sourced, well-organised, and easy to navigate through. I have spent quite some time in expanding and cleaning up the article, which I now believe meets the featured list criteria. This is my first featured list nomination and also my first time working on a discography. For reference, I've used both Meghan Trainor discography and Bruno Mars discography. I look forward to the comments. Ashleyyoursmile! 15:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Support – top-notch work, especially for a first FL and first discography. Nice job! RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

  • "he left its management and signed a recording contract" - I would omit the bit about the management, it's pretty trivial
  • "both of which became top-ten hits on several single charts" => "both of which became top-ten hits on several singles charts"
  • "Styles became the first British male artist to have two first albums" - "two first albums"? Not sure what this means
  • I changed it to "first two albums". Does it read alright now? Ashleyyoursmile! 18:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It should have been his first two albums. I have fixed that for you -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • You're right. My bad. Thank you for the fix. Ashleyyoursmile! 19:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Notes which are sentence fragments should not have a full stop. This applies to A, B, C, D.
  • That's all I got on a first pass - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
Support from MaranoFan
  • Support - I have read it a few times and determined that it meets the criteria.--NØ 02:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from HĐ

  • Avoid phrasings like "commercial success"/"moderate success" as it is potentially POV. Mentioning chart positions should be sufficient for readers to understand how successful the single(s) was/were
  • I have removed "commercial success" completely, and rephrased the "moderate success" part. I don't think chart positions for these two singles deserve to be mentioned. Ashleyyoursmile! 11:47, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "quintuple platinum" → "five times platinum" is easier to understand
  • Otherwise the list is ready for FL. Great work! (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Source review by Bilorv

With only one factual inaccuracy (if I'm correct about that one) in the spotchecks and no sources I could identify as unreliable, it's looking very good, but I hope the comments above can make it even better. — Bilorv (talk) 16:04, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Bilorv, thank you for the comments. I've implemented some of them and left comments for the rest. Let me know what you think. --Ashleyyoursmile! 06:49, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I won't be happy to support with the linkrot issues remaining, though it's not enough to oppose over either. I suppose that puts me at Neutral for the time being and another source review would be needed for this nomination to pass. I'm not assessing things based on FLs promoted in 2012 or whether something is a template or whether a WikiProject considers something okay, but by the featured list criteria as applied to the rendered output of the page (and this touches on stability and verifiability). You may think "of course the BPI website isn't just going to go down" but I've seen enough broken references added to Wikipedia in 2005 by people making similar assumptions to think that it is a possiblility worth taking into account. Thank you for applying the other suggestions I made and for your improvements to the list. — Bilorv (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Bilorv, so I worked hard and linked all the BPI certifications separately to the respective pages, like you suggested. Just one thing, I haven't been able to archive three ref.s: "Kiwi", "Golden", and "Sweet Creature", the wayback machine is taking a lot of time to archive these manually. Can you please run the bot and fix these, if that's not a problem? Otherwise, I'm going to try tomorrow. --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I've tried to change the Italian citations too—please make fixes or let me know if any of these have mistakes in them. You can use IABot by clicking "Fix dead links" in the page history (which also runs automatically periodically, see IABot). It fixed two of those but doesn't like "Golden" (nor does Wayback Machine directly), so it's fine to leave this be—maybe next time the bot runs it'll work it out. Not including a paragraph about accolades is personal taste so I'm happy to Support. — Bilorv (talk) 21:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Bilorv, thank you very much for the support, and for changing the Italian sources. I've archived the ref. for "Golden" manually and formatted the Italian citations for consistency. --Ashleyyoursmile! 05:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)


  • Some of the refs are subscription only, e.g. the NYT, so there's a url-access=subscription parameter for those.
  • done.
  • " where it was certified platinum" it was certified platinum in all of these or just the US, I can't quite tell what the sentence is saying.
  • I meant to say that it was certified platinum in the US. Not sure how to rephrase this, please feel free to reword it accordingly.
  • You use US and UK before going onto United States and United Kingdom...
  • "reached moderate peaks" that's relatively meaningless...
  • removed.
  • EP should be used in the lead after extended play as the EP abbreviation is used in the infobox without explanation.
  • added EP in brackets in the lead.
  • Ref 24 should use a spaced en-dash, not a spaced hyphen.
  • done.
  • " Federazione Industria Musicale Italiana." is linked in the refs twice, looks like you're using the "link once, first time" paradigm so check that and others.
  • Thanks for noticing, removed the target on latter.
  • Although Recorded Music NZ looks like it's linked every time...
  • Pick one strategy and go with it.

That's all I have on a first pass. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 23:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Hello The Rambling Man, thank you for the comments. I've implemented some of the changes and left a few comments above. --Ashleyyoursmile! 10:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I'm not keen on different citation styles within a single article, let alone featured material. I would avoid using bespoke citation templates which cause problems like inconsistent formatting, or else get those templates modified to include parameters which allow you to unlink publishers (for instance) as required. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Gibraltar national football team results[edit]

Nominator(s): 6ii9 (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it contains a full list of official matches played by the Gibraltar national football team since their acceptance into UEFA that I believe meets the FL criteria. The matches are grouped by the years they were played making it easy to navigate. As they started in 2013 there will be no need to split the article for a few years yet. Each entry is comprehensively detailed and referenced (one ref tag and a link to an external match report).

