Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2024

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC) [1].

---

List of places in the Northern Territory by population

Nominator(s): Steelkamp (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Ever since I created this page back in 2022, I've been thinking about nominating this list for FL. I've finally got around to doing so now! This is a list of places in Australia's Northern Territory, the least densely-populated part of Australia, making for a very small number of places with a population above 200. This article includes a list of Urban centres and localities, as defined by the ABS, and a list of local government areas, as defined by the Northern Territory. Places listed range from the city of Darwin to small Aboriginal communities with only a few hundred people. I look forward to all comments. Steelkamp (talk) 09:26, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead seems a bit sparse at just four sentences. Could you incorporate some stuff about how there are only N settlements with over 1000 people, what the largest is, etc?
  • I've added some prose to the lead and also before each table. Hope that's good.
• Why do some places have dashes for their 2011 population in the first table? Did they not exist?
  • Apart from Minyerri, which I have fixed (the 2011 census used a different spelling), those places did not have a high enough population at the time, or otherwise did not meet the requirements to be a UCL. I checked using the map at [2].
    • Could you add some sort of note to that effect? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
      • Done.
• Why do some places in the second table have an asterisk rather than a rank?
  • Those places are unincorporated areas, which I don't think should receive a rank since they aren't actually local government areas.
    • Could you add some sort of note to that effect? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:28, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
      • Done.
• Note a needs a full stop -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Done.

Thanks for the comments ChrisTheDude! Steelkamp (talk) 09:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• Remove "The tallest building is 100 metres in height." from alt text of Darwin skyline image (irrelevant detail)
  • Done.
• "self governing" → "self-governing"
  • Done.
• "built up" → "built-up"
  • Done.
• No need to say there are 17 local government areas twice in quick succession – remove one mention
  • If you keep the second mention, "seventeen" should be "17" for consistency
  • Done.
• In the second table, Local government in Australia#Unincorporated areas may be a more useful link for "Unincorporated areas" (the link in the introductory prose is fine)
  • Done.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review RunningTiger123! Steelkamp (talk) 05:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• The most recent census for which data has been released is the 2021 census. should just be merged into the second sentence, like It has a population of 232,605 as of the 2021 Australian census, the most recent for which data has been released, and occupies...

No other comments. Nice work Steelkamp! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:16, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks Gonzo fan2007. Steelkamp (talk) 06:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – All references appear to be reliable and well-formatted, and the link-checker tool doesn't turn up any concerns. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC) [3].

---

List of myotines

Nominator(s): PresN 19:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Bats list #6 and mammal list #47: Myotinae. Now that we got the giant vespertilionine list out of the way, the rest of the family Vespertilionidae is easier: this subfamily is a third of the size, with only 3 genera to keep track of. Still just another 121 tiny bats, but a few of these guys have decided that when they swoop down to pluck bugs off of the water, they're okay with snagging a fish while they're at it. Also, in contrast to the angry little guy of the past list, this list has the Yuma myotis down at the bottom who's just done with it all and ready to go home. In any case, as always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• I don't know if I missed this on previous lists but......"Members [plural] of this subfamily are called a myotine [singular]" - maybe "A member...."....?
• "neritic marine" - is there a link for this? I don't think it's a common/well-known term
• Guatemalan myotis - habitat is blank
• That's it - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Fixed all three, thanks! --PresN 22:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007

• Read through twice and can't find anything to nitpick at. Nice work. Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Source review:
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 11 sources match what they are being cited for

Looks good! Support Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2024 (UTC) [4].

---

List of municipalities in Ciudad Real

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC) and Alavense (talk)

This list is one more step in our quest to bring up the list of municipalities of Spanish provinces up to the standard seen in the other featured lists of municipalities. Alavense has made considerable changes based on our last nominations which currently has 3 supports. This one should go smoothly as we are always building on previous suggestions, but we are happy to make any recommended changes. Thanks for all your comments in advance! Mattximus (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The Statute of Autonomy of Castilla–La Mancha also contains provisions concerning the relations between the municipalities and the autonomous government of Castilla–La Mancha" - is this meant to be in here, given that we are not talking about that province......?
• That's it I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude: The province of Ciudad Real is part of the autonomous community of Castilla–La Mancha, so those provisions do apply. The autonomous community is the first-level administrative division and the province is the second-level one. Alavense (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Apologies, it literally says that in the first sentence! Happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• Many of the refs are missing their archive links. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, MPGuy2824. As stated in previous nominations, it's impossible to archive many of the references, given that they are selections of data from the general set of municipalities. I archived those I could, but the ones which provide population figures cannot be archived, I'm afraid. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments (source review)

• Please add {{Use dmy dates}} and {{Use British English}}. Recommend {{British English}} for the talk page.

• Done I think I did this correctly

• Image review: all images are free, captioned and used appropriately.
• Source review: Passed
  • All references are consistently formatted.
  • All references appear reliable for what is being cited.
  • Ref 1 appears to be a dead link
    • Fixed.
  • Ref 2 appears to be a landing page. Please provide more specific locations for the info cited. As an example, Ref 2 is supposed to support and the 3rd largest by land area, spanning 19,812.81 square kilometres and yet that info isn't on this page.
    • I did fix the link to address this specific concern. But for other links and landing pages, I'm not sure if direct links are possible. I will try pinging Alavense to see if they know. Otherwise all your comments have been addressed! Mattximus (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • All other ref spot checks look good. I will note that I am a basic level Spanish speaker and using that and a combination of Google translate, I feel comfortable that the Spanish sources are good.

Nice work Mattximus. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:39, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Mattximus, did you address Ref #2? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Mattximus so it looks like Ref 19 is the only one still going to the landing page. Can you link directly to a list by land area? We typically don't cite pages where the reader has to actually search for the information. As an example, I work a lot on Green Bay Packers articles; I can't cite to Packers.com and then force users to click around to find the information. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

After some searching, it appears that is actually the correct page, but you need to click on download zip file to see all the data. Any ideas how I should cite that? Mattximus (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Mattximus can you copy the download link? You can right click in Chrome and "View page source" and try to find the link to the downloaded data. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I tried the view page source and inspect mode, but I cannot for the life of me find the link. I will have to defer to Alavense as they know the source. Mattximus (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Mattximus and Alavense:, any progress? I hate to hold this up on something fairly minor, but as the source review I cannot easily verify the information being cited. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

If alavense cannot reply by tomorrow I'll give it one more shot, or worst case, find a new source. Mattximus (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

• I found it! The link is indeed correct, you need to click on "Nomenclátor Geográfico de Municipios y Entidades de Población" and download the zip file, and it is under the fille MUNICIPIOS.cvs, and it is the last number in the first column, with the last two digits being decimals. I have no clue how to cite that, but it is accurate and a reputable source. Mattximus (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:32, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC) [5].

---

List of Green Bay Packers award winners

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Of all the lists I have brought to FLC, this was the most challenging from a development perspective. As always, happy to implement any edits or answer any questions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

MPGuy2824

In the "Most Valuable Player" table:

• "Player of the year award" should have "colgroup" as the scope.
• Images are missing alt text.

I found the same issues in the next section too. Please fix this over the whole page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824, got them both, thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824, if you have the time for a full review, I would really appreciate. No worries either way! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding more comments here:

• Consider linking "playoffs" somewhere. Maybe in the lead.
• There is an unexplained overlap in the "Team awards" section: "NFL champion (1920–35)" and "NFL champion (1934–67)". Please fix.
• "quarterback rating" needs a wikilink or an explanatory note.
• George Halas, who played, coached and owned the Chicago Bears Maybe "played with" or "played in" might work better.
• A few of the refs are missing archive links.

I didn't see any other problem with the prose or table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks MPGuy2824, I really appreciate it! All comments addressed. Let me know if there is anything else. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I forgot to mentioned, User:IABot isn't archiving new links right now. All old links are archived and I will update the page when IABot is up and running again. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. BTW, one can manually add archive links, but I'll trust you on running IABot when it is available. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• I will do a full review at some point, but one point that jumps out is repeated use of "the first Packers' player" / "the only Packers' player" / etc. There should not be an apostrophe there, because "Packers" is being used adjectivally, not possessively. If you used the first part of the team name rather than the second you would not say "he became the first Green Bay's player to do [whatever]".... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude, I think I got them all here. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude if you are able to complete a full review, I would greatly appreciate it! Thanks for any insight you may have. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Apologies, I forgot all about this. Here's my comments......
• "four Super Bowls, which is inclusive of two additional NFL Championships won during the merger of the NFL and American Football League (AFL), since then." - is the qualifier between the commas really needed? It makes the sentence a bit long and hard to unpack.....
• Write out MVP in full on first use in the body as well as the lead
• "In 2014, Rodgers has another season" => "In 2014, Rodgers had another season"
• "The awardee is selected near the end of the game by electronic fan voting" - presumably only since a certain date.....?
• "Holmgren's award came during first season with the Packers" => "Holmgren's award came during his first season with the Packers"
• "after increasing the teams' record from 4–12" => "after increasing the team's record from 4–12"
• In the notes, I think "Rookie of the year awards are only eligible for first-year players" is the wrong way round and should be "Only first-year players are eligible for Rookie of the year awards"
• Also in the notes, odd capitalisation in "SN awards their player of the Year award"
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:44, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks ChrisTheDude, I have addressed all of your comments here. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 05:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Comment: Putting this here because I reviewed the list of Packers MVPs and I'd like to review this as well (looks like a much stronger list at a quick glance and I'm already leaning support). Ping me if I haven't gotten back with a full review in a few days. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Full review:

• "9 conference championships" – spell out "nine" per MOS:NUMERAL
  • MOS:NUMERAL says Comparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently. Since 21 and 36 are written as numbers, 9 should be a number too, right? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Works for me. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• "the Packers have recorded the most regular season victories (805) and the most overall victories (842) of any team..." – probably worth putting an "as of" statement here so it won't fall out of date
  • I generally don't see the benefit of "As of" nor have I ever seen it required. I generally keep the totals up-to-date throughout the season. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
    • It's a good practice (although you're updating it now, things eventually change and it may stop getting updated). But overall neutral on the necessity of it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• "The Packers received this award 8 times" – spell out "eight"
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• "The Packers have won four Super Bowls in 1966, 1967, 1996 and 2010." → "The Packers have won four Super Bowls, in 1966, 1967, 1996 and 2010." (don't want to imply they won four Super Bowls in each of those years)
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• "In addition to his role on offensive" – should be "on offense"
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• "from PFWA, SN in 1995 and 1996" → "from PFWA and SN in 1995 and 1996"
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• "The 1997 award from the AP was unique" – but it wasn't? The sentence specifically says this had happened before.
  • Rewrote. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• For player of the year, I don't think a recap of any MVP seasons is needed. For instance, you can just say Hornung won the 1961 player of the year award in the same season he won the MVP award.
  • I am not 100% sure what you mean here, but I generally wanted each section to stand on its own. It's unlikely most people will read this whole article from start to finish, rather they will jump to a specific section/award. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• "Favre led the NFL is both passing yards" – should be "is" (but the line should be cut per the above point)
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• "1 interception for a touchdown" – spell out "one"
  • Similar to the first comment, since 13.5 is in the sentence first, 1 should be a number, right? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Footnote u ("Only first-year players are eligible...") can be removed as superfluous
  • I have had so many people complain (especially at WP:DYK) that I can't assume that people all understand American football, and so I wanted to be clear why I have running totals in all the other tables, but not this one. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Starting with the assistant coach table, the image columns should be set to unsortable
  • Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
• Suggest setting a small column width for Ref. columns (more of an aesthetic matter, but wide columns for references seem off – setting a narrow width will force them to wrap)
  • I tried setting the width, but it never got smaller than the longest set of references (i.e. it fixed the width and didn't push the references to the next row). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Interesting, I'm able to set a column width that forces them to wrap. (I tried width=20px on the Coach of the Year table.) I don't think I have any preferences that would cause that... Again, not a necessity. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
• As a general note, since you cite the winners in the tables, I don't think you need to include citations proving they won in the prose. (Any other information should still be referenced, just not the fact that they won and who presented the award.)
  • I prefer citing the text as well. Just a personal preference to be clear that everything is appropriately cited. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

• Thanks RunningTiger123, I addressed or responded to all your points above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Support – left a few follow-up comments above, but nothing that's an issue. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:46, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Review based on this version of the article.

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 30 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Ref 7 – Should we just do AP News instead of apnews.com and Associated Press?
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 36 – at |at=sec. 8, p. 13
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 78 – Missing website entry
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 79 – Change "The Naples Daily News" to "Naples Daily News"
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Refs 84 and 86 – You use the acronym for Newspaper Enterprise Association in these whereas you use the full name in refs 68 and 77. Use the full name for consistency and because I don't think we should expect people to know the acronym if looking strictly at the sources (I know, it's said in lead, but I believe this is best practices)
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 109 – I might be incorrect, because as much as I try, I do forget some specifics about your referencing style, but don't you typically try to link for news organizations? If so, you'd want to link to WLWT instead
  • I typically only link newspapers, or more pecifically when I use {{Cite news}} instead of {{Cite web}}. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Refs 126, 127, and 128 – Consider not using the acronym for United Press International
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 128 – Based on the target article, change the newspaper from The Columbus Telegram to Columbus Telegram
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 158 – You used "NF.info" instead of "NFL.info"
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 166 – Missing author
  • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 170 – Not accessible without logging in (unclear to me if it's paid after that)
  • Added |url-access=subscription. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 170 – Would we link to The Athletic?
  • I generally don't link websites. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Ref 172 – You linked to CBS News here but did not in ref 136
  • This came from me stealing an existing reference from another article. Changed to CBSNews.com « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• I know you have a citation style I'm not always perfect at remembering, but I noticed you link "via Newspapers.com", should you also be linking "via Google News", where applicable?
  • Yes, the only ref with Google News is #13, which has the "via.16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)~~

• Coach of the Year section – Main article list should probably be List of NFL Coach of the Year awards
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Same as above for other relevant sections
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• You mention "SN" in the lead as the abbreviation, but I think the abbreviation should be "TSN", based it only having been "Sporting News" from February 2002 to February 2022.
  • I don't believe Sporting News has an established abbreviation. Similar to KC 101, this is just one I use to shorten up text, primarily in tables. You don't typical see "The" in abbreviations (think The New York Times and (NYT)). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• If Pro Football Writers of America is the name at the target, and it lists in that article that it's sometimes called Pro Football Writers Association, should we consider replacing that in the text where appropriate? The site also shows a big header with that name instead of the one you used in article.
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Comeback Player of the Year table - uses "Comeback Player of the year award" - should probably capitalization "Year" in that, even if you don't want to treat "Award" as part of the proper name, the award itself is capitalized. There's some capitalization stuff that could probably be more consistent.
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @
• MVP table - Probably better to make the column header "MVP awards"
  • Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Same for other tables where there's multiple issuers
  • Changed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Main article for the Walter Payton award is titled "Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year Award", should probably also rename section title for that
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
• Main article for the Alan Page award is NFLPA Alan Page Community Award
  • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

That's what I've got for now. Please ping me when replying. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, thank you so much for doing such a large source review. I greatly appreciate it. I have responded to or addressed all of your comments above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: Looks like the only outstanding bit is regarding the abbreviation for The Sporting News. For what it's worth, the abbreviation of "TSN" is used a fair bit in The Sporting News. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, I guess what I am saying is in the realm of awards, it appears to be more just "Sporting News". See Sporting News NFL Player of the Year Award and PFR for example. List of NFL Offensive Player of the Year awards already uses "SN". I just don't see The Sporting News in this realm much. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not hard set on it, and I don't think it changes the overall quality of the list to change the acronym, so I won't hold things up based on that. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC) [6].

---

List of World Heritage Sites in Chile

Nominator(s): Tone 09:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Chile has 7 WHS, including Easter Island (Rapa Nui), and 17 sites on the tentative list. Standard style. The list for New Zealand is already seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 09:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review by Generalissima

• Sources fall quite squarely into the same template as similar lists such as List of World Heritage Sites in Argentina, so I think we've got good sourcing here. Sources are consistently formatted and cited, and there are no statements that appear to be uncited. Everything in the sources checks out to their descriptions and data. I think we're good to go here; Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and since I know image reviews can take some time;

• All images are either public domain or correctly licensed CC; and of course suitable for the topic. They also have alt-text, yay! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• the Settlement and Artificial Mummification of the Chinchorro Culture in the Arica and Parinacota Region, in 2021. comma not needed
• What is the World Heritage Committee? This should be elaborated a bit.
• around 300 by a group not clear that you mean a year by "300". 300 AD? The 4th century?
• The Jesuits arrived to the islands in the early --> "came to the islands"
• and Hippidion. as well as still existing species such as guanaco.-->{{tq|and Hippidion, as well as still existing species, such as guanaco.
• a port town that made fortune in the 19th century add "a" or "its" before "fortune"
• pictured.} remove stray bracket

That is all I got. Nice work Tone! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Fixed all. I linked the WHC, that should work. Tone 19:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• nit: Chile has 17 properties on its tentative list. --> Chile has 17 sites on its tentative list.. "Properties" seems to imply they're each owned by one group (such as one plot of land), but I don't know that it adequately describes national parks or a set of caves.
• Tarapaca -> Tarapacá
• They build adobe villages -> They built adobe villages

Great list Tone! Brindille1 (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed all, thanks! Tone 08:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Brindille1 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Brindille1 just a friendly reminder to place your comments under 4-level headings. Three level headings mess up the TOC. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC) [7].