It is my first time nominating an article for featured status but I am prepared to do what I can. I did get the article peer reviewed first where Aza24 was kindly able to help. I look forward to the responses. — 6ii9 (talk) 00:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Any reason why the list format is totally different to existing similar FLs, such as the recently-promoted Wales national football team results (1946–1959)? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    • An advantage to using the football box template is it allows more information to be included (similar to the Faroe Islands results list that is currently an FL). If it is needed to be in table form I can convert. --6ii9 (talk) 10:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
      • That list was promoted ten years ago, so doesn't necessarily indicate current consensus. I'll leave this out here to see what other people think....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
        • WikiProject Football has its own manual of style, and looking at this section, it seems that the accepted way to list match results is with those templates. Also, I quickly scanned through similar lists in Category:National association football team results by team, and everything I saw as I scanned through them (minus the Welsh lists) uses that formatting, so I'm pretty much certain it's the standard. It does mean there is no sorting functionality, but I'm personally okay with it because it allows much more information to be included about individual matches that would either disappear or be awkwardly included in a list like the Welsh lists. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
          • While the collapsible format seems to have become the most prevalent, this is likely due to the majority being mass produced by a minority of editors. The most recent discussion at WP:FOOTBALL largely suggested that the table format is actually more favourable as it is far more inline with WP:ACCESS. Kosack (talk) 20:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - while my personal preference would be for the article not to contain dozens of collapsible templates, if it is deemed an acceptable format I am not going to oppose based on that..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Eliko007 (talk) 09:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Kosack's comment, I'm going to have to oppose on the tables. The collapsible tables may allow you to contain more information, but they do not meet WP:ACCESS. Users who need screen readers to use Wikipedia will not be able to read the page as well as users who are normal sighted. Kosack links to the discussion at WP:FOOTY which suggests that the tables used in the Wales ar preferable because they meet MOS:DTT and WP:ACCESS. Unfortunately, as long as those tables are in use, I can't support the promotion of this list. NapHit (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Table looks in much better shape now, struck my oppose based on that. I think the key needs to be in a table too. Look at the Wales lists for an example. I am concerned about the references though. Firstly you need to use en dashes instead of the standard dashes for scorelines. Ref 13 is an example. Secondly, it's questionable whether some of the references are reliable or not. What makes yourgilbraltartv and reliable? NapHit (talk) 11:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Looking through the article, I do think that the table format is suitable in this featured list scenario as WP:ACCESS is a massive issue from this getting past the featured list challenge. I also do think that adding the cards is a bit of an overkill as you don't see many other articles (if any) in the national results section have the cards as well as the goals.
In terms of prose, I do feel its fine except the last three sentences in the prose as why is that needed here as that doesn't relate to the article either. HawkAussie (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I have rewrote the final paragraph to remove the sentences unrelated to the article. --6ii9 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have now converted the collapsible boxes into a table. --6ii9 (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments

  • Not sure if anyone else is having this problem, but on my computer the score column cells are black-colored, which doesn't appear to be the intention and makes it hard for me to read the scores. I suggest changing the formatting to be like the Wales list linked above, as the colors appear without issue for me on that page.
    • @Giants2008: I do not have this issue. I have looked at the Wales list above and cannot see why that one renders correctly for you but this one does not. I can only assume it is the colours being used. 6ii9 (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I've made this table comparing the colours used in each of the lists. Are any of these cells rendering as black-coloured? --6ii9 (talk) 15:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
        • For me, the Gibralter win and loss cells, and the Wales draw cell, are black. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:08, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
          • I've used the colours that should now stop rendering as black. --6ii9 (talk) 13:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Colour comparison
Result Wales Gibraltar
Win 1–0 1–0
Loss 0–1 0–1
Draw 1–1 0–0
  • Note b needs "to" before "the coronavirus pandemic." Giants2008 (Talk) 22:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
    • I have added the missing "to" in note b. --6ii9 (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


  • "which was rejected" on what grounds?
    • Added --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "for full membership" was partial membership a thing?
    • Corrected --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "friendlies" link.
    • Moved the link to the first mention of "friendlies" in the intro. --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "in Faro/Loulé," this is odd so I'd explain it a tiny bit.
    • Added --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • " in Faro/Loulé, Portugal which " comma after portugal.
    • Added --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "which became their official debut." Gibraltar's official debut.
    • Corrected --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Probably worth noting in the lead how it ended.
    • Added --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "Gibraltar entered its first major international competition:" how did it go?
    • Added --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • " joint largest victory" I'm not sure 1-0 and 2-1 are equitable here, and in any case, it's the minimal "winning margin" possible!
    • On the Gibraltar national football team article's infobox, it lists the 1–0s and the 2–1 as their biggest wins. Indeed it is the minimal winning margin but Gibraltar have failed to win by more than one goal yet. --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the Att column should be right-aligned.
    • Done --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "Gibraltar scorers" also "time of goal".
    • Added --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Check all the sources for "behind closed doors" actually mention it. E.g. ref 59 for match 47 doesn't mention attendance at all.
    • The attendances are covered in the statistics within the reference section, the note on the main table header says "table information sourced from the references listed in the statistics section below". --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Score column sorts peculiarly, I'd expect it to start with "best wins" then go through draws to "worst losses".
    • At the moment it sorts by the number of goals scored by Gibraltar (then by the numbers of goals they conceded). Would it make more sense to sort by the result of the match (i.e. sort by wins, then draws, and then losses)? --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Are the flags necessary?
    • I believe flags are necessary (MOS:FLAG), they are always used when football teams are listed (including in featured lists) . --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Compare ref 2 BBC Sport with ref 3 BBC Sport format.
    • Corrected --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Scorelines in ref titles should be en-dashes.
    • Corrected --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • or FIFA?
    • Used FIFA --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Link publishers always or not?
    • Linked publishers where they have articles. Can remove all links if needed. --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • or The Guardian?
    • Used The Guardian --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Avoid using Daily Mirror. Not particularly RS.
    • Replaced --6ii9 (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