---

List of towns in British Columbia

Nominator(s): Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Another BC municipalities list that I have done work on. I hope you enjoy. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead image could be made larger
• "Towns, cities, districts and villages in British Columbia are referred to as municipalities and all are included in local governments in the province, which may be incorporated under the Local Governance Act of 2015." - this sentence is confusing - what does the "which may be" refer to? The province? The local governments?
• "In order for a municipality in British Columbia to be labelled as a town" - "labelled" implies something that people just informally call something. I would use a more formal verb such as "categorized"
• "Although the population of Port McNeill fall below this threshold, and all the populations except for Princeton, Lake Cowichan, Golden and Gibsons go above this threshold, they are still categorized as towns" - I would redo this whole bit as "Although the population of Port McNeill falls below this threshold, it is still categorized as a town, as are nine settlements with populations greater than 5,000."
• " while the province's newest town is View Royal on December 5, 1988" => " while the province's newest town is View Royal, which incorporated on December 5, 1988"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude I have resolved your comments. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 14:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Generalissima

I'm judging things here by the basis of List of cities in New Brunswick, a recently promoted and similar FL; it appears you based the body off of this, good choice.

• Optional: Add the variable "abbr=on" to your convert template in the lede; with the large numbers already, we gotta do what we can to shorten it.

  done

• You should cite every instance of the regional districts in the list; because the list can be rearranged by the reader, "first usage" doesn't really apply.\

  done

• I would take a leaf (heh) from the New Brunswick article and put the whole population through density columns under a first order "2021 Census of Population" column. Makes the population density unambiguous.

  done

• Give units for the population density. 1,103.2 per what?

  km². clarified.

• Are there any sources that talk about the structure of local governments for towns? Do they have mayors, councils, what? Those would be good to include for context.

  all municipalities have councils.

• Like in the New Brunswick article, you should also have a column for the province as a whole so you can see what percentage of people live in a town (I assume a very small number here.)

  done.

• Former town section looks good.
• The one image is relevant and correctly formatted.
• Were any of these settlements villages before they became towns? If so, which date does "Incorporation Date" reflect?

  The Incorporation Date reflects when the municipality got promoted to a town. clarified.

@CosXZ: That's my piece. Thank you for your good work. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima I have resolved your comments. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 19:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

CosXZ This looks great! Support. Optional, but it could be good to indicate if a settlement was previously a village or unincorporated before it became a town. maybe just adding (from village) in parentheses after the date? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments (source review)

• The first and second sentences should be flipped. The second sentence lists the topic of the article pretty directly.
• I would also drop the "As of 2024", which seems silly for something that doesn't really change very often (the last one was in 1988)
• became a town on October 31, 1987[7] and then amalgamated with the Northern Rockies Regional District on February 6, 2009 to you need commas after each year in this sentence
• Is there a reason to use amalgamated instead of a more common English like "combined"?
• In the table, text should either be centered or left justified, but definitely not right justified
• Source review:
  • Refs 2, 4 and 5 all cite the Government of BC. Ref 4 has this italicized, while the others dont.
  • Ref 9 is a dead link for me
  • In the table, where is the "Regional district" information sourced from? I can't find it in Ref 3
  • All other spot checks look good.

CosXZ, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007 I have resolved your comments. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 17:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support (source review passed) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment

I know I'm being repetitive with this comment, but isn't this page a fork of List of municipalities in British Columbia? In that the table is entirely a subset of the table from there? Mattximus (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I made the table styled like List of cities in New Brunswick. Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2024 (UTC) [8].

---

List of constituencies of the Punjab Legislative Assembly

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

My 10th FL nom and the 6th in the constituency series. I've improved the lead and history sections, cleaned up clutter from the table, and brought the table accessibility to FL-standards. Similar, recent FL: Madhya Pradesh -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by Comment

• Ref. 3 doesn't have a website parameter and Ref. 25 is broken. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Sgubaldo: Fixed both issues. Thanks for pointing them out. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I am quite busy this week, but I'll try do a full review. Ping if I haven't said anything by Friday. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

• Wikilink The Times of India for Ref. 6
• Ref. 5 and 25 has no website or publisher?
• Refs. 10 and 14 have had their publisher accidentally written into the title parameter.
• Why are you using term_length in the infobox rather than term_limit like with the Madhya Pradesh list?
• Capitalise 'North India' in the first line?

Sgubaldo (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Sgubaldo: You're right: term limit is more accurate than term length. Fixed that and the rest that you pointed out. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Ref. 1 should use |website= rather than |publisher= for India Today, but other than that, support. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments (Source review)

• The first paragraph of the lead needs inline citations.
• Are there no Scheduled Tribes in the Punjab Legislative Assembly? If so, state that definitively.
• I would change the links to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in the lead and the table to the following:
  • In the lead, change Scheduled Castes (SC) (and Scheduled Tribes (ST)) to Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) (note the change in linking and punctuation)
  • In the Legend for the table, change Scheduled Castes to Scheduled Castes (note the more specific location on the link)

Nice work. That's all I got MPGuy2824. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Table legend change: I've added more specific anchors to the definitions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. I've fixed these in the previous FLs too.
• Lead paragraph needing citations: I've added a couple and I think the rest of the statements aren't as challenge-worthy, but I'm happy to look for refs if you disagree with that.
• Fixed the rest.

Thanks for the review, Gonzo fan2007. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review: Passed

• Ref #4 is the only one that writes out the website as a url. Recommend just changing is to IndiaSpend.
• Ref #4 is also missing its author.
• Ref #14 says "1962" but should be "1972"
• It appears the Election Commission of India pages are all dead. Please check them all and change all to |url-status=dead.
• Why does the last sentence of the lead need 3 sources?
• Everything else appears consistently formatted.
• All sources appear reliable for what is being sorted.
• Spot checks: all spot checks came back good to go.

MPGuy2824, I figured I'd do your source review too. Let me know when you have addressed everything. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

• It appears the Election Commission of India pages are all dead. They aren't dead, but the ECI in its infinite wisdom has geo-fenced them. I have been using "|url-access=limited" to signify this, but if there is a better way, please let me know.
• Why does the last sentence of the lead need 3 sources? - Removed one of the newspaper refs. Now one is a newspaper and the other is a primary source.
• I've fixed the rest of the issues. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  MPGuy2824 If you make the url-status dead, than the archive links will show up first in the reference. The archive links seems to be working, so I would recommend that. See [9]. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:27, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

  The problem is that I can access the urls in India, so they aren't exactly dead. I don't know how wide the geo-fencing is, but I've checked with an editor in Europe who can't access those urls. I think I'll start a thread on WT:FLC about this and see what others think. Lists that I've previously taken to FL (and future constituency lists) will also be affected. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

  MPGuy2824, if you aren't expecting these pages to change, then having the archive link come first makes verification the easiest for the largest amount of people. That said, I won't have this hold up the FLC review and will allow the other discussion go its course. I can verify the page, so its a Support from me. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:32, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Inconsistent capitalisation of "Scheduled castes" and "Scheduled tribes" in the lead
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed. Thanks for the review, ChrisTheDude. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [10].

---

List of vespertilionines

Nominator(s): PresN 20:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Bats list #5 and mammal list #46: Vespertilioninae. This list wore me out: I try to make it one list per family, but the parent family (Vespertilionidae) had so many bats that the page stopped rendering partway through. Even cutting it down to this subfamily is still pushing it, as with 278 species it's almost as big as the entire order of Carnivora, which was covered by the first ten lists in this series, and nearly 5% of all mammal species in one go. It's all done now, though, so here we are: nearly 300 tiny, tiny little bats. Really, what got me through it was the picture for the first bat: he's been captured by a giant, and he's so very mad about it. As always, this list reflects formatting discussions from prior lists as well as the scientific consensus on the family. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 20:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I am currently on pretty slow wifi, so what I got when the page started loading was the alt text of the lede image, which is incredible. And the pallid bat image is, indeed, very cute. So smol, so angry. Anyway, I'll try to give a prose review of the top parts.

• A few extinct prehistoric molossid species have been discovered, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed. Molossids? Huh?
• Considering your reported problem of page length, this rendered decently quickly for me on slow wifi. Good job!

Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 01:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@SilverTiger12: Whoops, fixed! --PresN 02:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 23:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• I think the lead image could be made larger
• "Main article: Murininae" is randomly floating between two tables and doesn't look like it's meant to be there.......unless I am wrong......?
• That's it - amazing work. Your dedication to long and heavy-duty lists is to be admired! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Expanded and fixed, thanks! --PresN 13:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review by Generalissima

Holy moly, that's a lot of bats!

Mainly cited to the IUCN red list, which seems like quite the reputable source (and match your previous FLs in this field). I'm going to have to assume good faith on All the Mammals, but I checked a dozen of the IUCN cites and they all checked out, as did the one Nowak cite and Ibanez et al. Sources are consistently formatted, and every entry has its own cite. I would personally put Ibanez et al. in the bibliography itself rather than in the citations, but its your list and consistency is what matters here. The uncited portions in the lede, conventions, and classification are supported by the sources in the tables themselves, so all is shipshape here.

Support, everything seems fine by me. :) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• My only comment, not impacting my support, is that "regularly" and "also" in which regularly also eats small birds cancel each other out. I would just choose one.

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [11].

---

List of heads of government of Liechtenstein

Nominator(s): TheBritinator (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Renominating this for FL since it's rejection several months ago. I have taken time to significantly improve it to fit the criteria, mostly taken from experience in my other successful nomination, and I believe it is now ready to reviewed again. TheBritinator (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• All images need alt texts.
• Please clarify that you've incorporated all the feedback from the last time this was nominated.
• I would remove the images from the Monarch columns. Its a bit distracting.
• Scopes need to be on the header cell. e.g. in the deputy heads table, the scope is present on the image cells. It should be on the number cell. Also, if the header cell spans multiple rows, then the scope should be "rowgroup". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

  Hello, I have addressed these comments. TheBritinator (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Noting that I've left a notice about this nom at WP:WikiProject Liechtenstein. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, but that WP is inactive. TheBritinator (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The appointed head of government is typically the leader of the political party with the most seats in the Landtag or a coalition of parties, but is not required to be a member of the Landtag themselves, although they should meet the eligibility requirements for that office." - source for all this?
• "The title was changed to 'Governor'" - what was it before, then? You don't say......
• "People are numbered according to periods served by the same person. For example, Carl von In der Maur served as State Administrator twice in two non-consecutive terms, yet is still counted as the second" - this doesn't really make sense as written. Change it to "People are numbered according to periods served by the same person. For example, Carl von In der Maur served as State Administrator twice in two non-consecutive terms, but is counted only once"
• Any particular reason why the head of government table has the start and dates squished into one column and a duration column but the deputy heads table has the start and end dates in two separate columns and no duration column? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  I actually coincidentally fixed the second one earlier today while working on something else. I will get on the rest tomorrow. TheBritinator (talk) 00:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

  Feger's first row in the deputies table looks odd with the "duration" being half blank - is the 91 days only the time he served under Ospelt? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  I merged it because he technically still had the role during his time as acting prime minister. TheBritinator (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Sgubaldo

Will try to look at it this weekend. Ping if I haven't said anything by Wednesday. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Prose:

• Note a ('Defunct from 1936') probably needs a citation. Also, reading the article, it seems like it merged with a separate minor party. Perhaps this could be added to the note?
• "In 1921, a new constitution was ratified in which the office was replaced by that of Prime Minister" ==> "In 1921, a new constitution was ratified in which the office was replaced by that of the Prime Minister"?
• "The role originated as Landvogt when Michael Menzinger applied for the creation of the role in 1833, which served as the head of the district office, and was the first office-holder" ==> This is one sentence saying two different things at once; I also am not entirely clear if the role itself is what served as the head of the district office. If so, consider changing to something like: "The position originated as Landvogt in 1833, when Michael Menzinger applied for its creation. The role functioned as the head of the district office, with Menzinger serving as the first office-holder."
• "... One of the cabinet ministers is appointed to this position by the prince of Liechtenstein upon the proposal of the Landtag of Liechtenstein." ==> Since this is the first time you're mentioning the prince and landtag in the body, you could probably wikilink both again?

Tables:

• Text and references are centered in the State Administrator table, but not the Prime Minister or Deputy Prime Minister ones.
• I'm not sure if it's a visual glitch or an issue with the table code, but the Josef Büchel box has some weird doubling of the lines.

Source Formatting:

• Ref. 1 doesn't comply with MOS:ALLCAPS
• Add an archive link for Ref. 2 and 3?
• Minor nitpick but some references have opaque names like :1 or :122, when it would be better to have more descriptive ones.

Sgubaldo (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Sure, removed the excessive capitalization. Will work on archiving later. TheBritinator (talk) 12:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

@Sgubaldo All comments have been addressed. However, I am having a bit of difficulty in getting the party colour bar to line up and can't seem to get it to work. Also, internet archive appears to be down again for the time being. TheBritinator (talk) 13:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Support, but do archive the sources when the IA is back online. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Toadspike

• "The incumbent Prime Minister is Daniel Risch since 25 March 2021" should say "has been", not "is".
• The image caption in the lead is fairly clunky. I don't know if bullet points are a great idea (open to being convinced), and most collages describe images in clockwise order to avoid having to say "Top left:" etc.
• The "parties" section is also a little jarring. I think it can either be converted into a paragraph of prose (e.g. listing number of PMs from each party and general trends) or omitted entirely, as at the list of US presidents, given that the parties are linked in the table. The footnote can be added to the first relevant entries in the table (e.g. Alfred Hilbe).
• Does this nomination still need a source review? I'd be willing to do that, but it would have to wait until the weekend or perhaps next week. Toadspike [Talk] 15:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes @Toadspike, it does still need a source review. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Toadspike For the second point I was replicating List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, which is a FL. TheBritinator (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm glad to see there's precedent, in that case I won't pursue this point further. Toadspike [Talk] 18:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I have gone over all of the comments provided by myself and others in this FLC and checked the list for appropriate fixes. I believe they have all been addressed and I support this FLC. Toadspike [Talk] 22:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review by Toadspike (passed)

Most of the list is cited to source 5, which is reliable as a publication of the Landesarchiv.

• Source 5 does not mention some of the early acting governors/PMs or Michael Menzinger, doesn't list election dates, and doesn't have specific term start and end dates, only years. I will check the other sources for those later.
• It does list Prinz Karl as being "provisorisch" (temporary, acting) from 1918 to 1920 – any reason he isn't listed as such in the table?
• It lists acting PMs Feger and Gubelmann as being from the VP and FBP respectively – they are marked as "Independent" in the table.
• Otherwise, all PMs' start and end dates are verified.
• Source 5 lists Alfons Feger as being deputy PM three times and lists his total time in this post as 1922-1928. The table says that the post was vacant under Gubelmann in 1922 – this should say that Feger held the post during that time period. Also, his party is listed as VP in the source, but the table says that he's independent.
• The red bar showing that the deputy MP was from the VP has a small gap between Nigg and Büchel. Probably some table syntax issue. I think it stems from trying to overlap PM Frick's last few months in office with the new deputy.
• The remaining Deputy PMs also check out.

Source 1 is really interesting. It is, however, some kind of opinion containing proposed changes to the constitution of Liechtenstein, not actually the constitution itself. I appreciate the commentary where relevant (see below), but I am wondering if there's a better (unaltered, unannotated) version of the constitution you could cite for the uncontroversial stuff, like the first sentence.

• I noticed that the sentence Under this constitution, the eligibility for becoming head of government was changed to require residency in Liechtenstein. is inaccurate, since it implies that rule existed in 1921 when the constitution was ratified. The source says that the 1921 constitution required holders of several high offices to be "natives" of Liechtenstein (I'm pretty sure this means "born in Liechtenstein", like the "natural-born" requirement for the US presidency), and that in/after 1992 the Government held that the rule is unenforceable or similar.
• This source calls the "cabinet" the "Government". I prefer the term government – any reason why "cabinet" was chosen instead? (This is probably a COMMONNAME issue and I haven't looked into all the sources yet.)
• Otherwise the source backs up everything it's cited for.

The third sentence of the lead is uncited. I assume you have a cite floating around for that somewhere? Sources 2 and 3 do not back up the start of the second paragraph, which says "The position originated as Landvogt in 1833, when Michael Menzinger applied for its creation. The role functioned as the head of the district office, with Menzinger serving as the first office-holder." It seems the sources may have been misread. Source 3 explains that the position of Landvogt existed from the 16th century until 1848, when it became the "Regierungsamt". Source 2 explains that Menzinger was the Landvogt from 1833 until his firing due to a financial scandal (sound familiar?) in 1861. The long sentence

Während die fürstlich-liechtensteinischen Beamten in Liechtenstein in der Regel ein Exil sahen, das sie möglichst bald verlassen wollten, hatte Menzinger, der vorher nicht in liechtensteinischen Diensten gestanden hatte, im März 1833 bei Fürst Johann I. um das Amt des liechtensteinischen Landvogts angesucht.

translates as:

While most officials of the princely domains of Liechtenstein saw Liechtenstein [the region that forms the modern country] as an exile [a backwater posting that no-one wanted] which they sought to leave as quickly as possible, Menzinger, who had never served under the Princes of Liechtenstein, applied for the position of Landvogt with Prince Johann I in March 1833.

Basically, Menzinger was remarkable in that he actively sought out the role. However, he did not create the role – it had existed since the 16th century. His role in Liechteinstein history does seem very important, though, so I will not dispute his inclusion in the list itself. The first half of the next sentence is easily verified by source 3. The second half is not entirely verifiable in the sources cited – probably finding the text of the 1862 constitution would be ideal.

Toadspike [Talk] 12:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the party alignment of Feger and Gubelmann. Working to address the rest. TheBritinator (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

@Toadspike For the Menzinger part, how would you recommend rewording it? TheBritinator (talk) 14:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Will try to write something by Monday – currently extremely busy. Toadspike [Talk] 21:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem. I'll take a crack at it in the meantime. TheBritinator (talk) 14:31, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@TheBritinator I've reorganized/rewritten that paragraph to fit exactly what the sources say. I hope my directly editing the article isn't some major impropriety in the FLC process. Toadspike [Talk] 20:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I've finished my source review. A few notes:

1. The third paragraph of the lead is verified by the sources cited, except that claim that There are currently five living former prime ministers. I'm assuming this was synthesized from other sources, which I am personally okay with and will not dispute, but if a source could be found that says this explicitly that'd be great. (Also, source 6 says "Government", not "cabinet", getting back to that commonname point I made above).
2. It looks like the birth/death dates and specific dates when each leader took/left office are based on this source [12], currently relegated to the External links section. I think this website would not generally be considered a reliable source (if I am mistaken, please let me know). I know it's a ton of work, but I strongly advise TheBritinator to go through the articles for each person at the Historisches Lexikon and properly cite these dates to that reliable source. For more recent politicians, newspaper articles might have to be found. Toadspike [Talk] 22:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, there used to be a direct list on the Liechtenstein government website that had the direct dates of each head of government, but for whatever reason it was taken down and I was not able to find any archive. It was quite similar to the PDF I replaced it with but that just has the years instead. I may be wrong but I do believe that is what the source was before I picked up on it over a year ago.

What I'll do is cite the individual lekiton articles with the dates for each person, though this may take a little bit of time. I'll get on it either today or tomorrow. TheBritinator (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Toadspike It is done now. The dates for the latter PMs were harder to verify as the lekiton annoyingly didn't state them like the rest. TheBritinator (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this, I'm checking the new citations. Comments thus far:

1. The link to Source 22 is live, so "URL status" in the citation should be set to "live". Currently the first link in the citation goes to the Internet Archive; you can't see the full article from there.
2. The worldstatesman.org source I previously objected to is still cited a few times. I understand that it's hard to find citations for some specific dates, but in the meantime I have learned that that website is deprecated at RSP, so I strongly encourage you to replace all citations to it.

I noticed that the Lexikon cites some sources in the "Nachrufe" section at the bottom of each article. For instance, you can find the date when Batliner became head of state here. You could also search that website, eliechtensteinensia.li, to find sources.

Best, Toadspike [Talk] 22:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Good point. I'll get on that. TheBritinator (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Toadspike Ping. TheBritinator (talk) 23:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm still going over the sources and dates. There's a small discrepancy around the end of Schädler's term and the start of Prince Alfred's provisional term – the Lexikon says Schädler's entire government resigned on 15.6.1928, and Alfred was provisional head from 24.6. to 6.8.1928. Based on this, I would change the end date of Schädler's term and the start of Alfred's term to 24 June. Toadspike [Talk] 09:52, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. TheBritinator (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Alfred's Lexikon page also says that he was in office until 6 August, not 4 August, so his end date and Hoop's start date should be adjusted accordingly. (The Lexikon should be reliable, but maybe the book I sent you has more info on the specific transfers of power?) Toadspike [Talk] 09:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, the Lexikon is wrong, newspaper articles from the time confirm the date of Saturday, 4 August 1928 for the opening of the Landtag and the election of Hoop. [13] I recommend can citing this in the refs box for Hoop and not the Lexikon article for Alfred. Toadspike [Talk] 08:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm doing spotchecks and I can't find a source for the end of Brunhart's term and the start of Büchel's term. The date currently listed, 26 May 1993, is several weeks after 1989 Liechtenstein general election the election. Same goes for Hilbe and Kieber. This looks like the same problem I brought up earlier with the state archive's list. At this point it might be better to simply state a year instead of giving a specific date which cannot be verified that originated from a deprecated source. (Alternatively, you can try finding more news articles from the time.) Toadspike [Talk] 10:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

On the positive side, the more recent transitions are cited to newspaper articles, which is awesome! I also won't go into detail in the dates for the deputies, since I'm assuming these are always the same as the ones for the head of government except for a few cases sourced to the Lexikon. Toadspike [Talk] 10:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll try. TheBritinator (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I have now re-checked everything and this list is fully sourced and verifiable. I would like to thank TheBritinator's hard work on this. The source review is passed. Toadspike [Talk] 22:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Per WP:BOLDAVOID, I think you are better off avoiding bolding in the first sentence, since you aren't restating the "list of" part.
• Seeing as "Landtag" isn't a common English term, it would be good to provide context ("parliament")
• Originally an undesired post, Michael Menzinger applied for the role in 1833. the first part of this sentence doesn't match the second. Maybe add something like that changed after Michael...
• Re the See also section, "Prince of Liechtenstein" is already linked in the lead. Probably isn't necessary.

That's all I got TheBritinator. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

For point 3, would It was originally an undesired post within the court; this changed after Michael Menzinger applied for the role in 1833. be better? Toadspike [Talk] 18:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Toadspike Yep! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Toadspike [Talk] 20:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Changed the see also. TheBritinator (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@TheBritinator and Toadspike: Looks like the first two points are still outstanding? Any thoughts on those? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I've added a clarification about the Landtag, but I would like to keep the bold. Any thoughts on this? TheBritinator (talk) 22:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I am fine with it. Support. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:29, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The New York Times source needed a subscription tag (url-access) added, but I took care of that. Promoting. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [14].

---

List of chronic pain syndromes

Nominator(s): IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is an important topic and I've put a lot of time into it. I know medical pages can be scary for some but this one is hopefully a bit more straightforward. I have PDFs of all the publications used if needed. I chose to use SFNs to make reviewing easier. I chose not to use tables for this list as it didn't seem appropriate. I tried my hardest to simplify all the medical information but if anything is unclear please let me know. I did struggle a bit with rewording things in a way that wasn't too close to the source but still kept the original meaning so if my wording seems awkward at times please let me know and I will try my hardest to reword things. IntentionallyDense (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

@IntentionallyDense: you haven't completed all the steps to nominate this for FL as laid out in WP:FLC. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, it makes sense why I haven't gotten any input then. IntentionallyDense (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Draken Bowser

I'm pleased to see this fully IASP/ICD-11-compliant article. I was at a lecture series hosted by the Swedish Pain Society earlier this year, and they seemed quite proud of this new development. I'm no expert on the use of articles in English, so take the following suggestions with a grain of salt:

• or the anatomical system in which it affects.

done. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Two sentences in a row begin The IASP Task Force could that be tweaked?

I changed the second sentence to start off as This task force, does that look better? IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• affecting at least three to four four of five body regions - according to the source.

done. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Body quadrants are defined as the upper, lower, left and right sides of the body. - and my preference would be for an overly careful explanation ("upper left, upper right...").

Changes to Body quadrants are defined as the upper left, upper right, lower left, and lower right quadrants of the body, let me know if that looks better. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Chronic widespread pain cannot be attributed to a nociceptive process in these areas.

done. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Is there any non-technical alternative to "distally" in english? Otherwise we could wikilink it.

It could be changed to outwardly but that sounds odd in my opinion. For now I wikilinked it. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Chronic post traumatic pain is pain that develops are worsens after an injury - needs fixing

changed are to or. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• Do we need to list all the possible causes of chronic secondary headache or orofacial pain?

The reason I listed all the causes is that I felt that the classification for secondary headache was a little more obscure than say cancer-related pain. If you think it would look better without the causes then I can remove them. FOr now I trimmed it a bit. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Since I'm unfamiliar with the FLC-process, could anyone tell me what the standards for a source review is? I might want to attempt one.

Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The source review for FLC's is pretty similiar to that of FAC but pinging Hey man im josh since he has more experience in the area. IntentionallyDense (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep, if someone is familiar with source reviews at FAC you can do the exact same thing here and it'd be an excellent source review. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

The sources used are all appropriate and compliant with both WP:BESTSOURCES and WP:MEDRS. Spotchecks show that the phrasing has been altered as much as possible to avoid simply parroting the sources, but for technical definitions you can't change the wording more than this and still comply with WP:V. Overall this looks like a pass, and I have but a few pointers:

• I wonder if we can add something about the autonomic dysfunction present in CRPS without getting to technical? It tends to be taught as the hallmark of the disease, alongside pain-out-of-proportion.

I did find this [15] article which states "The autonomic nervous system (ANS) is involved" and "inflammatory changes and autonomic dysregulation". I could change Complex regional pain syndrome is characterized by pain that is distributed regionally, usually starts in an extremity distally, occurs after a trauma, and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma. to Complex regional pain syndrome is characterized by pain that is distributed regionally, usually starts in an extremity distally, occurs after a trauma, and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma. CRPS also involves changes to the autonomic nervous system. as that doesn't seem overly technical and still includes the ANS. Let me know what you think. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes I think that works, but I don't think we need a new source since that much is covered by the one we've got. I'm wondering if we shouldn't call it "dysfunction" and specify that it is also a local one. /DB

The source I originally used [16] states "Complex regional pain syndrome is further characterized by signs indicating autonomic and inflammatory changes in the affected body region that may vary between patients and over time" I'm thinking of changing Complex regional pain syndrome is characterized by pain that is distributed regionally, usually starts in an extremity distally, occurs after a trauma, and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma. Complex regional pain syndrome is divided into two types, type 2 requires evidence of peripheral nerve injury, while type 1 does not. to Complex regional pain syndrome is characterized by pain that is distributed regionally, usually starts in an extremity distally, occurs after a trauma, and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma. The sites affected by complex regional pain syndrome experience autonomic and inflammatory changes. Complex regional pain syndrome is divided into two types, type 2 requires evidence of peripheral nerve injury, while type 1 does not.. Does that wording sound good? IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• I note that "other" as a category has been omitted from several pain types, and I must admit I'm not sure exactly what to do with that category either. Maybe we can just state that this residual category exists for many pain types (unless that's already stated somewhere and I missed it)?

In my original draft I did include the other categories but decided to omit them as it just felt odd. I could include something along the lines of "each classification of chronic pain includes an "other" category to account for pain syndromes which do not fall into the current diagnostic criteria" to address this. What do you think? IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds lika an excellent solution. /DB

This source [17] states "ICD-11 automatically adds a category “other” at each level to catch any cases that might have been missed" which I think could be worded as "The ICD-11 also has an "other" category, such as "other chronic cancer pain", to include chronic pain that does not fit into other categories but let me know if I should tweak that wording. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I think the deal here is that we've got a list of categories, but it hasn't been established in the lede that these categories contain neatly defined sub-categories, "other" being the odd one out in each bundle. Using the "such as" example hints at this, but if we talk about it as one of several sub-categories first and then follow up with the example I think that might be better. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Does this look better? IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:55, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• I think we need to state that Chronic postsurgical or posttraumatic pain as a whole, not just posttraumatic pain, includes referred pain from deeper structures to corresponding dermatomes.

I agree but I'm not sure how to include this. The source I used [18] states "The pain has to be localised to the surgical field or area of injury, projected to the innervation territory of a nerve situated in this area or referred to a dermatome or Head’s zone (after surgery/injury to deep somatic and visceral tissues)." which I think may be what you are trying to touch on but I'm not sure. IntentionallyDense (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and since this is true for both types of pain we need to state so earlier, i.e. under the "Chronic postsurgical or posttraumatic pain"-heading by expanding the sentence that now says The pain is localized to the site of injury or surgery. /DB

I'm struggling on how to word this without sounding overly technical so let me know if you have any ideas. IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Best I can do rn is: "..or extends to other areas through damaged nerves or referred pain." Which is a bit of a stretch since the source is not explicit about nerve damage. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I currently have The pain is restricted to the surgical field or injury site, projected to the innervation region of a nearby nerve, or referred to a dermatome. which is more technical than I would like but does clarify this a bit. IntentionallyDense (talk) 04:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Draken Bowser (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm probably gonna need a few more days to think carefully about possible changes to the current phrasing, but that's a prose issue, which means the source review is a pass. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, thank you! IntentionallyDense (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Toadspike

• Links are not always linked in the right places. The term "autoimmune" is linked twice, in extremely similar contexts, but the two links point to different articles. "Infection" is linked only on its second appearance. "Rheumatological disorders" should link to Rheumatism (I just created a redirect from the former). Pelvic pain is linked at least twice, but Pelvis doesn't seem to be linked at all. There's a gadget somewhere to check for double linking; maybe the nominator would like try it, and also skim the article again to check that all technical terms are appropriately linked.

I fixed the two cases you pointed out but I'll go back and look for more areas where this could be improved. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• I'm assuming the list is meant to be exhaustive, which seems like a challenging task. May I ask, for instance, why cluster headaches are not listed?

That is because Cluster headaches are a type of Trigeminal autonomic cephalgia which is listed. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Good point :) Toadspike [Talk] 22:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• On a similar note, I doubt the "Chronic postsurgical pain" section can possibly be complete, since I'm pretty sure any surgery can and will result in postsurgical pain. The bulleted list in this section (and other similar ones) should probably be qualified with "Examples include:" or words to that effect.

I mean if you check out the source I used [19] I did include all of the classifications. Of course, any surgery or trauma can cause chronic pain but the classification system is just meant to give names to the most common types. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder if it would be possible to make this more clear. Currently the lead says "The ICD-11 category for chronic pain includes the most common types of chronic pain..." and it is implied that the article reflects the ICD-11 categories. Either this LISTCRIT should be explicitly stated in the prose, or the article should be moved to a title like ICD-11 categories of chronic pain. Toadspike [Talk] 22:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean I want this list to be a list of chronic pain syndromes not just the ICD-11 categories. I also combined the IASP classification with the ICD classification for this list so that wouldn't really work as a title. The point isn't to list the ICD11 chronic pain syndromes it's just that there is no other accepted classification (unless you can find one). IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion: To clarify the inclusion criteria and why the ICD-11 was chosen as the main source for this list, I suggest changing:

In order to create a classification system for chronic pain, the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) collaborated with the World Health Organization (WHO) to form the Task Force for the Classification of Chronic Pain. The IASP Task Force was made up of pain experts. This task force developed a new model to classify chronic pain for the ICD-11.

To something clearer and more upfront on the importance of the ICD-11:

The [current/newest] standard model for classifying chronic pain [is/was created for] the ICD-11. The ICD-11 classification was made by the Task Force for the Classification of Chronic Pain, a group of pain experts formed by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) in collaboration with the World Health Organization.

Feel free to word this better. By the way, since you never use the abbreviation "WHO", you shouldn't mention it. Toadspike [Talk] 14:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• "post cancer" should probably be "post-cancer", unless most reliable sources disagree. Similarly, the spacing within terms like "posttraumatic"/"post traumatic" should be consistent. (I think "post-traumatic" is best.)

I chose to go with that spacing and style because that us what the sources and ICD use which is kind of the main source for this kind of thing. IntentionallyDense (talk) 22:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I have checked the sources cited for the postcancer and posttraumatic sections, neither uses "post cancer" or "post traumatic" with a space. Regardless, you should be consistent between different instances of the same term ("posttraumatic" and "post traumatic" should not both exist in the same Wikipedia article), and I would prefer if you were consistent between different instances of similar terms ("postcancer" and "post traumatic" should not both exist in the same Wikipedia article). Apologies for the pedantry, this should be an easy fix to make the prose look cleaner. Toadspike [Talk] 22:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

The post cancer and post traumatic with the space are from the ICD. I’ll take a further look when i’m on my laptop and make those fixes. IntentionallyDense (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The source uses "posttraumatic" and "postcancer" [20] [21] but the icd uses "post traumatic"[22] and "post cancer"[23]. I'm unsure which to use. Do you have a preferance? IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

The spaced versions ("post traumatic") just seem wrong to me, but try as I might, I cannot find anything in the MOS that says so. I prefer "posttraumatic", but since reliable sources use both, it's up to you. Just be consistent! Toadspike [Talk] 14:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Although our article on Psychosomatic medicine is quite underdeveloped, it is likely relevant to this topic. In fact, the image in the lead mentions the related idea of Somatization. I'd appreciate if you could look into that and perhaps add something to the prose – otherwise readers might get the impression that all chronic pain has an obvious, known cause :)

I've thought over my response to this a lot so I hope you can understand what I am trying to say here. The reason I didn't go into depth about this is because I don't really go into depth about the mechanisms of pain other than when it is directly relevant (such as with post cancer pain). The section "Chronic widespread pain" states Chronic widespread pain cannot be attributed to a nociceptive process in these areas. which I believe covers your point about not all chronic pain syndromes having a clear cause. Somatization isn't the main mechanism behind chronic pain (in fact through my research I've kinda learnt that there isn't any one main cause) so going into great detail about somatization in particular may look unbalanced. I hope that makes sense. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Having looked through several sources now, I see several mention that a major flaw of ICD-10 was that "Diagnoses did not reflect the biopsychosocial model of pain" – mentioning this issue in the lead might also be worthwhile and is closely related the above comment.

The reason I didn't include this was because I don't want this article to focus too much on the ICD classification (although we may be past that point) however I could add something like "the new classification system tries to approach chronic pain from a biopsychosocial model" (wording would be different) if you think that would be appropriate. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would be perfect. Toadspike [Talk] 14:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could tack it onto the end of: This new classification system emphasized the cause of pain, underlying mechanisms, and body sites. Not sure if this is better though. Toadspike [Talk] 14:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Image review: I've checked for appropriate licensing and alt text on all images. I believe this FLC passes criterion 5 of the WP:FLCR.