That's a quick pass. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:41, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Filmography of Stanley Kubrick[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 16:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Here is a list of Stanley Kubrick's films. He is widely regarded as one of the greatest directors. ~ HAL333 16:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Alexandra

  • The second lead paragraph has an issue with repetitive "He directed A. Then he directed B. Then he directed C. Then he directed D." type of writing, especially in the beginning where we list off his documentaries and first feature film one by one.
  • While the unfinished film may have been named by Kubrick after Pinocchio, linking the article on the character here gives one the impression that the link will take one to an article about the unfinished film - especially as it is italicized like a title. I would suggest unlinking it.
  • The wording of the annotation Also editor, director of special effects, and breathing sounds read literally means that Kubrick was the breathing sounds rather than that he made them
  • Looks good otherwise. Please ping me when you have addressed the above and I will take another look.--AlexandraIDV 10:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Alexandra IDV I've worked on the prose. ~ HAL333 00:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Support on prose, although I am unsure re: the concerns over criterion 3c that RunningTiger123 brought up.--AlexandraIDV 14:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Additionally support on 3c with the addition of the reception list--AlexandraIDV 14:19, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I can add to the above is that the prose is a bit choppy in places, with short sentences which could be joined together, e.g. "His final film was the erotic thriller Eyes Wide Shut starring Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman. The film was released posthumously in 1999" - that seven-word sentence could easily be joined to the previous one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Alexandra IDV, ChrisTheDude I have done some work addressing the 3c issues. ~ HAL333 21:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Support – With the addition of a reception section, this page now has enough information to stand on its own, in my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:49, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • My first thought when I started reading was that it would be really difficult to write a good lead for a Stanley Kubrick list ... he went in so many different directions in his career. But you did it, and made it hang together ... well done.
  • I don't have a preference, but "Dr. Strangelove" (as a film title, not a person) is normally alphabetized under D rather than S (and this is where you put it in the second table, but not in the first). In the second table, A Clockwork Orange should be filed under C, not A. Also, don't alphabetize these under "The": The Killing, The Seafarers, The Shining. Otherwise, the coding in the table seems fine.
Addressed. ~ HAL333 19:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  • FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss.
  • 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 problems (but this isn't a source review).
  • 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. You make good use of images (but that's about all I'm qualified to say).
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support, since this is close enough to the finish line. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)


  • General: I think the formal awards he received for his work are more important than the critical reception from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, so I'd expect to see all those nominations and awards listed in a table here. Ok, it's listed as a "See also". Perhaps put {{main}} at the top of the section instead?
  • "13 feature films and three" comparable figures should be all words or all numbers.
  • "It was Kubrick's last film that he did not also write" the table seems to imply he was a writer on Lolita but just not credited.
  • "2001 garnered ..." we're encouraged to avoid starting sentences with a numeral...
  • You mention Vladimir Nabokov but not Anthony Burgess?
Good point. ~ HAL333 18:00, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The lead talks about critics but doesn't seem to relate to Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic, I mean for example FMJ which is pretty iconic, and that's related in the second table but not mentioned at all in the lead.
  • Check references for those which require subscriptions (e.g. the NYT) which need url-access=subscription adding to the cite template.
  • Ref 5 -> "The" Independent.
  • Ref 54, The Guardian is a work.
Not sure what's happening. It's a work in the code, but isn't italicized. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ~ HAL333 04:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
There was an errant apostrophe in the title, I fixed it. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Why is "British filmographies" a category?
From my understanding, some of the editors at Stanley Kubrick insist that he is British and the category was an addition done years back. Although born American, Kubrick moved to a country estate in the UK, where he made the rest of his films. I'm largely indifferent to the issue, but I'm fine removing it if you find it inappropriate. ~ HAL333 04:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
It's just that there's a category here that isn't reflected or mentioned in the article at all. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Removed. ~ HAL333 17:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 22:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments. ~ HAL333 18:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

List of NHL game sevens[edit]

Nominator(s): –Piranha249 15:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets all the criteria necessary for such a nomination, including comprehensiveness, prose, structure, and style. –Piranha249 15:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Kaiser matias[edit]

Not an overall review of the article, but I want to mention that Note A is not fully correct. While the 2-2-1-1-1 schedule is used now, it has not always been the case. For example, 1994 the Western Conference some series used the 2-3-2 format, including one on this list (1994 Maple Leafs-Sharks). Thus I would suggest re-wording the note. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