I think that is all from me. If the nominator can address the few remaining points above, I'll be happy to support this nomination. Toadspike [Talk] 22:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay I think I have covered all the different point you brought up! IntentionallyDense (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

All of my comments have been adequately addressed. I support this FLC! Toadspike [Talk] 09:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• General comment: I see differing uses of the Oxford comma. Choose one style and make sure the whole article is consistent
• It continues past normal healing times and therefore does not have the same function as acute pain. Acute pain serves to signal the body that there is a threat so the body can avoid future danger. --> recommend combining, something like It continues past normal healing times and therefore does not have the same function as acute pain, which is to signal that there is a threat so the body can avoid future danger.
• The International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) defines pain as "An unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with, or resembling that associated with, actual or potential tissue damage". should be the second sentence of the article.
• Chronic pain, on the other hand, does not serve this purpose. Does chronic pain have a purpose? This is a weird thing to state, as you already basically said that in the first few sentences. Just delete this.
• Chronic pain is considered a syndrome because of the associated symptoms that develop in those experiencing chronic pain. change the last "chronic pain" to "disorder"
• The last sentence of the first paragraph should clarify these statistics are for the entire world
• Chronic primary pain is pain that affects one or more anatomical sites-->Chronic primary pain affects one or more anatomical sites
• can't -->cannot
• such as difficulties at work, difficulties with sleeping, or difficulties with social activities.-->such as those at work, with sleeping, or with social activities.
• and the pain is disproportionate in severity or duration compared to the expected course of the trauma delete "the pain"
• Pain may initially be a symptom of a disease however it can need a comm abefore "however"
• doesn't-->does not
• Should posttraumatic have a hyphen in it?

That's what I got IntentionallyDense. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I made most of the changes you suggested, however I'm a little confused about Your suggestion of Chronic pain is considered a syndrome because of the associated symptoms that develop in those experiencing chronic pain. change the last "chronic pain" to "disorder" as that would read as Chronic pain is considered a syndrome because of the associated symptoms that develop in those experiencing disorder. which doesn't sound right to me.

I regards to the whole hyphen thing, The source [24] uses "Chronic post-traumatic pain" in the subheadings then "Chronic posttraumatic" in text and the ICD uses "Chronic post traumatic pain" However the source spells "Chronic postsurgical pain" without the hyphen or space so for consistansy I decided to just go with no hyphen or space even tho it looks kinda ugly. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 20:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant this disorder. Trying to avoid the repeat of "chronic pain". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support I made the change. Feel free to revert if you disagree with it. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the review! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 04:11, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

FEATURED LISTS MENTIONED!!! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 21:00, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [25].

---

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1978

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

With 1976 having been promoted and 1977 having some support, here's the next in this series. This was the final year in which the chart was published for the entire year under the by-now rather outdated and "square" title of Easy Listening. This year saw the first number one for Billy Joel, who would go on to be a regular at or near the top of this chart for decades, and the only number one for Chuck Mangione, who only had a brief chart career but would (apparently) go on to achieve fame with a new generation in a cartoon which I have never watched...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 15 sources match what they are being cited for

Amazing work Chris, I couldn't find anything to criticize. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima

I'll review images and prose in a sec. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• All images are correctly-licensed CC or PD. They have alt-text and are appropriate for the list.
• Sources are consistently formatted.
• Billboard and Whitburn are the most cited, and they seem like quite reliable sources for this. I don't have access to Whitburn, but the Billboard sources sure check out.
• Other misc sources seem appropriate for context and also match what they're used for. Seems good to go here! Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

wait. i forgot i was doing a prose review lmao. let me do that too - I could find no errors in regards to that, so Support on that front too! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Support I tried to nitpick, but I couldn't find anything. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 04:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [26].

---

List of accolades received by Jojo Rabbit

Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

For my seventh accolades FLC, I have the 2019 film Jojo Rabbit by Taika Waititi. As usual, the style is the same as other existing FLs of this kind. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• The table is missing its caption. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Added. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I'll do a full review later but the infobox has a hide/show option that doesn't seem to be working Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It seems to work in Vector 2010, but probably none of the other skins. See this discussion. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Just following up to see if you're still intending to do a full review @OlifanofmrTennant. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:29, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yup Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I checked all of the off the odd numbered (with the exception of non-English ones) sources and found consistency.

Why are "Madame fait son Cinéma" and "UK-China Film Collab" reliable?

UK-China Film Collab – I had another source for the Golden Panda Awards, but it came from WP:CGTN, so it's a no. What's left is this from ChinaDaily and the current source; it's hard to find sources on Chinese topics. UK-China Film Collab is an NGO based in the UK and was the best I could find. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Madame fait son Cinéma – An invididual critics' website, doesn't seem necessary unreliable; it was the only thing I could find for the Grand Prix this year. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Ref 9 is missing a website

Added. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Refs 6, 8, and 24 include publisher information while all other refs are just the name of the website. Any reason for this?

I usually include publishers for Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic and Box Office Mojo (or use the publisher for the various critics associations/film festivals), but not the various online websites/newspapers like Variety or Hollywood Reporter. Let me know if I need to action anything. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Minor inconsistancys in dates being using slash's or being written out. I would recommend using User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates.js to fix it.

Done. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

All I found! Ping me if needed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant; done a couple, some responses above. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Everything seems good except Madame fait son Cinéma, it doenst seem all that reliable, looking at the website it doenst seem to meet the criteria for being a acceptable use of SPS Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant, I've just removed it then. I tried, but I can't find another source that's reliable for this. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, there's this, but it doesn't seem any better than the Madame fait son Cinéma one. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Opening paragraph is unsourced
• "Others criticised how the film handled the handled the sensitivities" - couple of repeated words there
• Waititi's name on the AACTA International Awards row does not sort correctly
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude, done. Let me know if it's enough for the opening paragraph. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  None of It stars Roman Griffin Davis as Johannes "Jojo" Betzler, a ten-year-old Hitler Youth member who finds out that his mother (Scarlett Johansson) is hiding a Jewish girl (Thomasin McKenzie) in their attic. He must then question his beliefs while dealing with the intervention of his imaginary friend, a fanciful version of Adolf Hitler (played by Waititi) with a comedic stance on the politics of the war. The film also features Sam Rockwell, Rebel Wilson, Stephen Merchant, and Alfie Allen. is sourced. Are you treating this a plot summary that doesn't need explicit sourcing? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  I was. I shortened it slightly. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Not sure the list of people who also starred is really covered by that disclaimer, but I would imagine it would be easy enough to source..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sourced, @ChrisTheDude. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive by comment by Birdienest81

The only comment I have for now is all titles of films and TV shows should be italicized per MOS:CONFORMTITLE. If you have the time could you review 76th Primetime Emmy Awards for featured list promotion?

--Birdienest81talk 07:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I finally got around to this, @Birdienest81. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support: Great job.

--Birdienest81talk 04:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• In the second sentence, where you name the actors, you also name their characters for Davis and for Hitler, but not the others. I think it would read better and make sense more if you also list the name of his mom and Elsa. So it would read something like who finds out that his mother, Rosie (Scarlett Johansson), is hiding Elsa, a Jewish girl (Thomasin McKenzie), in their attic.
• In the table, Ref(s) can just be Refs.
• You use British/New Zealand English spelling (humour) but not British date format (d/m/y). Jojo Rabbit uses American English, so I would recommend {{Use American English}} for the article page and changing to humor. I would also recommend {{American English}} for the talk page.
• For the Austin Film Critics Association listing, you have d/m/y date format.

That's all I got Sgubaldo. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:06, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, @Gonzo fan2007. All done. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [27].

---

Bibliography of works on Georges Méliès

Nominator(s): Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

As I prepared to rewrite "Georges Méliès", I became very intimidated by the literature. To get a better grasp on it and kill two birds with one stone, I expanded this bibliography. Much of it is based on his entry in Oxford Bibliographies, but where applicable, I supplemented it with book reviews and an annotated bibliography by Elizabeth Ezra. All suggestions are appreciated, and I hope to address them as soon as possible! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 17:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "many languages, namely English, French, Italian, Spanish, and German" - unless you are absolutely certain that no works about him exist in any other language, maybe say "including English......"
• "exhibition catalogues with materials" - as the article seems to be written in US English, should that last word not be "catalogs"....?
• "A book with that surveys" - huh?
• "a teleological view" - is there an appropriate link for that second word? I personally have no idea what it means
• "Contains studies of Méliès, namely by Roland Cosandey and Yuri Tsivian" - why not just "Contains studies of Méliès, by Roland Cosandey and Yuri Tsivian".....?
• That's it, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  All fixed! Thanks for your time, and let me know if you see anything else. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: forgot to ping. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• his name often appears in the titles of books, chapters, or articles, not necessarily - Lose the last comma, the one before "not".
• the film career of his brother - He's not mentioned before, so maybe the film career of his brother Gaston?
• Same for his mistress and first wife --> his mistress and first wife, Jehanne d'Alcy. And maybe the link could just blue the name.

  Whoops, "mistress" and "first wife" intended to refer to different people. Now with both names included, this is much clearer. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  Agreed. Alavense (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• as a chapter of Film Before Griffith - Could something else be said about Film Before Griffith. It feels a bit disconnected.
• and U.S. and U.K. - and US and UK, I think, per MOS:US.
• Maybe use {{ill}} to link Il Castoro?
• as a chapter of Early Cinema: Space, Frame, Narrative - Maybe it's worth saying the book was edited by Thomas Elsaesser?
• and a translation of a forum about him hosted by the Commission de recherche historique of the Cinémathèque Française, Tsivian describes - I think a full stop would be better than the comma.
• finds that he criticized colonialism that results from an obsession with quicker modes of transportation - I think there's something wrong there.

  To be more nuanced, Ezra believes that, in a time when new forms of transportation were prospering, his films satirized the resulting prejudice, colonial expansion, and minset of "conquering the unknown". Most famously, the astronomers in A Trip to the Moon, as taken from its article, are presented as bumbling pedants merciless for Selenites. I tweaked the sentence's wording with all this in mind, but let me know if you still have an issue. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

  I think that reads better now. Alavense (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• You can link Joan M. Minguet.
• Ditto with Archives françaises du film.
• and within it, - Lose that comma.

That's what I saw. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@Alavense: All fixed, with two replies of clarification. Thanks for having a look! I'd be happy to review one of your noms; expect comments within a few days. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. Support. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 06:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• The opening sentence reads too much that this is an article about the person. Recommend combining the first two sentences: Georges Méliès (1861–1938), a French filmmaker and magician, was the subject of various written works, including biographies, essays, and monographs.
  • Done.
• The professor Frank Kessler "the" isn't needed.
  • I tend not to use false titles, hope you don't mind.
    • Maybe rewrite to be "Frank Kessler, a professor of XXX". "The" makes him sound like a definitive person, yet he doesn't seem to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
      • Sounds good! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
• and materials related to them in 1949 clarify who "them" is. Her mom and Georges?
  • "Them" was in reference to his films. I tweaked the sentence to hopefully make it clearer.

Nice work Averageuntitleduser! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: All fixed. Many thanks for the review! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – Reliability and formatting of the references both appear on point, and the link-checker tool didn't detect any problems (it hates DOI links, but that apparently can't be helped). About the only thing I'd recommend would be to alphabetize the two full book cites in the bibliography, but this isn't a huge deal. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Giants2008: Thanks for looking at the sources! Are the two books not already in alphabetical order? Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  They do look alphabetized by book title, so I see no issue with that. I'm going to go ahead and promote this.

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [28].

---

2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup statistics

Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 00:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Not many FLs in cricket statistics pages, trying make this an Exemplary list. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 00:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

The text shouldn't begin with This is the list of. I recommend you have a look at other featured lists for similar topics, because they will come in handy when trying to write a good lede for this one. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I fixed the lead paragraph now. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:27, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• The tables in the Group stage standings are an unholy mess (on my screen at least). They break across multiple columns and overlap each other. Something is seriously up there. Oh, and I endorse the above comment about the lead. It should not start "This is a list of" per MOS:THISISALIST and in all honesty a lead of just two sentences isn't appropriate for a potential FL..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Could you be a little more specific about what's the problem with standings... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:52, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

  On my screen it looks like this.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:17, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

• I see that this issue has apparently now been resolved, so I will do a full review in due course. One thing that jumps out at me is that there's no context provided for some of the stats or any indication of what they actually mean. For example, there's a table of players with the best strike rate, but no explanation of what strike rate is or even a link to another article that explains it. I personally know the basics of cricket but have no idea what strike rate is and the article doesn't provide me with any way to find that out. I appreciate that within an article we can assume a certain level of basic knowledge of a subject (i.e. I wouldn't expect a football article to need to explain what "scoring a goal" means) but some of the items listed here seem to go way beyond that basic level and we ought to at least afford people the opportunity to find out what these things are if they don't know, without having to resort to Google..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, I'll be honest until a few hours ago even I didn't know how Average/ Strike rate were calculated, I just assumed they were somehow calculated. I've just read the relevant articles and I'll complete adding a one-line description of what they are, Thanks! Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude All done, you can carry on with the review now. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Would it be okay if the equations for strike rate, average etc. is removed... there's already a written explanation and link to its page. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 18:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Image review by Arconning

• File:Hardik Pandya in PMO New Delhi.jpg - GODL-India
• File:Shai Hope.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:Fazalhaq Farooqi.jpg - CC BY 3.0
• File:Arshdeep Singh in PMO New Delhi.jpg - GODL-India
• File:Tim Southee 3.jpg - GFDL
• File:2018.01.21.14.55.22-Roy c Finch b Cummins-0001 (40183230984) (Cummins cropped).jpg - CC BY 2.0
• File:Prime Minister Of Bharat Shri Narendra Modi with Rishabh Pant.jpg - GODL-India
• File:Aiden Markram (cropped).jpg - CC0
• File:Virat Kohli in PMO New Delhi.jpg - GODL-India
• File:Prime Minister Of Bharat Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi with Shri Rohit Gurunath Sharma (Cropped).jpg - GODL-India
• File:Jasprit Bumrah in PMO New Delhi.jpg - GODL-India
• Images have suitable captions and licenses
• Images need alt text^^
  • Hope these can be addressed! - Arconning (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  I'll add them tomorrow. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

  @Arconning All done. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support Arconning (talk) 12:29, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup was the ninth edition of ICC Men's T20 World Cup" => "The 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup was the ninth edition of the ICC Men's T20 World Cup"
• "Following is a list of major statistics and records from the tournament; most lists contain only the top five tiers for each record." - this is just moving the sentence mentioned above from the start to a later point in the article. In all honesty I don't think it's needed.
• The lead still feels a bit short. Can you work in some of the "highlights" from the article?
• "Dates given for single-match records/stats is the date fixture took place" => "Date given for single-match records/stats is the date fixture took place"
• "the first English player to take hat-trick in T20 World Cup." => "the first English player to take a hat-trick in T20 World Cup."
• "most wins as Indian Captain in T20Is" - captain is not a proper noun so does not need a capital C
• "Niko Davin became the first batter to be dismissed retired out in a T20 World Cup match" - link "retired out" if an appropriate target exists
• "6 June 2024; He was later surpassed by Rohit Sharma." - no reason for capital H in the middle of a sentence
• "Played in the men's T20 World Cup for the first time with the virtue of being a co-host.." => "Played in the men's T20 World Cup for the first time by virtue of being a co-host." (only needs one full stop at the end, not two)
• "the 5th highest total in the history of T20 World Cup" => "the 5th highest total in the history of the T20 World Cup"
• " the 2nd and 3rd lowest totals in the history of T20 World Cup respectively" => " the 2nd and 3rd lowest totals in the history of the T20 World Cup respectively"
• "the top two lowest match aggregates in the 2024 tournament" => "the two lowest match aggregates in the 2024 tournament" (can't really be "top" of the list given that it was a "negative" record)
• Most runs - player names should sort based on surname, not nationality
• Highest scores - player names should sort based on surname, not nationality
• ....and so on for every other table containing player names
• "The "batting average" is the total number of runs they have scored" => "The "batting average" is the total number of runs a batter has scored"
• Pandya image caption needs a full stop and also the word "the" before "highest batting average"
• "Hardik Pandya of India had highest batting average in the 2024 tournament (48.00 – 144 runs from 6 innings with 3 dismissals)." => "Hardik Pandya of India had the highest batting average in the 2024 tournament (48.00 – 144 runs from 6 innings with 3 dismissals)."
• Hope image caption needs a full stop
• "they were both tied at the 5th place" => "they were both tied in 5th place"
• Farooqi image caption needs a full stop
• ....and so on for every other image caption
• "The "bowling average" is the number of runs they have conceded" => "The "bowling average" is the number of runs a bowler conceded"
• "The "economy rate" is the average number of runs they have conceded per over bowled." => "The "economy rate" is the average number of runs a bowler has conceded per over bowled."
• "The "Hat-trick" occurs " - no reason for capital H in the middle of a sentence
• I can't see any value in the "batsmen out" column of the "hat-tricks" table being sortable
• In the partnerships tables, use "and" not "&" per MOS:AMPERSAND
• Image caption : "Indian Captain Rohit Sharma was named as the captain for team of the tournament" => "Indian Captain Rohit Sharma was named as the captain of the team of the tournament."
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude I have made all the changes and expanded the lead. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: regarding sorting the players in the table, which of the following would be suitable for listing a player...

  • Pat Cummins
  • Pat Cummins (AUS)
  • Pat Cummins (AUS)

  Which of these would be the appropriate way? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I would personally go for the second one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude All done. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

• "Canada, Uganda and United States made their T20 World Cup debut, with US progressing to the Super 8 stage in their first T20 World Cup" - you state that it was the first World Cup for the US twice in the same sentence. Also, it should be the US, not just US
• "or if no overs remained (or are able) to be bowled" => "or if no overs remained (or were able) to be bowled" (so the tenses agree)
• "(5/40) indicates that a bowler has captured five wickets while giving away 40 runs" => "(5/40) indicates that a bowler captured five wickets while giving away 40 runs"
• "Shakib Al Hasan became the first bowler to take 50 wickets in the T20 World Cup history." => "Shakib Al Hasan became the first bowler to take 50 wickets in T20 World Cup history."
• "became the first English player to take a hat-trick in T20 World Cup" => "became the first English player to take a hat-trick in the T20 World Cup"
• "India also broke the record of the longest time between successive tournament wins (17 years), breaking the record of 12 years set by England" => "India also broke the record of the longest time between successive tournament wins (17 years), surpassing the 12 years set by England" (would avoid saying "break the record" twice in the same sentence
• "were the top two lowest match aggregates" => "were the two lowest match aggregates" (can't really be "top" of a list of the lowest figures)
• "2024 tournament became the 2nd T20 World Cup to have" => "The 2024 tournament became the 2nd T20 World Cup to have"
• "Hardik Pandya of India had highest batting average " => "Hardik Pandya of India had the highest batting average "
• In the best economy table there's a random bracket before Lockie Ferguson
• Is there a reason why, in the player of the match tables, the "player" column is the only one that's not sortable?
• "Indian Captain Rohit Sharma was named as the captain of the team of the tournament." - "captain" is not a proper noun so does not need a capital C -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude All done. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 11:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review

I will list the sources in order that they appear:

1. Good. Supports 2.
2. Good. Supports 1.
3. Needs the author adding. Please user |first=Jonathan|last=Healy.
4. This source is a little random, it doesn't really support "This was the first major ICC tournament to feature matches played in the United States with Grand Prairie Stadium, Texas and Nassau County International Cricket Stadium, New York hosting their first ever T20I matches, with the latter being subject to criticism due to the pitch quality."
5. Supports "...with the latter being subject to criticism due to the pitch quality".

6A. Supports "Canada, Uganda and the United States made their T20 World Cup debuts...", however a further source for the USA reaching the Super 8 stage is needed. The author also needs crediting, please use |first=Roddur|last=Mookherjee.

7A. Good.

8A. Good.

9. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Kingshuk|last=Kusari.

10A. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Rahul|last=Chalke.

11. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

12. Good. Needs the author crediting, please use |first=Mike|last=Peter.

13. Good. Needs the author crediting, please use |first=Sampath|last=Bandarupalli.

7B. Good.

14. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

15. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Megha|last=Mallick.

16. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Aditya|last=Kumar.

17. Good.

8B. Good.

18. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

6B Good.

19. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

20. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Sabyasachi|last=Chowdhury.

21. Good. Needs the author crediting, please use |first=Aakash|last=Sivasubramaniam

Cont...

22. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

23. Good.

24. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

11B. Good.

25. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Rahul|last=Sadhu.

26. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

9B. Good.

27. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher and needs the author crediting, please use |first=Sandeep|last=G.

28. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

29. Good. Needs the author crediting, please use |first=Saurav|last=Mukherjee.

30. Good. The publisher is The Hindu, so will need |location= after the work/publisher.

31. Good. The publisher is The Hindu, so will need |location= after the work/publisher.

32. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

11C. Good.

33. Good. Needs the author crediting, please use |first=Andrew Fidel|last=Fernando.

34. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

7C. Good.

7D. Good.

35. Good.

36. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

37. Good. The publisher is the Hindustan Times, so needs |location= after the work/publisher.

38. Good.

39. Good. Needs |location= after the work/publisher.

40–45. Good.

46. Does not back up the sentence as it is the same as Ref 42. Good.

47. Good.

48. Good.

49. Acceptable. It does require the reader to access the source and decipher this themselves? Is there an alternative source which directly mentions this?

50. Good.

51. Good. Needs the author crediting, please use |first=Kartikeya|last=Date, plus the date of publication using |date=.

52–56. Good.

57. Have you manually added the total number of fours? If so, are there any written sources which discuss this number? Just worried manually adding the total could venture into WP:OR. Acceptable in light of there being no sources directly referencing his. Tally adds up.

Comment. Most fours scored in 2024 T20WC also needs Ref 57 applied to it.

58. Same concerns with Ref 57. Acceptable in light of there being no sources directly referencing his. Tally adds up.

9C. Good.

59. Good.

60. Good.

All of these references need a second look taking at the "retrieved dates". |date= should be the date the work was published (if given), and |access-date should be the date you retrieved the work. Please look at these again and amend to match. Cont...

61. Good.

62. This source references pages 42–49, though I can't find anything about bowling averages in that section (unless I have just missed it). Just talks about the various laws around batsmen dismissal.

63. Good.

64. Good.

65. Good. (Corr, that Southee economy rate is mint).

66. Good.

10B. Good.

67–72. Good.

• Comment. "Sherfane Rutherford and Gudakesh Motie achieved a partnership for the 10th wicket of 37*. This was the highest partnership for the 10th wicket in a T20 World Cup." This will need a reference.

73. Good.

74. Good.

75. Dead link. This link is dead, and the archived page sends you to a sponsorship page.

76–78. Good.

@Vestrian24Bio: I will look through some more later! AA (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate, I have made these changes now. I am not exactly sure about how the |location= is used so I have added it to only a few; once you review them, I will do it for the rest as well. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 19:01, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio: |location= is for the location of the publication, for example: {{cite news|url=https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CS303379183/TTDA?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-TTDA&xid=2fba20cb|title=Brig.-General R. M. Poore|work=[[The Times]]|location=London|issue=48027|page=18|date=15 July 1938|access-date=22 May 2024|url-access=subscription|via=Gale|archive-date=6 October 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241006130842/https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=TTDA&u=wikipedia&id=GALE%7CCS303379183&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-TTDA&asid=2fba20cb|url-status=live}}

Hope that helps :)

I will try and review a few more tomorrow, around some other things I have to do. AA (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it now, thanks Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 09:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@Vestrian24Bio:. I've gone through refs 22 to 60 this evening, have left comments/suggestions. Having a look at the news outlet based ones, as a rule of thumb, they could be {{cite news|... and not {{cite web|... As above, access-dates and the date of publication of written works needs checking. AA (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: have added |location= along with authors and other above-mentioned things. ref 46 fixed, added another source to support ref 49; ref 57 & 58 unfortunately are WP:OR . Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Also, replaced {{cite web}} with {{cite news}} for news sources. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 05:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice. I will just run with 57 and 58, the tallies add up. New reference is good. AA (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: What does Corr, that Southee economy rate is mint mean? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Just remarking how he had an economy rate of 3, that's impressive! AA (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

All done here, except for the dead link - I could not find any other source on the internet; we could remove it and,

• Leave everything the way they are as each match is linked to its scorecard on its corresponding page or,
• Give links to ESPNcricinfo scorecards for each match...

@AssociateAffiliate: What are youe thoughts... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 20:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Finished review: comments and suggestions

@Vestrian24Bio:, please find above my comments for the final references. I'll list some suggestions below.

• For the table "Most fours scored in 2024 T20WC", please insert the following reference once you have reviewed the other references (I haven't inserted this reference as I didn't want to muddle the order of my review):

{{cite web|url=https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/tournament/batting-most-fours-career/icc-men-s-t20-world-cup-2024-15946|title=Most fours For ICC Men's T20 World Cup, 2024|website=ESPNcricinfo|access-date=15 November 2024}}

• On the subject of tables, I'm don't think you need "2024 T20WC" to be included in them, as it is clear the article is about the 2024 T20WC.
• I'd not bother with the Jasprit Bumrah 'Player of the tournament' table, as he is the only subject. Just rewrite the opening sentence for that section, something like "...with Jasprit Bumrah being named as player of the tournament, having taken 15 wickets at an average of 8.26. Rohit Sharma was named captain of the team."
• Where possible, combine images. The 'Backgound' section of the Lord's article has an example of this. It might help to make the photos more compact and organised better within their sections.
• When linking sources, e.g. BBC, IndiaToday, ESPNcrinfo, only the first occurrence needs to be linked. Same with locations, so for example, only the first mention of Mumbai needs to be linked to the corresponding wiki article.
• In the lead, link "bowler".
• After the first mention of International Cricket Council in the lead, put "(ICC)" after it.
• One last minor point, not a biggy! Some of the references are in a muddled order, with different parameters in different places. Making them uniform makes them easier to modify and looks neater. I tend to go for this order:

{{cite web/news|url= |title= |first= |last= |author-link= (used if the person has an article on here) |website/publisher/work= |location= |page= |date= |access-date= |archive-date= |archive-url= |url-status= live/dead}}

Might be worth just reordering them, but like I said, not a biggy! AA (talk) 17:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate About the first point, would it be fine if all the sources are moved to the tables' captions??? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 18:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem :) AA (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

All points on this section is done except for the last one. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 20:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. Awesome, all points covered. I found a different archive for 75. AA (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Clarify the use of British or American English (i.e. {{Use British English}} and {{British English}})
• In the second paragraph of the lead, you start out four consecutive sentences with "PERSON became...". Can you change the wording up a bit?

That's all I got AssociateAffiliate. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• @Vestrian24Bio:, this is meant for you! AA (talk) 20:10, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: I've added American English tags now and I'm not sure what do you mean by the second point... Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 20:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about the mix-up on the nominator Vestrian24Bio. Re the second point, you have Pat Cummins became... Shakib Al Hasan became... Rohit Sharma became... Niko Davin became in four straight sentences. The repetitive use of "became" should be improved by changing word use or sentence structure. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries! Funny enough, I do have an FLC on the go! ;) AA (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: I have copy-edited the paragraph now. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 20:59, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Support. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC) [29].

---

1990–91 snooker world rankings

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Steve Davis's seven-year run at the top of the rankings was ended by Stephen Hendry. As usual, Alex Higgins was in trouble with the snooker authorities: he was docked 25 points which dropped him from 14th to 97th. All improvement suggestions are welcome, and relevant extracts from offline sources can be provided to reviewers. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment by EnthusiastWorld37

• "but was docked 25 points and banned from competing for ten months, in July 1990" - please state the reason(s) for this

• Apologies for the delay, EnthusiastWorld37. I've added something about this. Thank you. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 17:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments (source review)

• other than world championship into account, and several additional the comma isn't necessary
• only take account of results over two seasons, and the rankings for 1990–91 same as above
• was too rapid, and said that same as above
• for ten months, in July 1990 same as above
• Source review: Passed
  • All references look reliable and consistently formatted.
  • All online source spot checks look good. AGF on offline sources.

Nice work BennyOnTheLoose! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:09, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks, Gonzo_fan2007. I've removed the commas per your comments above. Let me know if anything else is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC) [30].

---

List of Billboard Adult Contemporary number ones of 1979

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

With the 1977 list having just been promoted, and the 1978 list having multiple supports, I now present the 1979 list. In this particular year, the top of the chart was dominated by a Canadian singer who spent fully a quarter of the year in the top spot. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Support Looks good to me, I've done a complete check and didn't see any problems. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 19:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Support, no issues whatsoever. I'm always surprised when some of the entries on these lists aren't their own articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima

Prose looks solid throughout the lede, don't see any problems there. The list is also properly formatted according to the MOS, and fits accessibility criteria. All images are properly licensed and have alt text (not a requirement, but nice to have!) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Elias

Main comment is about the use of "would end" and "would remain"; could just rewrite to "ended" and "remained" to comply with MOS's requirement for succinctness. Image captions use false titles but the lead does not, so I suggest picking one for consistency. Otherwise, I can't really find anything else and these are mostly nitpicks anyway. Well done! Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 01:11, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@PSA: - fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @ChrisTheDude. Happy to support Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 23:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

• Image review – All of the photos used have appropriate free licenses, captions and alt text. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007

Even trying to be picky, I cannot find anything. Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:57, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC) [31].

---

Aston Martin VH platform

Nominator(s): 750h+ 07:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Here is the platform that is the basis for what is currently all of my featured articles—the DB9, Rapide, Vanquish and the Lagonda Taraf—the VH platform. Shorter than other lists, I believe it meets the criteria. Enjoy! 750h+ 07:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• Please take a look at MOS:COLHEAD.
• Also, choose either one of "Body style" or "Model name" as the header cell for each row. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Addressed the first concern. No-one raised concerns about the latter in my previous FLC? 750h+ 12:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  It got overlooked, I think. The usual way is just to have one header cell, but you can have 2 row headers just like you can have two column headers, though they'd both need scope=row and right now the name column cells don't. What would happen if you have two is a screen reader will read out "Grand tourer DB9" or "Sports car Vantage" as the identifier for the row- so if you're on the Introduction year column row 1 and hit the down arrow, it will read out "Sports car Vantage, Introduction year, 2005". If you're okay with that, then just add the rowscopes to the name column; I'd personally go with just having the name column as the header as it's unique to the row, but either way is fine. --PresN 21:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  @PresN: is this better? 750h+ 04:11, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  Made a small change, but yep, looks good. --PresN 14:04, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Why are there two separate tables with identical headers? What differentiates the cars in the two tables from each other? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: accident, fixed. 750h+ 10:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• " comprising the DB9, followed by the Vantage, DBS, Rapide (produced until 2020), Vanquish (produced until 2018)." => " comprising the DB9, followed by the Vantage, DBS, Rapide (produced until 2020), and Vanquish (produced until 2018)."
• "They implemented modifications " - who is "they"? The last sentence referred to Bez, a singular person.
• As the tables are sortable, you need to link terms every time they are used. Currently "grand tourer" is linked only once in the first table and not at all in the second.
• The abbreviation for the "Ref." column should probably be "Refs." as every row has more than one
• That's it! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

  All done @ChrisTheDude:. Thanks for the review! 750h+ 11:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments by CosXZ

• prose is good
• images are good
• sources are good
• Support Cos ^{(X + Z)} 21:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Support from Airship

• Could we have more details on the differences between the "generations"?
  • It would also be nice if the tables below say which generation(s) each car belonged to.
    • Done the latter. Unfortunately i can't find much on the former,
• The VH platform was developed to be flexible; every vehicle that uses it incorporates bonded and riveted aluminium to reduce weight. The phrase before the semicolon doesn't seem to be that relevant to the phrase after it, unless "flexible" refers to the lack of stiffness in the materials, and not design flexibility in systems as I had previously assumed?

  done

• Do the different types of "Body style" have any impact on the VH platform? If not, why do they need a column in the table?

  thought it was important. body style is how the car looks, and they are probably the largest difference between the vehicles

• Do we know anything about Aston Martin's future plans for the vehicles?

  the platform, and every car that uses it, is discontinued.

  Would be nice to have that explicitly mentioned. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29: done. 750h+ 12:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Otherwise nice work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: thanks for the comments. 750h+ 11:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from Wolverine

Comments will be on their way shortly. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 03:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Wolverine X-eye, just a friendly ping. Sometimes a reviewer saying they will be back will hold up a nomination from being promoted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

• Excluding the V12 Vanquish, and the DB11, the latter of which was manufactured from September 2016 and used an all-new platform

In note 1, the first comma and second "the" seem unnecessary

• The first vehicle to use the VH platform was the DB9, which constituted the platform's first generation. The Vantage, introduced in 2005, used the second generation of the platform, along with the DBS and DB10, introduced in 2007 and 2014, respectively. The third generation of the platform was used by the Virage in 2011, the 2012 facelift of the DB9 and the 2012 Vanquish. The Rapide and Lagonda Taraf used the fourth generation, an extended version of the platform.[8][9] The cars have since been discontinued. The Virage and DBS both ended production in 2012,[10][11] followed by the DB10 in 2015.[12] The DB9 and Taraf were discontinued in 2016,[13] [14] while the Vantage and Vanquish ended production in 2018.[15][16] Isn't it weird that all these sentences start with "the"?
  • no, not really. i don't really see what else to use
• Manufacture of the Rapide ended in 2020. Manufacture doesn't sound right. Maybe "The manufacturing" or "production" would be better
• Can you provide a page range for your bibliography? Because you are not using the whole book.
  • I don't really see why, since other articles don't.

That's all I got, excellent work!!! Once you're done, please give me a ping, and if you are interested please drop some comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of pholidotans/archive1. I would also like to apologize for giving this review so late on. Life has been something else. Thanks anyway for your enduring patience. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Wolverine X-eye: done. will take a look at your article soon. 750h+ 00:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Support Nice work. Wolverine X-eye ^{(talk to me)} 04:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments (source review)

• Per WP:BOLDAVOID, I think you either need to drop the bold or rewrite so that the title can be restated (almost) exactly.
• Note 1 is confusing. You basically make a definitive statement in the text, but then qualify that in a hidden note that your statement isn't 100% true.
• Image review: all images are freely licensed.
• Source review: Passed
  • All reference formatting appears consistent.
  • All references are appropriate and reliable for what is being cited.
  • Spot checks on 16 different sources matched what was being cited.

750h+ nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: done. thanks for the review. 750h+ 00:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC) [32].