  • The first two paragraphs in the lead need sources since they are discussing information not included in the table.
  • Images need alt text.
  • I would suggest using a different format for footnotes, such as Template:Efn. This would allow the footnotes to pop up by hovering over the note, similar to references, instead of forcing the user to click the link to another section.
  • Use Template:See also for link to List of NHL overtime game sevens (though I don't think that list is even necessary... an AfD may be in order for that list since all of the information it covers is in this list).
    • Edit: After further consideration and review of that list, I decided to change it to a redirect to this list per WP:CFORK and WP:BOLD. This means the "See also" link should be removed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The green boxes and ^ symbols are not needed to denote game seven in the Stanley Cup Finals. Writing "Finals" in column 2 already conveys the same information without cluttering the table with more symbols.
  • Don't use small font for Oakland–Alameda County Coliseum Arena – just make the column wider. (Generally, smaller fonts should be avoided for accessibility reasons.)
  • The wikilinks in column 2 seem inconsistent. I see that you've avoided duplicate wikilinks for the same playoffs, but I think it would be better to have the links in every row and to distinguish the links by linking to specific sections. So, for example, the 2019 first round could link to 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs#First Round instead of just 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs and the 2019 second round could link to 2019 Stanley Cup playoffs#Second Round.
  • The ∞ symbol and notes b/c are redundant. If the game is at a neutral site, obviously the winner was the designated home/road team when they won instead of actually being at home/on the road.
  • Use Template:Abbr to show that "Ref." in the last column means "References".

RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

RunningTiger123, I've done several of your suggestions, such as using Template:Efn and Template:Abbr. But I did run into issues with others:
  • The Green boxes were originally used in the NBA Game sevens article, also a featured list. Should that be in question, too?
  • What's the perfect width for Venue column?
  • How else is people supposed to know who was the designated home/road team in a neutral site game?
I'll look for sources wherever possible for the article lead. Now that the NFL season is over as of Sunday, this list will be one of my top priorities. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
To explain some of my points:
  • While the NBA list uses the boxes, I'm not a huge fan of it. Why say something twice when we can say it once? In my opinion, the additional green boxes and ^ notes get in the way and disrupt readability without adding anything new – the round is already noted in the second column – so we should remove them. Also, the NBA list was approved over 10 years ago, so I don't think it fully represents current FL standards.
  • I don't know what the "perfect width" is – there's no right or wrong answer as long as the table still fits comfortably on the page.
  • If a game is marked with the ∞ symbol, then a red row would indicate the winner was the designated road team and a white row would indicate the winner was the designated home team. Alternatively, if a winning team is marked with note b or c as the designated home/road team, the game must have been played at a neutral site. Either way, one of the two symbols can be removed – the latter probably does a better job. Again, why say something twice?
RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
RunningTiger123, I've already started to remove the green boxes at your suggestion, and I still have 5 (6?) left to remove. I also removed the notes regarding last year's playoffs (for consistency purposes, I used red rows). I still have to resolve the width of the venue column, but that's about it. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 00:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I endorse all of the above and add.....

  • "Since its opening in 1968, eight game sevens have been played at the Madison Square Garden." - being British, I am no expert, but isn't it just called "Madison Square Garden" rather than "the Madison Square Garden"?
  • Shouldn't the latest name of the Winnipeg Jets (I) / Phoenix Coyotes be shown? Or are you only showing names under which the franchise played a game 7?
  • Think that's all that hasn't already been mentioned....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
    ChrisTheDude, I've updated the MSG caption, and will do the same for the Coyotes. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 18:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Further comments
  • As per RT123's comments, paras 1 and 2 of the lead still need sourcing
  • I also agree that the green box and symbol aren't needed given that "Finals" is noted in column 2
  • Small text is still present - it should just be normal text
  • I also agree that if the infinity symbol is used to denote a neutral site game then notes b and c aren't needed. Or else get rid of the symbol and just keep the notes, in which case remove the full stops from the notes, as they are not complete sentences....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    ChrisTheDude, Is there a way to retract this featured list nomination, at least until I get all those issues resolved? I plan on renominating it when that happens. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 17:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Well, if you really want to withdraw, you just have to state that here and one of the directors will close the nom. But TBH the outstanding issues aren't major, they should be resolvable within the timeframe of this FLC..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
      ChrisTheDude, Thanks, I won't withdraw after all. But I'll have to find sources for those paragraphs sooner or otherwise ask for help. –Piranha249 (Discuss with me) 21:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Well, at a quick glance I would say this covers basically the whole of para 2...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

51st Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2019 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 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, and 2020 ceremonies were written. Please keep in mind that because this ceremony happened earlier than in recent ones that I did, the format of how I configured this list resembles more closely to the 1st Academy Awards rather than say the 71st Academy Awards and such. Birdienest81 (talk) 10:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "Academy Honorary Awards"

The text following each of the recipients seems to be quotations. If so it should be within quote marks. (There is a quote mark at the end of the Laurence Olivier text, but not at the beginning.) However, note MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate". Also the MoS says of quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.

  • Fixed: Added quotation marks accordingly.
  • "Multiple nominations and awards"

"The following 14 films had multiple nominations"; "The following three films received multiple awards". This would seem to breach MOS:NUMNOTES "Comparable values should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".