---

List of historic places in Stratford District

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I hope you didn't miss my lists of obscure New Zealand historical sites! Today's territorial authority is Stratford, a relatively isolated part of the North Island most famous as the birthplace of "talkies" in the Southern Hemisphere! Thank you all as always for your time looking at this. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 03:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead image could be made bigger
• " the English hometown of Shakespeare" - no reason not to show his full name
• I am no authority but I am pretty sure that New Zealand uses British English, so "colonization" should be "colonisation", "named for" should be "named after", "center" should be "centre", "centralized" should be "centralised", etc
• "12£ worth of coins" => "£12 worth of coins"
• "after use as a shop by a toy-maker, silversmith, and herbal pharmacy" => "after use as a shop by a toy-maker, a silversmith, and a herbal pharmacist"
• That's what I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for the review! I think I got everything. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

• Ref 2 – Change website to Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand instead of Te Ara - the Encyclopedia of New Zealand
  • Done. - G
• Downcase "(Former)" to "(former)" where applicable in the entries. I understand the sources use "(Former)", but it's not a proper name, so we should downcase it as we have in the other NZ historic places lists you've nommed.
  • Done. - G
• The list could benefit from some type of WP:SIGCOV, not that I doubt the list and the items in it are notable based on the historic classifications
  • Added some more coverage that I could find.
• The list could be improved by explaining why the Mangaotuku Truss Bridge is no longer a categorized site. Reading this list, I found myself curious about why that happened.
  • Huh? It says that it was destroyed by a flood. - G

Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Hey man im josh: Okay! I think that covers it.
  • That's embarrassing, I missed the part about the floor, sorry! New sources added are RS and properly formatted as well. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Elias

Per the request at the unofficial WP:DISCORD.

• "Initially populated by seasonal Māori villages, European colonisation" - misplaced modifier
• You use "twentieth century" in one sentence and "mid-20th century" in another. I'd pick one

Will continue with reading once I'm done with dinner Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 09:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

PSA Fixes made! thank you. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 19:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

• "...the rise of popular television in the late twentieth-century" don't think the hyphen is needed
  • Fixed. - G
• Clarification re. memorial gates: were those stone pillars also erected in 1926? The sentence structure is a bit ambiguous.
  • Made this less ambiguous. - G
• Is there an explanation somewhere (onwiki or on sources) of what "downdraught" means?
  • Downdraft in American English; there's one sentence on them on the Kiln article so I linked that (gosh that article needs work!) -G

@Generalissima: pretty much all I have. Nice work. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 00:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

• @PSA: Fixed it up. Thank you again! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Generalissima: thanks for the prompt response. ain't got more picks left to nit so... Support great work on this list! Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 01:18, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Traumnovelle

This isn't an oppose, just a suggestion: could the formatting be changed? With the large amount of boxes displaying short information the description becomes very stretched on desktop and hard to read. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Traumnovelle I'm unsure if there is a way to format this to a point where it actually shows up looking nice on most skins. I mostly am copying what I've done on the other FLs, like List of historic places in Kaikōura District. (To be fair, I'm working on Legacy so it looks fine for me, but I understand that most skins it looks bad) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:19, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand table formatting but could information be inserted into one column so it appears kind of like this:

Classification

Category 2

|||||||||

Location

New Zealand

|||||||||||

List number

999

||||||

With all this information being in a column that is divided with lines. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

It could be nice to combine a couple columns (name + image? list number + location?), but since this matches prior FLs, promoting. --PresN 16:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC) [33].

---

List of cities in Kherson Oblast

Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 20:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Since my other Crimea list FLN has gotten supports and FLNs generally take time, going ahead and nominating this one now to get it started. This list's content is already somewhat prepared, with a lot of it being indirectly reviewed in the past successful FLNs for list of cities in Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast as well as the ongoing FLNs for Zaporizhzhia Oblast and Crimea. Together with Mykolaiv Oblast, Kherson and Mykolaiv oblasts are the only oblasts with less than 10 cities so these lists will likely be somewhat shorter than the rest. That said, considering List of cities in New Brunswick was recently able to pass FLN even with only its eight cities, I'm fairly confident that this (and eventually the Mykolaiv list) will be able to be promoted too. Thanks in advance to everyone for all the feedback and excited to continue the series! :) Dan the Animator 20:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "including the cities Beryslav and Kherson" => "including the cities of Beryslav and Kherson"
• "centered on the village Oleksandrivka" => "centered on the village of Oleksandrivka"
• That's literally all I got - great work once again! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed; thanks ChrisTheDude! :) Dan the Animator 21:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• Settlements with more than 10,000 people are eligible for city status although the status is typically also granted to settlements of historical or regional importance - Probably a comma missing before "although".
• the regional capital Kherson, --> the regional capital, Kherson,
• from its previous name Tsiurupynsk for Tsiurupynsk's connection - I would leave it like this: "from its previous name, Tsiurupynsk, for its connection"
• including the capital Kherson, --> "including the capital, Kherson,"
• As of 22 December 2022 - It feels as a bit of a distant date already.
• Links to Ukrainian Wikipedia articles --> "Links to the Ukrainian Wikipedia articles"

That's what I saw, Dantheanimator. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Alavense! I think I fixed all of them. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Dan the Animator 18:33, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits and nice work. Support. Alavense (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Noting that I've left a notice about this nom at WP:WikiProject Ukraine. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by CMD

For the director/delegates, I reviewed the Donetsk and Luhansk noms so I don't know how much novel thought I'm bringing here, but anyway.

• Is "typically" in "typically granted" the right word? What Ukrainian word is being translated for that?

• The phrasing's mine based on the information from the sources, not that it's worded that way in any of the Ukrainian refs (the All About Accounting ref (#4) lists the considerations that are used for granting city status under "Стаття 2. Утворення (ліквідація) населених [...] категорії" while the Ukraina Moloda specifies the general 10,000 population benchmark that allows for automatic city status). It was supposed to emphasize that the status is flexible and has been given to a lot of places that aren't necessarily all the same. After giving it more thought tho, I just removed the word "typically" since it doesn't really add much and it looks like it would probably need an additional source imo. Just in case, let me know if you think it should be re-added.

That said, I'm also starting to wonder now, do you think the sentence should be reworded to include more of the considerations listed on ref #4? There's a lot of considerations and when wording the sentence, I tried to make it so it would get the general idea across but I could reword it to say Settlements with more than 10,000 people are eligible for city status, although the status is also granted based on a number of other considerations. and add in an efn note listing all the considerations from ref #4. Another option too is to leave the wording as-is and add an efn note saying something along the lines Since the enactment of new administrative laws in 2020, the factors considered by the Verkhovna Rada are.... Personally think its fine as-is but interested to know your thoughts.

The issue with relying too much on Article 2 of the source is that it seems generically associated with all settlement types. Article 10 (and 12 I guess) do not mention them. Transitional note 4 is perhaps more key as it grandfathers in city statues. I think keeping it at a brief mention as currently done works well, absent a secondary source doing analysis on the law. CMD (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• "official census", is there a need to specify "official"? It begs the question of an unofficial census.

• Yes, the wording is necessary and very intentional. The 2022 estimates are often times referred to as Ukraine's "unofficial census" and I think there have been some privately led attempts at collecting census information across Ukraine since 2001. The 2001 census is also the only traditional census by the government that's been held across the entirety of independent Ukraine so it's important to emphasize the importance of the census and why its numbers are used in the lead instead of the more recent 2022 estimates.

• How would you feel about appending new footnote [e] explaining 2022 to that sentence (maybe after footnote [a]?), to explain this answer to the question raised? CMD (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Not sure the "As of 11 July 2023" note is needed, but won't oppose due to it.

• Thought it'd be a good idea to have in case there's another government-held census in Ukraine sooner than later.

• "...for its connection...", subject of "its" is unclear. Maybe "...due to the previous name's connection...".

• I think saying "the previous name" twice makes the sentence sound a bit too repetitive (Oleshky, was renamed in 2016 from its previous name, Tsiurupynsk, due to the previous name's connection with). Maybe there's another way to phrase it with less repetition? I'm okay also with making the change but I think it'd be preferable to not have it that repetitive.

• What about adjusting the start of the sentence to explain "decommunization" there, eg. "Following the passing of decommunization laws aimed at removing names with connections to people, places, events, and organizations associated with the Soviet Union, one city within the oblast, Tsiurupynsk, was renamed Oleshky in 2016." CMD (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Would suggest starting a new paragraph at "From independence in 1991...", seems a separate topic.

• I tested it out but I think it makes the lead appear too long for its amount of text. As it reads right now, the whole 2nd paragraph is about the Russian invasion and its effects while the first paragraph is the general information so I think the organization is alright imo.

• After I made this comment, I did find that the Odesa list uses this split. Is there a reason it works for one and not the other? CMD (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Speaking of which, "From independence in 1991..." does not seem correct, some or all of the cities (at least Kakhovka) may have had that status prior to 1991 as there was administrative continuity through the breakup of the Soviet Union. "Prior to 2020..." may handle the relevant information for this article's purposes.

• Used "Prior to.." wording. Thanks! :)

• Is the Kakhovka Dam sentence relevant here?

• I think so since the flooding had a heavy impact on the cities but I'm also open to taking it out if there's a compelling case for it.

• It's not wrong, it mostly feels unspecific to cities. CMD (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Given the events of 2022, it is probably worth specifying the table population estimates are from January (ie, pre-invasion) 2022.

• Added in an efn note but would appreciate some help in rewording/phrasing it right (its footnote e).

• Maybe not "accurate as of" given they are estimates and they are specifically for that date. Perhaps past tense as well, otherwise it gets the message across. CMD (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

• Is there a general statement that can be added to the lead regarding why the populations just dropped across the board from 2001 to 2022?

• Working on it... The population drops are for the same reasons of demographic decline in the rest of Ukraine before the war and other Eastern European countries (mostly economic stagnation, lack of jobs/opportunities, and political disfunction). Will add another reply when ready with the edits.

Impressive that the estimate for Oleshky was one off the 2001 census. CMD (talk) 07:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, quiet the coincidence, although who wouldn't want to live next to one of Ukraine's few deserts? ;) Dan the Animator 04:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems we lack articles on two of them, although Kuialnyk Estuary is in the category at uk.wiki for some reason. CMD (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

That's because the estuary has almost entirely dried up and has essentially turned into a salt field (1, 2), which could be classified as a type of a desert. Though there are works on saving the estuary, for example in 2022 the area became a national park. Shwabb1 ⟨taco⟩ 05:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review by Generalissima

• Sources are mainly high quality government sources that support the text - except for that citation needed tag in the footnote.
• Consistent formatting: dates are good, websites all have access dates and such. Source #7 has instructions for access which I enjoy. Wikilinks where applicable.
• There was an out-of-order citation which I fixed.

@Dantheanimator: Just add a citation for the Kinburn Peninsula thing and we should be good. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dantheanimator, just following up regarding this review. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:53, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dantheanimator: Are you able to fix that citation needed tag in the footnote? That's all that's remaining, I think. --PresN 13:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Generalissima, Hey man im josh, and PresN: hey all, apologies for the delay... it's been incredibly busy off-wiki for me recently. I was hoping to find the sources for the whole footnote as it was, and I'm sure there are sources that talk about the de facto/de jure admin divisions in the oblast, but I don't have enough time at the moment to complete that search. That said, I commented out the unsourced part of the footnote (which is less than half of a sentence) and added in refs for the rest of it. I'm personally planning on going back and following through with CMD's suggestions above and doing more research/reworking on this and the other oblast cities lists eventually but this list now should be good enough to promote. Many thanks Generalissima for the source review and Josh and PresN for the pings and feel free to message me anytime (I might be a bit slow to reply sometimes but I'll definitely keep checking). Dan the Animator 14:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 16:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [34].

---

Timeline of Partygate

Nominator(s): A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Following on from Timeline of Brexit, which was promoted to FL earlier this year, here's another timeline about recent British history. I welcome any and all feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 21:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Comments from N Oneemuss

Lede

• "eighteen days later, the death toll reached 335" – should be "18 days later" per MOS:NUMERAL

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• Prime Minister Boris Johnson is discouraged per MOS:SEAOFBLUE; in the timeline there's the same problem with "Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak", "Education Secretary Gavin Williamson", "Home Secretary Priti Patel", "Leader of the Opposition Keir Starmer", "Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab", "leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg"...

• All fixed (I think). A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• I would maybe add in the lede that the rule of six introduced by the government was only in England (the other nations did have similar rules)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• I would spell out the acronym "BYOB" somewhere (either in the lede or the body)

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• I would maybe add Johnson's resignation as Prime Minister and/or as an MP to the lede

• Done. I've rewritten the final sentence in the lead. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• You could link "civil servant" somewhere?

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Lockdown parties

• 7 December 2020: "on Thursday" is a bit unhelpful as the days of the week aren't included in this list; could you give the date?

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• 11 December 2020: Is the price of the wine fridge relevant?

• Removed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• 14 December 2020: House of Commons should be linked to House of Commons of the United Kingdom

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• 16 December 2020: You spell out what tier 1 and tier 2 restrictions are called ("medium" and "high"), but not tier 3 ("very high")

• Added. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

The story breaks

• Maybe mention some Conservatives publicly calling for Johnson to resign over Partygate? e.g. or

• Added in Douglas Ross's call for Johnson to resign. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• 15 June 2023: I think the context that's missing here is that a 90-day suspension would be enough to trigger a recall petition and hence a by-election in Johnson's constituency

• Added. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• 19 June 2023: "354 to seven" should be "354 to 7" again per MOS:NUMERAL. I think there might be a couple more examples of this as well.

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• I think you could add the changes of Prime Minister as well? I don't think it would add too much space to say that Johnson was replaced by Truss, and then that Truss was replaced by Sunak (Johnson tried to run for the leadership again, but maybe that's too much detail). Otherwise it's maybe a bit surprising that it says the Conservatives were led at the election by Sunak (in the "Aftermath" section)?

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Aftermath

• "the publication of the Gray report" – this is confusing because it's only the initial document that was published at this point, not the full report

• Removed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

• "70% of respondents regarded Johnson as performing badly as prime minister, compared with 25% who felt that he was doing well"; I think this could do with some context on how he was regarded before the scandal broke (he was already unpopular, but not to this extent)

• To be honest, I only mentioned that specific poll because Richard Hayton also made reference to it in his article on Johnson for Political Insight. Citing different YouGov polls and then using them to draw a conclusion about how Partygate affected Johnson's popularity feels like it might be skating a little too close to improper synthesis, but I'll see if I can find any third-party sources that come to those conclusions and then cite them. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
• Done. I've added in a sentence about how Partygate specifically affected his popularity. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

• Link (and maybe spell out) NHS

• Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Nice list! N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 09:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review, N Oneemuss! I've done most of these, I'll complete the final two soon. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review, N Oneemuss! I think I've covered all your points, but please let me know if you have any feedback. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Great, happy to Support. N Oneemuss (talk to me · see my edits · email me) 07:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

SnowFire

Not an expert on British politics, but I'll give this a go. Disclaimer: Am an American, so feel free to ignore anything that is justified by AmE / BrE style differences if I accidentally perceive an oddity that's really fine.

Lede:

• The first COVID-19 death in the UK occurred on 5 March 2020; 18 days later, the death toll reached 335. As a result, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced that the UK would go into a full lockdown,

I'm not a fan of "as a result". Presumably some parts of the world went into lockdown without a single death, while other areas never really locked down seriously despite deaths? If we're being pedantic, it would be "As a result of the advice of medical experts consulted by the government" or the like, not necessarily the deaths. Perhaps "In response" instead? Or even just cutting the introductory clause entirely.

Changed to "in response". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• London being placed in the "medium" tier 1 restrictions

This one isn't your fault, but this reads a bit weirdly to people not in the loop since "medium" was actually the mildest tier. I don't have any suggestions here as this seems relevant, but if you know of any friendlier ways to express this that still hit the main points, that'd be neat - but totally optional.

The only thing I can think to do is to remove the "'medium'" part so that it just says "tier 1". But that seems to me like removing useful information for our readers with no clear benefit. If another editor makes the same point, then I'll take it out. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

SnowFire from the future: One overarching issue with all the historical stuff is making clear that this activity was a problem / scandalous. I guess the implication was that merely by appearing here at all, we're only talking about the "bad" parts, but I think we should be a little more blunt. Holding a party or playing loud music isn't a problem; it's holding a party indoors over size regulations that's a problem, but that's being hidden implicitly. It can weaken the "case" if anything, since someone might reasonably wonder what the big deal was, so I'd suggest making it clearer exactly how these parties were "bad".

Timeline:

• 15 May: In the garden of Downing Street, an early evening cheese and wine party is held. Johnson and Health Secretary Matt Hancock both attend the gathering, which lasts for forty minutes to an hour.[12]

So what? This sounds like it complies with the rules at the time: the garden was outdoors and we've only listed two people attending. I presume the implication is that more people attended, but we should say so if that's the case. Unfortunately the reference doesn't seem to indicate that.

Clarified how many people attended. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• 17 June: Emails are exchanged between Downing Street officials to prepare "drinks which aren't drinks"

The source doesn't explain either, but WTF was this email talking about? The polite reading would be "beverages which aren't alcoholic beverages" which seems too boring to bring up as a quote (they had mocktails, quelle horreur). So I presume this is really some British slang that I'm not familiar with that means something else that is scandalous, but what, then? Drugs?

They were having drinks, but they knew that doing so was likely against the rules at the time, so they were pretending that they weren't really having drinks, even though that's exactly what was happening. Hence, "drinks which aren't drinks" . A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• 19 June: The event lasts for 20 minutes, and is attended by Case, Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak, and others.

How many others? Sorry if I'm being repetitive here, but this seems like key information that the sources are inexplicably dropping. We're told that meetings of up to six people are allowed (although given the photo, this clearly wasn't outside, but we can presume that there might be an exception if the PM was on the job), so it's at least possible based on the description this was only a small party that complied with the rules. (I know that counting blurred heads from the lede photo suggests >6, but how much more, then?)