  • Fixed: Wrote out fourteen as a word instead of numerals.
That doesn't really address my concerns around MoS compliance. Could you re-read the two extracts from the MoS above - on minimising the use of quiotations and on attributing opinions in line - and either tweak the article to comply or let me know why you think it already complies? (Or should be an exception.)
  • @Gog the Mild: The reason why I am using direct quotes is because in a previous FLC for another Oscar ceremony list, one of the reviewers demanded that I included a rationale for why the individual received the specific honor. They said that linking the title of the awards in the header is not compatible with the MOS, and that each individual honorary awardee have different reasons for receiving the award. So I am using the direct quote that was provided by the Academy to justify the rationale of the award.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Having a brief explanation of why each recipient of an honorary award is there is entirely sensible. Unfortunately, your using quotations to do so breaches two parts of the MoS. So far you haven't explained why not adhering to the MoS is be appropriate in these cases. It would seem to me that the simplest approach would be to paraphrase each quotation into your own words, which would cause the issues to disappear. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gog the Mild: Fine, I did paraphrase the explanations for the Honorary Oscars in my own words. It should be close as possible to the original statements.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Lead

"The Beverley Hilton". Why the upper case T. Eg see here.

  • Fixed: Removed the "The" from the name.
  • "Ceremony"

"Three days earlier ... on April 6" Do we need both of these?

  • Fixed: Removed the date.

"Initially the Academy's music branch protested that the segment be dropped from the ceremony, but it was kept intact after" I am not sure that "intact" is needed.

  • Fixed: Removed the word "intact."

"It was also remembered". "was" → 'is'.

  • Fixed: Changed was to is.

" This was also the final public appearance for Jack Haley, presenter of the Best Costume Design with his Wizard of Oz co-star Ray Bolger as well as the father of the producer, as he died on June 6 of that year." 1. Suggest a comma after "Bolger". 2. Suggest 'being' after "as well as".

  • Fixed: Added accordingly.
  • "Winners and nominees"

"Academy president Howard W. Koch an actress Susan Blakely." "an" → 'and'.

  • Fixed: Changed "an" to "and".

The Beatty/Welles sentence: suggest splitting into two, with the section in parentheses as a separate sentence.

  • Fixed: Split the sentence into two.

"Best Supporting Actress winner Maggie Smith became the only person to win an Oscar for playing an Oscar loser" Optional: add in which film.

  • Fixed: Mentioned California Suite.

Overall it is in good shape. Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

--Birdienest81 (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Birdienest81, that satisfies me on everything except my first comment on quotations, where I have given a little more information. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Nicely done. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed: Wikilinked Downtown LA and removed California to avoid redundancy.
  • Is there any way you could restructure the sentence Orson Welles had previously been nominated for writing, directing, and starring in Citizen Kane, but though he also produced it and it was nominated for Best Picture, the studios, rather than the producers, were the official nominees of that category at the time.?
  • Fixed': Changed the sentence that reads While Orson Welles had previously achieved the same feat for Citizen Kane, rules at the time determined that the studio releasing the film, as opposed to the individual producers, were the official nominees for Best Picture.

That's all I noticed. ~ HAL333 23:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@HAL333: I have addressed all the comments and responded with the appropriate fixes.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 05:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support ~ HAL333 14:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice. Reywas92Talk 05:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Oppose at the moment.

  • "the Beverly Hilton " "the" is part of the name of the hotel.
  • Done: Included "The" in the wikilink to the hotel.
  • "The Deer Hunter won five awards" needs reiterating we're talking about the main ceremony as the previous sentence was talking about the technical awards.
  • Done: Added the phrase "at the main ceremony" in the sentence.
  • "late night" should be hyphenated.
  • Done: Added hyphen to "late night".
  • " the father of the producer" which producer?
  • Done: Inserted Jack Haley Jr. in the sentence.
  • "February 20, 1979 by" comma after 1979.
  • Done: Added comma after 1979, accordingly.
  • "became the only person" perhaps "first" as the source is 1993, are we sure it hasn't happened since?
  • Okay, I changed the reference source to one from 2013 which happens to be the official AMPAS-supported history of the Oscars. According to the section "Academy Facts and Records" in the book, it still recognizes Maggie Smith as the only acting winner to portray an Oscar loser. I'm pretty sure that record still holds today. I could make a chart on here about the roles each Oscar acting winner portrayed, and probably only three people have won for playing fictional or real life actresses since 2013 (namely Emma Stone for La La Land, but her character Mia is not portrayed to have been nominated for an Oscar in said film). The closest thing to replicating that record is probably Renée Zellweger winning for portraying the titular character in Judy who in real life lost two acting Oscars. However, she did win a special Academy Juvenile Award in 1940. So that probably does not count. Otherwise, Cate Blanchett would have been recognized as the second person to win for portray an Oscar "loser" since she played real life Oscar winner Katharine Hepburn (who lost the Best Actress category eight other times) in the 2004 film The Aviator. For evidence, see this sample from the book 80 Years of the Oscar: The Official History of the Academy Awards which was published in 2008. On page 48-49 of the sample, it mentions that Maggie Smith is still recognized as the only person to win an Oscar for playing an Oscar loser.
  • Why wouldn't an Oscar-winning producer be notable? E.g. John Peverall?
  • Done: Created a stub article for the producer even though reliable sources about the producer is extremely sparse.
  • "Music and Lyrics" any good reason Lyrics is capitalised?
  • Done: Changed "lyrics" with lowercase "L".
  • Some of the references (e.g. ref 25) are geographically limited, so should use the url-access=limited parameter.
  • Done: Added said parameter for ref 25. Also added paramater for sources that were retrived via Google News Archive.
  • Others require subscription (e.g. WaPo) so that's url-access=subscription required
  • Done: Added parameter for Wapo and NY Times sources.
  • "Multiple nominations and awards" tables row scopes and captions please.
  • Same for "Presenters and performers" tables, which also require col scopes.
  • Done: Also done thanks to PresN
  • ISBNs are inconsistently formatted.
  • Done: All ISBNs are formated with the 978 prefix and with the same cluster format.
  • I don't see any mention in the prose about ratings for the show.
  • Done: Added sentence on ratings in the second paragraph in the intro.

That's a very quick blast through. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:08, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I have addressed all your comments and have made the adjustments.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Source review[edit]

TRM makes a lot of valid comments for the sources above that I would be sure implement first.



  • The locations are inconsistent; sometimes you have "State, Country" vs "City, State" vs "State"
  • Fixed: Reformated locations for consistency.
  • retrieval date missing for ref 14
  • Fixed: Added retrieval date for said ref.


  • you have "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)" vs just "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences" either is fine, just needs to be one or the other
  • Fixed: Removed AMPAS since it was under publisher parameter.
  • no doubts here
  • Checked a couple and they all seemed to verify the information cited. Aza24 (talk) 08:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24: I have addressed all your comments and have made the necessary corrections.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

AIFF Player of the Year Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Drat8sub (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've improved the article significantly with all required information, citations and structure and from previous experiences of nominations I've taken care of small details carefully. I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets all of the FL criteria per WP:WIAFL and has a scope of getting FL status. I welcome to all comments and suggestions regarding this nomination. Thank you. Drat8sub (talk) 12:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Source review - Pass[edit]

  • There's some inconsistent formatting between websites: vs Indian Super League (why not
Consistency should be between same website, not different, i.e, if once put, then another one should not be AIFF. But it can be IndianSuperLeague and it should be consistent for all IndianSuperLeague citations.
No, not every time, once is enough.
  • date missing for ref 4
  • ref 5 missing website and author
  • date for ref 7
  • refs 6 and 10 have website/publisher formatted differently when they're the same
  • ref 12 missing date and author
  • why is the Times Now Network in ref 13 but not ref 3?
because agencies are different, one is PTI, another is TNN
  • ref 16 missing date
  • Reliability is good. Glanced through for some brief spot checks. Aza24 (talk) 03:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Aza24, fixed. Other points are addressed above. Drat8sub (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Drat8sub, the reason I brought up these things is because they're inconsistent, I don't know why you bother disagreeing about something that takes 5 seconds, it wastes everyone's time. The reason we link publishers is so a user can hover over a ref and see the link, no reader goes to the actual references section so linking every time makes sense – either way, the only reason I brought it up is because you linked India today in refs 8 and 9 but not the others... I have gone ahead and linked them. If you're going to use the website parameter you should use it consistently, otherwise change it to publisher. Once again, this fix would take literally 5 seconds, I have implemented it... feel free to change back to "Indian Super League" is you're going to change to the "website=" to "publisher=". Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
It's ok, I'm not changing. I believe in linking once as hardly anyone open link from the reflist and above that it's very short reflist. Drat8sub (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments Edwininlondon[edit]

I'm no expert on AIFF but a few comments:

  • Why is this article not called AIFF Player of the Year Awards? The text in bold style in the opening sentence and the article title are meant to be the same (see for example 69th Academy Awards).
  • The AIFF Women’s Player of the Year award --> better to be consistent with the opening sentence and have a capital for Award here too
  • Between 2001 and 2012, no women's award was given out --> bit odd. The 2012 seems to indicate this range is inclusive but 2001 did have an award, so inconsistent. Better perhaps to avoid the scope issue altogether and rephrase to something along the lines of "After the inaugural award, no women's awards were given out until 2012 when ..."
  • Other than Bembem Devi, Bala Devi has also won the award twice in 2015 and 2016. --> a comma is needed after twice. Now it reads as if many awards were handed out in 2015.
  • AIFF Emerging Player of the Year award --> capital A again
  • was introduced in 2013, a similar award for women was introduced in 2015 --> better would be "was introduced in 2013, and a similar award for women in 2015.
  • List of AIFF Men's Player of the Year winners --> List of AIFF Men's Player of the Year Award winners
  • Sunil Chhetri has received the award a record six times in 2007 --> a comma is needed after times
  • and most recently for the 2018−19 season --> why the change to seasons? Why not the year? Did something change in the way the awards worked? If so, that should be mentioned somewhere.
  • Bembem Devi was the first recipient of the award in 2001; it was not awarded between 2002 and 2012. Bembem Devi retained it when it was awarded again in 2013 --> that is a lot of repetition of award. Perhaps something along the lines of "Bembem Devi was the first recipient of the women's award in 2001. Between 2002 and 2012 the contest was not held. Bembem Devi won again when the women's award was restarted, in 2013."
  • Add the club names the player was playing for, similar to Premier League Player of the Season
  • Add tables with awards won by club, similar to Premier League Player of the Season