Added how many people attended. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• Johnson's wife Carrie holds a second birthday gathering for her husband in their Downing Street flat that evening, with a number of friends

Same question here - if that number of friends was 4, then this could potentially be permissible. (If it's not known, can we at least assert it was "more than 6" or "in defiance of regulations"?)

Unfortunately, none of the sources I can find can be anymore specific that just saying the party was attended by "several" friends. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• 14 September: To restrict a potential second wave of COVID-19 in the UK, the government restricts social gatherings again by implementing a new "rule of six" in England – groups of more than six people are banned from meeting in England, either indoors or outdoors.

A little confused here - weren't we still at 6 from the 1 June regulations? Are we missing a bullet point that eased things further after 1 June but before 14 Sept? Also, as a nit, I'd say "hinder a potential second wave" to avoid the close repetition.

From 1 June, people could meet outside (but not inside) in groups of six, but, from 14 September, groups of six couldn't meet either outside or inside. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• 11 December: Johnson's staff smuggle a wine fridge through the back door of Downing Street.

I'm not saying to remove this, but this is weird. Johnson was PM. Couldn't he just ask a wine fridge be installed normally, through the front door? (And isn't it possible he was just using it to get blasted personally, not holding parties with it? I know that later on it says the fridge was indeed used for parties, and we should be chronological as a timeline, but maybe some sort of hint as to the problem here.) I see the source uses the term "smuggle", but also that the Mirror is a Labour tabloid. Do other sources agree that "smuggling" is the term to use here?

I can't really find any other sources that use "smuggle", so I've replaced it with "bring". As you say, the reporting of the fridge is significant later in the timeline, so I do think it's important to mention it chronologically here. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• 14 December: A Christmas party—formally called a "Jingle and Mingle"...

Same problem here. The police issued fines so clearly this was in violation of the regulations, but we don't actually say the party was in violation of the regs. Should add that it was indoors and had (NUMBER) attendees or the like.

Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• 15 December: Ellwood attends a Christmas party of 27 people

Does BrE have a way to quickly denote party affiliation? He's only been introduced as an MP from Bournemouth East before - at first I assumed this was a Labour / LibDem / SNP guy and thus was wondering if this was a broader scandal than just the Tories. (In US politics, people are sometimes introduced like "Jim Inhofe (R-OK)" as shorthand.)

Specified that he was a Conservative MP. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• 15 December: A Christmas quiz is held at Downing Street. Most staff dial-in online from their homes, though some attend in person.

Same issue. I checked the source and I guess that the mere fact it appears there suggests something shady happened, but no numbers. I dunno, maybe I'm off-base here, but there's a huge difference between "4 people attend in person" and "40 people attend in person". The first isn't a scandal, the second is, so we should make clear it's the second case.

Added. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• 16 December: (...) Johnson announces at a press conference that, from today, the city will move into tier 3 restrictions.

Nit: I would use "immediately" rather than ", from today,", but just a suggestion, up to you if "From today" sounds more natural in BrE.

Changed to "with immediate effect". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• 16 December: A Christmas gathering is held for staff at the Department for Transport, with food and alcohol being served.[40]

The citation is messed up - both it and the archive go to Covid: London to move into in tier 2 lockdown, a story from November 2021. Can you replace with the proper URL?

Good catch, now fixed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• A Christmas party is held for Case's staff at the Cabinet Office. Twelve staff attend online, but five join in the office.

Optional: This might be blazingly obvious from context, but precisely because it's so relevant here, maybe "the office, indoors." here? Since five was technically allowed within even the Tier 3 restrictions, it just had to be outdoors in a park or the like.

Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• 17 December: ...and background music played

Was the background music particularly loud? For the "ABBA" party, the music was relevant because it was loud and suggested a big party rather than a small one when the numbers were unknown. But as written, this could be a tasteful recording of a string quartet playing Mozart or something.

Removed. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• 18 December: A Christmas party—formally named the "End of Year Meeting with Wine & Cheese"

The source notes that the party was "crowded" - I think we should too.

Added. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• 9 April: At Windsor Castle, Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh and husband of Queen Elizabeth II,

Optional nit from an American: I see that Prince Philip's article is actually at "Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh", but he's just called "Prince Philip" (especially in the context of 2021). As is, it reads like a parenthetical clause explaining Prince Philip, except his role as "Duke of Edinburgh" was completely irrelevant and ceremonial and distracting here. So I'd personally recommend either just "Prince Philip" or "Prince Philip, husband of Queen Elizbeth II, (...)". But up to you.

Done. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• 12 January: Speaking at PMQs, Johnson admits that he attended the BYOB party on 20 May 2020, and apologises. Starmer calls on him to resign.

Was this a "notable" call for resignation? I may be jaded by post-2017 US politics but the "other" party here tends to throw these kind of requests out rather casually (see https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/joe-biden/republicans-call-biden-resign-ending-2024-campaign-rcna162923 for the opinion of our Speaker of the House, which I'm sure was taken under deep consideration and then circular-filed by Biden - not really an important or serious political thrust). If Starmer saying this was indeed a Big Deal, it's fine, just double-checking.

This was, as far as I'm aware, the first time that Starmer called on Johnson to resign, hence its significance. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• 14 January: (...) describes its being used by Downing Street staff for gatherings—called "Wine Time Fridays"—every Friday afternoon during the pandemic

Can we add the word "large" or "non-compliant" or the like before gatherings, or some other modifier to make clear that these weren't <6 people matters?

Added in "non-COVID-compliant". A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The 2023 & Aftermath sections look good to me. Overall, it's an impressive work - the main nits above are to add a few more attendee numbers in when possible on how big these parties were and verifying that they weren't compliant (e.g. indoors), and will be happy to support.

Also, no obligation, but there is another timeline FLC nomination that could use some reviews open at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Timeline of the Second Temple period/archive1, if interested. SnowFire (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@A Thousand Doors, just pinging you in case this has been been missed on your watchlist. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your review, SnowFire! I'll try to get round to having a look at your list sometime soon. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, works for me. Recent edits resolved above concerns. Support. SnowFire (talk) 17:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Drive-by comments from Toadspike

• The first bullet point says "the coronavirus". I know this phrase was commonly used at the time, but from a technical perspective it's not ideal, as there are many coronaviruses. Especially for the first mention in the whole list, I suggest saying "COVID-19" or "SARS-CoV-2". Toadspike [Talk] 08:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Toadspike: I've put "the 2019 novel coronavirus", which I believe is the name that the WHO was using for the virus at the time. My thinking is that we can't use "SARS-CoV-2" for an event that happened in January 2020, because that name wasn't chosen until the following month. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 11:23, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Perfect! Toadspike [Talk] 12:08, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Links and abbreviations: MOS:REPEATLINK says to link "at most once per major section" and notes stand-alone lists as a case where duplicate linking can be especially useful. As a reader, I would appreciate a little more duplicate linking. Several terms are linked in the lead but not in the list itself (e.g. Whitehall, leaving do, FPN) – they could also be linked the first time they're used in the list. Also, I think FPN should be spelled out the first time it is used in the list, as it is so far removed from its first use in the lead that I had no idea what it meant. Toadspike [Talk] 12:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• @Toadspike: Done. These are the links that I've added. Let me know if this was what you were after. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 12:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, looks good. I know I haven't done much reviewing, but I've read the whole list and support this FLC. Toadspike [Talk] 08:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 13:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [35].

---

List of awards and nominations received by SZA

Nominator(s): Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 00:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Solana Imani Rowe, or SZA, is a person of many accomplishments. She's killed her ex, been to Saturn, and won four Grammys so far... among other things. With ~50 awards out of ~200 nominations and a debut album that has made it to so many GOAT lists, SZA has achieved so much in her 12 years as an active musician. This list is here to present them all, and I believe it is ready for that bronze star. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 00:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69

A couple drive-by comments from me; good luck with the nomination! Cells starting with a double-quote character will need a {{sort}} or |data-sort-value= to make them sort properly. The table in § Awards and nominations needs a header for accessibility. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you kindly, TechnoSquirrel. This should be addressed now. - Elias

Comments

• "SZA signed under the label Top Dawg Entertainment in 2013" - to say she signed "under" a label sounds totally wrong to me, but maybe it is valid in US English.....?
  • Not sure if it has to do with language variants but I do admit it sounds off, since "under" appears again in the same sentence; changed to "signed to"
• "several lists of best music made for films" => "several lists of the best music made for films"
• "her first Grammy (Best Pop Duo/Group Performance)." - can't see any particularly compelling reason to separately link both the bit outside the brackets and the bit inside to the same article
  • Fair point
• In the table, anything starting with " should sort based on the first word, ignoring the "
• ....and anything starting with "The" should ignore the "The" and sort based on the next word
• As it's a sortable table, songs/people/etc should be linked every time they are used, not just the first -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • All three should be done. Thank you @ChrisTheDude; thoughtful and prompt comments as always. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 01:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh

Review is based on this version of the article.

Source review: Passed

• Reliable enough for the information being cited
• Consistent date formatting
• Consistent and proper reference formatting
• Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
• Spot checks on 25 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

• Ref 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27, and 28 – Change from BMI/BMI.com to Broadcast Music, Inc. for consistency
• Ref 98 and 99 – Add the url-access parameter to note that these Business Insider links can be accessed in full with a subscription by adding |url-access=subscription
• Ref 76 – Link seems to be dead? I visit it and I just get "error". Mark link as dead or tell me it just doesn't work for me or something lol.
  • Extremely bizarre... same thing happens on my end. Marked the link as dead
• Is Promonews considered RS/has that been discussed before? The fact they're verifying aren't controversial, but if better sources are available and they've not been discussed, it could make sense to replace them.
  • Unfortunately I cannot find any other source that is more reliable and covers the award noms
• The recipient column title should probably be tweaked, as the song itself wouldn't be the recipient of the award. Perhaps "Nominee/Work" instead? I also think "recipient" implies that they won, when some of these are for nominations that they did not win.
  • Agreed

Excellent work, I'm quite impressed with the consistency of the formatting in the references. Please ping me when the above has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Hey man im josh for the kind words. All should be addressed. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 01:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Generalissima

• Solid prose throughout the lede, and following WP:LEDECITE
• Table is well-formatted. It has properly scoped rows and columns, centered refs on the ref and results column. Ditto on the Listicles table. Both tables are also captioned, seems good on accessibility and formatting concerns.
• The one image is properly licensed (CC-BY 2.0) and has alt-text.

Looks good to me! Support. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and support, @Generalissima! I look forward to reviewing more of your future stuff. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 05:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:07, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [36].

---

Descendants of Christian IX of Denmark

Nominator(s): AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Additional background context for those unfamiliar with subject matter

Imagine traveling back 200 years in time. If you had done so to tell a young northern German prince that he would become the father-in-law of Europe, he probably would have said you were being nonsensical. After all, this German prince, whose parents were only distantly related to European royalty, came from a simple background. However, life had its surprises for this German prince. An extremely polemic debate arose over who would eventually rule his homeland and nearby Denmark. This German prince happened to have a wife with close family connections to Danish royalty. Consequently, with the support of multiple European nations, this prince was chosen to be the next king of Denmark. And when the time came in 1863, he and his wife became King Christian IX and Queen Louise. Nevertheless, it was not enough for Christian and his eldest son to secure their place on the Danish throne (especially in the eyes of Louise). First, Christian’s eldest daughter married the most eligible bachelor in all of Britain. Second, Greece needed a new king because they had shown the door to their last one. As a result, the Greeks victoriously voted to install Christian’s second son on their throne. Third, Christian’s second daughter married the most eligible bachelor in all of Russia. Fourth, Christian’s youngest daughter married the throneless heir of the German Kingdom of Hanover. Their shared bond was that both of their families had lost territory at the hands of an even stronger German kingdom. And finally, Christian’s youngest son spent his life sailing the seas with a French princess by his side. More than a century after Christian’s death, the story continues. Like an exponential function in mathematics, his grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and further progeny have increased the number of his descendants more quickly with each passing generation. These descendants have wed into royalty all around Europe. Because of this, six of the ten current heirs to European thrones can claim Christian IX as their ancestor! Can you guess which ones? Answer to trivia question Christian, Crown Prince of Denmark, Haakon, Crown Prince of Norway, Princess Elisabeth, Duchess of Brabant (Belgium), Guillaume, Hereditary Grand Duke of Luxembourg, Leonor, Princess of Asturias (Spain), and William, Prince of Wales (United Kingdom)

This list on Christian IX’s descendants helps to tell the story of a Danish king, his queen, his children, his grandchildren, and his great-grandchildren. I will note that this list was vetted both at Articles for creation and at Did you know.

This nomination is significant for various reasons. Personally, this is my first attempt to create a featured list on Wikipedia, and its success would demonstrate that I am capable of producing exemplary content. Second, I note that at the time of this nomination, only 10 royalty-related lists, and none on descendants of individuals, are of featured status. I hope that this article can serve as a model to all Wikipedia editors of what a great royal and genealogical list can look like. Finally, and above all, I hope to show a general audience that there is far more to (European) royalty than just the House of Windsor! Everyone is welcome to give feedback to make these goals a reality!

Thank you, AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Borsoka

Reading through the list and its sources, I am not convinced that it is fully in line with Wikipedia:Notability, and I think its subject is not verified by a reliable source. Borsoka (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, its DYK was held for a very long time, and I wasn't entirely sure it passed WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. — 48JCL 12:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Very similar concerns were raised at the Did you know nomination. I responded to this inquiry by noting that Aronson 2000 and Lerche and Mandal 2003 established notability. The objector then conceded the point (in my eyes). Both of the aforementioned sources (albeit the 2020 version of Aronson's text) are also listed in the "Further reading" section of this article.

That being said, I will not object if the consensus of this discussion is to merge or delete this stand-alone list. If so, I ask that the tables be merged into the "Issue" (or corresponding) sections of the articles on Christian IX and his children. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank your for the links. I am not sure that works written by Theo Aronson are reliable sources. Miranda Carter did not write of Christian's descendants, but of three cousins who ruled three great powers during WWI. Lerche and Mandal do not seem to be historians. Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

(unindenting to ensure collapse template works properly) So that my thought process in writing the article is clear both to you and to everyone else commenting, I will qualify the notability of the subject matter further:

Detailed explanation of (potential) reliability of Further reading texts

According to Theo Aronson's obituary in The Independent, he authored many texts on European royalty, including Napoleon and Queen Victoria. (As an aside, Aronson's obituary was written by Hugo Vickers, who was educated as a King's Scholar at Eton College and has himself written royal biographies, including one on Princess Alice of Battenberg and another on Prince Edward, Duke of Kent) Moreover, Aronson's obituary notes that his specific work on Christian IX's descendants that I cited has been described by Steven Runciman as "readable, judicious and well-informed". Even if Aronson's reliability is borderline, Runciman's opinion carries weight in the former's favor: the latter was educated at Eton College (like Vickers), a history scholar at Trinity College, Cambridge, and above all, extensively wrote on the history of the Crusades, which Cambridge University Press considers "one of the great classics of English historical writing". It appears that Anna Lerche (now Anna von Lowzow) is a film director (link in Danish), and Marcus Mandal is a movie director as well. However, their work on Christian IX's descendants that I cited has been made into a documentary that was shown by the Danish Broadcasting Corporation (DR), as noted in this DR press release (link in Danish, you will need a DR subscription to view the English translation). Mandal's online information also notes that said documentary was shown in over 150 countries. Moreover, while I am unsure if this affects reliability, Lerche and Mandal's work is also publicly available online (link in Danish) via the Nota bibliotek, a library run by the Danish Ministry of Culture to make texts available to people with disabilities. Finally, I cited Beéche and Hall 2014 in the "Further reading" section. As Beéche's biography notes, he has a degree in history from San Diego State University (SDSU), and his honors thesis was chosen as the best history thesis written at SDSU in 1992. Moreover, Beéche has founded Eurohistory, which has, among other topics, published books on the dynastic connections of the Russian imperial family, the Grand Ducal Family of Luxembourg, and a memoir written by Andreas, Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha himself. With respect to Hall, according to her publisher Amberley Publishing, she is a historian that has written on Russian and British royalty and contributes to Majesty Magazine. Furthermore, Hall's publisher has sponsored the (United Kingdom's) National History Book Competition.