I did do a small spotcheck of sources and all looks fine. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Drat8sub hasn't edited for a month, if no-one else wants to pick this up I guess we'll have to archive it in a couple of days time. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
The Rambling Man, I'll partially handle the comments. Edwininlondon, I resolved all but point 1, and the last two. GeraldWL 07:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Gerald Waldo Luis ok, thanks, let's see how it goes. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Gerald Waldo Luis, The Rambling Man: I shall attempt to deal with the last 2 points. Edwininlondon (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I've started this but need some guidance as I know nothing about football in India. None of the award sources I checked list the winner's club, so this needs to be pieced together. It seems these awards are handed out in December. I think the seasons run from autumn to spring. Taking a random winner, Eugeneson Lyngdoh who won in 2015, my best guess is that he won the award for his performance at Bengaluru during the 2014-15 season and his performance at Pune City during the 2015-16 season. So in the club column both Bengaluru and Pune City should be listed. Am I doing this right? There are quite a few who have moved clubs a lot. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm abandoning this. I can't find any sources for the clubs these players played for. The usual sources have nothing on the winners from the 90s. So what that decision and thanks to edits by Gerald Waldo Luis, I now support. Edwininlondon (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Support with comments (resolved) from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

  • "In 1998 and 1999, no winner was announced." Perhaps "No winner was announced in 1998 and 1999."
  • "Between 2001 and 2012, no women's award was given out." Perhaps "No winner was given out from 2002 up to 2012." The list says that Devi is the recipient in 2001, so why is it "Between 2001 and 2012"?
  • "a similar award for women was introduced in 2015." Perhaps say the name of the award, if there's one?
  • Recommend adding alt texts.

GeraldWL 10:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Drat8sub I will close this nomination in two days if no-one steps up to take it over as the nominator hasn't edited since last November. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 10:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man: bump --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:55, 23 February 2021 (UTC)


  • I don't understand why the men and women table can't be merged like it is for the emerging award.
  • Suddenly it goes from 2017 to "2018–19" so did the award change to being a "seasonal" thing?
  • 1998, 1999 sorts out of order.
  • Looks like we have an image of Bembem Devi which could be cropped for use here.
  • Ref 5 is missing a work/publisher/website.
  • Ref 6, "The Hindu" isn't a publisher, it's a work.
  • Sometimes India Today refs have a publisher, sometimes not.
  • Ref 3 and ref 13 have same work but different publisher.
  • I'm not seeing this award mentioned in the "Football in India" template so it should either be added or the navigational template should be removed.

The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of autonomous areas by country[edit]

Notified: Gary, Cordyceps-Zombie, WikiProject Countries, WikiProject Politics

This is an old 2008 promotion, and it seems to have not been maintained in the interim. The lead is quite short and contains only two citations (2). Many of its entries explicitly lack citations, many of the apparent citations are notes, and many actual citations are just to Some entries are questionable (eg. French DOMs, Jakarta), or to meet only part of the leads inclusion criteria (eg. Spanish regions can not all, by definition, "in relation to the majority of other sub-national territories in the same country, enjoy a special status including some legislative powers"). CMD (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Abingdon Boys School discography[edit]

Notified: Town of Cats, WikiProject Discographies

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it no longer meets our accessibility guidelines as required under WP:FLCR #5. Specifically, the tables have no captions, and they lack unique row-headers, which should be the title of the release in each case. RexxS (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: but why not fix it to comply rather than nominating for removal? Like you said, MOS:DTAB indicates that scopes and captions should be used. Heartfox (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    I don't have time to fix every FL with accessibility flaws. I think it's preferable to teach an active WikiProject how to fix the FLs themselves. --RexxS (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Added scope="col" to each column. Honestly, I think a bigger issue would be most of the references going to Amazon store pages. The accessibility issues described are easy to rectify, but if there aren't reliable sources, then that indicates deeper issues. (Edit: Looks like Amazon is OK for release dates. Not sure about the notes, however, but since most of them are basically "they did this one song" or are cited to Oricon, I would guess it would be fine? I don't know.) MSG17 (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Update JohnFromPinckney has thoroughly overhauled the article, and all tables now have captions, sensible row headers and appropriate scopes. It may be that all of these types of FL dating from 2010 and earlier need a similar makeover to bring them up to our current standards, but I believe that Abingdon Boys School discography should now remain a Featured List. Hopefully the FLC director or delegates will agree and we can close this nomination. --RexxS (talk) 00:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Dubai[edit]

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

There are barely any pictures on this page, probably due to a mass purge of UAE building images on Commons some years ago. I might try to add some more images to this page in the next few weeks, but for now I don't think it deserves to be featured. Kestreltail (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Kestreltail Pictures can be added with the WP:FLRC process, what part(s) of WP:WIAFL does this fail? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Other than the pictures, a number of red links. Kestreltail (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 24 out of 74 items, or about a third. There are also some red links surprisingly near the start of the list, but if none of these are considered problems then I will gladly withdraw my nomination. Kestreltail (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist - Wow, I have not seen a featured list with such lack of citations, some entire tables missing citations, random facts missing citations. It also has wild (possibly outdated) speculation running afoul of WP:CRYSTAL, and has outdated style "This list ranks". Says "currently under construction" with no indication of what "currently means". Will be a lot of work to bring this up to standard. Mattximus (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep I think the main list is fine. The under construction section needs some updating. Cheetah (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Bucharest[edit]

Notified: WikiProject_Romania

While I fully appreciate the difficulty of maintaining such a list up to date with the lack of available informatino, I am nominating this for featured list removal because if currently fails the Comprehensiveness and Stability criteria. The following issues are observable:

  1. The lead is not in sync with the inclusion criteria: it mentions 50 m, while the inclusion criteria is 60 m.
  2. Lacks some buildings present in the Romanian version, specifically older, communist blocks (e.g. "Bloc 15D").
  3. Sources do not support the data (e.g. for Ana tower the height is not mentioned in the source) or are outdated (e.g. for Monaco towers it seems to be an old version of the website from before the buildings were completed; the current completion date seems to be 2010).
  4. The notes are out of date (e.g. for Bucharest Corporate Center) or present original research not supported by the source (for Millenium Business Center).
  5. Abuses internal links by linking all entries of the same group of buildings to the article.

Before nominating I left the same message on the TP of the article and WikiProject Romania.Strainu (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

  • This looks salvageable but needs some work. Additional issues I notice:
    • File:Bucharest Height Chart by Vlad Tronciu.jpg is all but sure to go out of date—August 2020 is alright enough for now, but this is a serious WP:ENDURE concern.
    • Coordinates columns shouldn't be sortable, and there should be a references column.
    • Some reference dates are formatting as YYYY-MM-DD.
    • There should be images of all the buildings, as these aren't really hard to obtain for anyone living in the city. The image column should also probably be removed for the "under construction" section as its empty.
    • A dynamic map of where the tallest buildings are located within the city would be nice.
Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Please note that Romania doesn't have FoP, so images of every building should not be a requirement (per WP:FUC).--Strainu (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist This one isn't that bad. With a bit of work, someone could get it back up relatively quickly. ~ HAL333 05:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist- Certainly not up to current standards. Many outdated terminology "This lists ranks", some of the under construction buildings have dates indicating they should be completed last year. Lead year out of date. The "proposed" or "approved" sections shouldn't even be there, they run afoul of WP:CRYSTAL. Lots of work to bring it up to current standards. Mattximus (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

List of schools in Cardenal Caro[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Schools

This page is maybe salvageable but would definitely need some work (and it's on such an obscure topic, I'm not sure that that work will be forthcoming). Issues include outdated enrollment figures, failure to sort the years column properly, potential overuse of foreign terms/italics and other minor style issues, and missing websites. There have been some moves or something that have turned the nominator into a redlink, so I'm not sure if they're still around or how to reach them if they are. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I have updated the article with the latest enrollment info from the Ministry of Education. Although 101 schools are listed, 39 have no students and may be closed. One such school, Quebrada del Nuevo Reino, had students in 2014 and I have removed it from the current list. --Kuatrero (talk) 16:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist There are a lot of strange problems with this list. The lead does not match the list (for example, largest school population number), there are categories defined in the lead but not including terms in the table (what does Middle Major mean?), some of the paragraph under schools should be footnotes, "The enrollments given here are" is outdated terminology (tautological) and could simply be (2020) in the column header. There need to be more citations (how do we know there are 26 schools in the lead, what source is that from?). It's not impossible with some effort to bring it up to standard if someone is willing, but it's extremely niche. Mattximus (talk) 14:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

List of De La Salle University people[edit]

Notified: Moray An Par, WikiProject Higher Education

This list has quite a few issues. The lead is overlong, mostly bloated by examples that should be in the tables. In the alumni table, the relationships column is a mess, with some entries just marked with "U", which I'm not even sure what it means. A few are missing references, as are some faculty entries. I'm not sure whether the honorary degree recipients are important enough to warrant listing. In the references, there are a few permanent dead links, a title error, and a ref used several dozen times that should be in the column heading. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 03:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist Per all of the points by Sdkb. Some of the inclusions are definitely questionable, such as one redlinked alumnus known for being "Wanted by US police as a pedophile"?... ~ HAL333 05:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist - Red linked alumni should all be removed. And I'm not sure what "people" means in the title. Perhaps narrowing the scope to alumni would be wiser, with a separate page for presidents. The "relationship" column is unsourced and I'm not sure what it even means. Mattximus (talk) 14:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

List of mammals of Canada[edit]

Notified: Circeus, WikiProject Canada

I am nominating this 2007 nomination for removal because it is lacking in sourcing, as evidenced by the template. Many of the conservation statuses are not cited. I also wonder whether any have changed since 2014 (Having recently done this for a much shorter list, I know that adding dozens of IUCN citations is no easy or quick task.) Many images are also absent, despite availability. ~ HAL333([13]) 01:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist. The sourcing tag is definitely valid, which alone is enough. The images are also lacking, and there are concerns about the formatting. No improvement since nom. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 06:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not know what is meant by the "sourcing tag".
  • The main problem is that, due to the lower standards in 2007, the article was promoted in spite of the limited references. The lack of images is also due to the article's age as all the available images I have checked are dated after 2007. Is the nominator Circeus interested in updating the article to modern standards? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I definitely do not have the energy or time to work through the list all over at this point, especially with libraries shut down here b/c of coronavirus. Circéus (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist – no in-line citations in lead or tables to verify facts, poor accessibility due to lack of proper alt text, and poor visual style in violation of FLCR #5a due to inconsistent text formatting. I don't think this is going to get updated any time soon. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist --Guerillero Parlez Moi 04:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)