Although I personally believe these backgrounds on the authors sufficiently qualify the topic for a Wikipedia article, I will leave it to this page's consensus to see if this is truly the case. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 17:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

With these sources, surely these should replace the "Royal Family Tree" sources (which appear to be SPS) could be replaced, right? I am still not going to warrant an oppose, but I would suggest withdrawal, there is a lot of work that could be done. 48JCL public (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I have removed all of the self-published sources in the article that I could find, and I have replaced the citations with references to more reliable sources. If I missed a source and/or I should still use the Further reading texts more exhaustively in the article, please let me know. Also, with respect to WP:NOTDATABASE, the only criterion I could realistically see being used against this nomination is #3, as creative works, song lyrics, and software updates are not listed in this article. To make all of the lifespan information encyclopedically relevant, I have written prose that accompanies each table elaborating on the family life of Christian/Louise and the families of their children. Please let me know if that prose should be more comprehensive. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. I have not been convinced about the notability of this list. I think the core information of this list could be summarised in one or two sentences in the article about Christian IX. I oppose its nomination. Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, Borsoka. If I may ask, which part of WP:GNG do you believe the list does not meet? AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Significant coverage. Borsoka (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, aside from the sources already present, I have been unable to find a reliable text that covers Christian IX's descendants to the extent this list does. As I have said before, I will not object to merging the content into Christian and Louise's articles if the nomination fails. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

48JCL

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |[[Name]] becomes !scope=row |[[Name]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions.
  • All "primary" columns in the tables have been defined. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
    • Adding a minor note on to this- the row and col scopes by default bold the text in those headers, so since you did so as well right now they're double-bolded, which should be fixed. --PresN 13:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

      Thank you for noting this. I have removed the excess bolding both in the table headers and elsewhere in the article. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a list should have "This article describes the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of Christian and Louise." at the end of the list

@48JCL: Could you please suggest how this sentence should be replaced? Per WP:SALLEAD, the inclusion criteria of a stand-alone list should make a direct statement about the inclusion criteria. This is the purpose of the text you quoted. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I have rewritten that sentence to attempt to make the inclusion criteria as explicit as possible without actively self-referencing the article. Please let me know if I should further modify the text. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Issue with sources

I am noticing Blogspot and Wordpress being cited. What makes them reliable? More to come. 48JCL 12:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I have replaced the Blogspot and WordPress sources. That being said, my rationale for including them was that the specific authors appeared to have professional credentials in their field. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but that does not exactly make it reliable, still being a SPS. I'm still not sure whether or not this article should be supported, but thanks for addressing my concerns. 48JCL 17:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Support from Dylan620

Hi Andrew – I've just started working on a review that will focus primarily on prose and images, and should be done by the end of the day Monday at the latest. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

A quick update: while I have been making quite a bit of progress with this review, I've unfortunately been slowed down by real-life stuff, so I'm running a bit behind schedule. I get out of work fairly early tomorrow, so knock on wood, I should be able to finish in the next 24 hours or so. I do have a few preliminary comments:

• File:Princess Dagmar of Denmark.jpg – the source URL provides a completely different image
• File:Louise Princess Royal.jpg – the source just circles back to the ENWP page for the upload
• File:Princess Princess Maria of Greece and Denmark with her parents and siblinsg.jpg – uploader partial-blocked from the article and draft namespaces for copyright violations
• File:GustavDenmark.jpg – uploader indefinitely site-blocked for copyright violations

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Welp, I thought I was nearly finished, and then I realized I would have to look through a 119-page PDF to verify sourcing for one of the images, which is missing its page number on the Commons upload page. I recall seeing at least a couple other similar cases elsewhere in the listicle. Unfortunately, that means this review is going to take quite a bit longer than I had anticipated. I'm going to try to complete it within the next five to seven days – please accept my apologies. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your work so far in reviewing the images, Dylan. Please let me know when you have completed your review. In the meantime, I have made the following changes:

• I have replaced the portrait of Dagmar with an image of the coat of arms of Denmark at the time she died (to be consistent with the entries on other royals with no available portrait).
• I have replaced the portrait of Louise with the one used in her article's lede infobox.
• I have removed the portrait of George I's family altogether. In any case, his youngest son, Christopher, was not yet born when the image was taken.
• I have likewise replaced the portrait of Gustav with an image of the coat of arms of Denmark at the time he died. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi again Andrew – I've finally finished the review, and I'm sorry it took so long. This was probably the most challenging image review I've done since I started tackling them earlier this year, since I'm not super familiar with European public domain laws and needed to give myself something of a crash course. The majority of images check out for licensing and sourcing. I took it upon myself to add missing US public domain tags on Commons in cases where I felt comfortable doing so (see my edits there). A few images are sourced to offline refs, which I'm choosing to accept in good faith. However, there are some issues:

• I am pleased that every image has alt text. However, in the slot where Gustav's portrait was replaced with the coat of arms of Denmark, the old alt text describing Gustav is still being used.
  • On that note, is a "portrait of a coat of arms" really a portrait? This is super nitpicky, but the portrait article states that a portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face is always predominant. Every coat of arms usage here has alt text that describes the coat as a portrait.
• File:Christian IX of Denmark and family 1862.jpg – uploader partially blocked on ENWP from article and draft spaces. (Coincidentally, this is the same user who uploaded the now-removed photo of George I's family.) This image seems to be an alternate version of File:Christian IX Denmark and family 1862.jpg, which, per that file's description page, was apparently part of a legal dispute between the NPG and the WMF. Maybe I'm worrying too much, but I would be wary of including either image here.
• File:Family Photo.jpg – The source URL is dead. There is an archived link available, but it's not loading the images on my end.
• File:Alexander russia.jpg – The source URL is dead.
• File:Ernstaugusthannover.jpg – Uploader indefinitely site-blocked from ENWP for copyright violations. (This is the same user who uploaded the now-removed photo of Gustav.)
• File:Xenia, russian grand duchess.jpg – The source URL does not contain this image.

The prose is good overall, but I do have a few queries/suggested adjustments:

• Moreover, he nearly abdicated... – I don't think the "moreover" is needed here; indeed, this could probably be merged with the previous sentence by using a semicolon.
• Moreover, through her charity work... – I don't think the "moreover" is needed here.
• Is there anything about Valdemar that could be added to the second paragraph of §Children?
• They then married in October 1866 – "Then" feels extraneous here.
• Moreover, both Nicholas and Michael, along with Nicholas's five children, were killed during the Russian Revolution. – I think this would read more smoothly as "Nicholas, Michael, and the former's five children were killed during the Russian Revolution."

Quite impressive work overall, Andrew. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 03:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620: Thank you very much for your extensive review. Here is how I have addressed your feedback. Please let me know if anything else should be done.

For the images:

• I have changed the alt text for Gustav's image to better describe the coat of arms. Moreover, I have rewritten the alt text descriptors for all of the coat of arms images to avoid mention of portraits.
• I have removed the family portrait for Christian IX, given the concerns you have described.
• I have likewise removed the family portrait for Frederick VIII.
• I have replaced the image of Alexander with one of the pertinent Russian coat of arms, given the lack of other appropriate free-use images that I could locate.
• I have likewise replaced the image of Ernest Augustus with one of the pertinent Hanoverian coat of arms.
• I have likewise replaced the image of Xenia with one of the pertinent Russian coat of arms.

For the prose:

• I have removed "Moreover" from that sentence on Christian IX's background.
• I have likewise removed "Moreover" from that sentence on Louise's background.
• I have added some information on Valdemar in the second paragraph of the Children section, namely on how family ties influenced him to reject the Bulgarian throne.
• I have removed "then" from that sentence on Dagmar and Alexander III's marriage.
• I have rewritten that sentence on the deaths of Nicholas II, his children, and Michael as you have suggested.

AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me now, Andrew, and I'm happy to support on prose and images. For what it's worth, I believe this would be the first geneology FL if promoted. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder

• I aim to do a full review, but looking at the lead initially, the sentence "The families of Christian and Louise, their children, and their grandchildren are described below." should be removed. The fact that the article is going to cover this is completely obvious from the title, so you don't need to state it in the prose. That will leave a lead of just three sentences, which is far too short for a FL. While the lead should provide a summary of the article, it should be more detailed than just three sentences -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your initial comments, ChrisTheDude. I have removed the last sentence of the lede per your feedback. As for that section's length, I will be sure to rewrite the prose to provide a more comprehensive summary. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:58, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

This nomination has been open well past the time it would normally be closed, so in order to push it past the finish line, pinging everyone involved who has not formally closed their review: @Borsoka, 48JCL, and ChrisTheDude:. Please support/oppose/recuse as appropriate. --PresN 14:10, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@PresN: - I was still waiting for the nominator to expand the woefully short lead before I started looking at anything else, but after more than two weeks that hasn't been done. If the nominator doesn't have any interest in doing that then I will have to oppose..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@AndrewPeterT: Hey Andy, just wanted to give you a quick heads up/reminder about this. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 19:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@PresN: and @ChrisTheDude:: I am expanding the lede at this moment. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@PresN: and @ChrisTheDude:: Apologies for the delay in response; I have been busy off-wiki. I have expanded the article lede to four paragraphs. Would you please be able to let me know if the section should still be longer? AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks good - I will aim to do a full review tomorrow -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Further comments

• "Known as the "father-in-law of Europe", he and his queen consort," - this suggests that they were both known as the father-in-law
  • I have moved the "father-in-law" information into the first sentence to make it more explicit that only Christian was known by that sobriquet. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Link Christian on first use in body
  • I have inserted a link to Christian's article accordingly. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• "However, Christian's popularity recovered" => "Christian's popularity recovered, however,"
  • I have reworded the sentence in question accordingly. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• Link Louise on first use in body
  • I have inserted a link to Christian's article accordingly. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Christian IX and Louise had forty grandchildren via eight children" => "Christian IX and Louise had forty grandchildren: eight children"
  • I have changed the "via" to a colon. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• "However, Louise had one potential suitor in mind for Thyra" - don't think the "however" is needed
  • I have removed "however" from that sentence. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• "Namely, Prince George died in a car accident on the way to the funeral of King Frederick VIII of Denmark. In addition, Prince Christian died of appendicitis" => "Prince George died in a car accident on the way to the funeral of King Frederick VIII of Denmark and Prince Christian died of appendicitis"
  • I have combined those two sentences as suggested. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• That's all I got. Fix these and I will be happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for your feedback. I have resolved your concerns to the best of my ability. Assuming you have no further qualms, I look forward to your support. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 19:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

And here it is :-) support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Not doing a full source review, but as a note: all of the ALLCAPS in the references should be fixed, e.g. "DEATH OF THE KING OF DENMARK. - A PEACEFUL END" -> "Death of the King of Denmark. - A Peaceful End". --PresN 15:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, PresN. I have rewritten all of the reference titles in title case accordingly. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I've dithered on this one for a while due to the oppose above, but I've come down on the side of this being a valid stand-alone list. I'm not sure that every monarch should get such a list, but someone with the sobriquet Father-in-law of Europe has enough weight to support such a list. Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 13:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [37].

---

76th Primetime Emmy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk & RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating the 2024 Primetime Emmys for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 2020, 2021, and 2022 were written and structured. Note: I also listed RunningTiger123 as a co-nominator since he made considerable and significant contributions to this list. Birdienest81talk 17:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "The award ceremony" - is this an Americanism? I am British and we would say "awards ceremony" but maybe American usage is different......?
• "The aforementioned program was " - I think just "It was" would be fine
• "they along with D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai of the series Reservation Dogs were the first " => "along with D'Pharaoh Woon-A-Tai of the series Reservation Dogs they were the first "
• "Nominations and wins by network" - are all these really "networks"? Is Netflix or BBC America a "network"? Maybe "Nominations and wins by broadcaster" would be better.....?
• "He also called the choice of Jelly Roll's performance of "I Am Not Okay" as "tonally questionably" " => "He also called the choice of Jelly Roll's performance of "I Am Not Okay" "tonally questionably" " or "He also described the choice of Jelly Roll's performance of "I Am Not Okay" as "tonally questionably" " -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  All done except the network item – previous years use the term "network" and it's often the term used in other sources (e.g., Variety, Deadline, Television Academy) so consistency might be better here. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Image review

• The WP:FUR rationale on the first image is fine.
• Captions are appropriate.
• Free-use tags are fine. I didn't personally get into Flickr to check the Eugene Levy image, but a reviewer did check it. Otherwise, source links are fine.
• The images are all suitable.
• Pass. - Dank (push to talk) 18:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sgubaldo

Source Formatting

• Refs. 5, 15 and 16 missing wikilink for The Hollywood Reporter
• Refs. 38 and 46 missing wikilink for Los Angeles Times
• Ref. 40 - rotten tomatoes should be website; publisher is Fandango Media
• Ref. 41 missing wikilink for Variety
• Ref. 51 missing wikilink for Entertainment Weekly
• Archive Refs. 5 and 48.

Prose

• He also called the choice of Jelly Roll's performance of "I Am Not Okay" "tonally questionably" ==> He also called the choice of Jelly Roll's performance of "I Am Not Okay" "tonally questionable" (the source says tonally questionable)
• Robert Lloyd wrote in the Los Angeles Times that the telecast was.... ==> Wikilink Los Angeles Times
• Ben Travers of IndieWire found Eugene and Dan Levy's performances as hosts..... ==> italicise IndieWire

@Sgubaldo: All done except inline LA Times link (it is linked earlier in the prose). RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Support. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Did a source review of my own, and everything looks good. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC) [38].

---

List of accolades received by Oppenheimer (film)

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk and Sgubaldo (talk) 08:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppenheimer is a 2023 epic biographical thriller drama film written, directed, and produced by Christopher Nolan. Based on the 2005 biography American Prometheus by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin, the film stars Cillian Murphy as the eponymous scientist and chronicles his studies, his direction of the Los Alamos Laboratory and his 1954 security hearing. This is my tenth film accolades list to be nominated for featured list status, and I largely based the format off of the accolades lists for The Artist, The Big Short, CODA, Dune, Dunkirk, If Beale Street Could Talk, 1917, The Shape of Water, and Slumdog Millionaire. Note I added Sgubaldo as a co-nominator since he provided significant contributions into improving this list. Birdienest81talk 08:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "who co-produced it with his wife, Emma Thomas, and Charles Roven" - is there any way to reword this to avoid the possible implication that "his wife, Emma Thomas, and Charles Roven" are three people rather than two?
• "did not get released in Japan until March 29, 2024" - was this related to the fact that the subject matter was considered sensitive in Japan? If so, it might be worth adding that, as otherwise it seems a bit random
• That's it I think - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

  • I've just removed 'his wife' since I suppose it's not necessary to specify.
  • I've added an explanation in a note after "December 2023", which hopefully clears it up.

  Thank you for the comments, @ChrisTheDude. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• the film received 13 nominations, surpassing eight nominations ... winning seven - MOS:NUMNOTES: "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".
• received another 13 nominations ... winning eight - Ditto.
• The film won seven awards from 13 nominations - Ditto.
• for his direction, screenplay and producing - There should probably be a comma before and, to make the use of the serial comma consistent.

That's what I saw, Birdienest81 and Sgubaldo. Nice work. I've got a couple of nominations going on, in case you have time and fancy having a look at them. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Done, @Alavense. I'll try to take a look at the Toledo nom. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Support. Alavense (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility review

• For header cells spanning multiple rows, (e.g. AACTA International Awards) the scope should be "rowspan". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:50, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  I thought it was supposed to be "rowgroup"? Sgubaldo (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

  Changed to "rowgroup" for all the relevant ones. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

  Support promotion on table accessibility. Yes, I meant "rowgroup". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

• Image review – The collage of images in the lead all have appropriate free licenses and alt text, and the caption looks okay. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Source review – Source reliability and formatting both appear okay, and no issues were found by the link-checker tool. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:06, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC) [39].

---

List of Women's Basketball Academic All-America Team Members of the Year

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because of the recent success of Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year/archive2. I think this list is of similar quality and preparedness.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Drive-by accessibility comments

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1987 becomes !scope=row | 1987 (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. This is needed for both tables.
  • OK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead. This is for the 4-division table.
  • I think this is what you want.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• You cannot only use bolding or a background color to indicate something. Use a symbol. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:51, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • User:MPGuy2824, when I added scope row, why did the second column get bolded?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

    The header cell needs to be in its own separate line. i.e. move the University winner's name to a new line. This should fix the problem. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

    Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Comments by Alavense

• I think the first sentence could be reworded for clarity - the way it's written, it appears to say that the award is the most outstanding female, which doesn't make sense.
  • I think I have addressed this issue. Not sure.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• The districts are as follows: – District 1 (CT, MA, ME, NH, NY, RI, VT), District 2 (DC, DE, KY, MD, NJ, PA, WV), District 3 (NC, TN, VA), District 4 (AL, FL, GA, PR, SC), District 5 (IL, IN, MI, OH), District 6 (AR, IA, LA, MN, MO, MS, MT, ND, SD, WI, WY), – District 7 (CO, ID, KS, NE, NM, NV, OK, TX), District 8 (AK, AZ, CA, HI, OR, UT, WA, Canada). What do the – stand for?
  • I don't think you asked a clear question. Are you asking what the linked abbreviations stand for?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
    • I don't understand why there are – before districts 1 and 7, TonyTheTiger. Alavense (talk) 06:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
      • Not needed. Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
• Men's and women's basketball No need for the capital m.
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Two-time Winners No need for the capital w.
  • This seemed like a proper place to use Title case. Is this against MOS? Happy to change if it is.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• I find the captions in the charts confusing. I thing something along these lines would be clearer: Maya Moore (pictured in 2019), the 2010 and 2011 winner
  • OK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• the have been
  • Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• The notes belong in the "Footnotes" section.
  • Fixed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:08, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
• Note c) doesn't require a full stop.
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Those are the things that caught my attention in a first read, TonyTheTiger. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I still think that the first sentence is not clear enough. In general, I feel the first paragraph is a bit convoluted, in my opinion. For the tables, wouldn't it be better to use a dagger and background colour instead of just bold. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for the first sentence because I am not seeing the confusion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to determine if the convoluted paragraph was because of two different emphases. I have split the first paragraph. Could you tell me if both halves are convoluted.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Is there an example of a table that uses the dagger and background color that you suggest. Is this combination in keeping with MOS and accessibility policies?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Well, the thing is I don't think it complies with MOS as it is, as MPGuy2824 already pointed out. I'd get rid of the bold and include, instead, a symbol and a background colour. You have more information regarding symbols and the legend here: MOS:LEGEND. Besides, this and this could serve you as examples of how it is done, given that they were recently promoted. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging to make sure @TonyTheTiger has followed up about this comment. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

• I'll take a look this weekend.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
• @MPGuy2824, Hey man im josh, and Alavense:, I have added a symbol and changed to background color from bold text.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

  The symbol should probably go before the reference? I'm not sure. Alavense (talk) 07:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

  I have moved the symbol before the ref throughout this set of AAA Member of the Year articles.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

All in all, I feel the prose on this list should still be worked on, so I am afraid I will not support just yet. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• User:Alavense, can you provide any further thoughts/advice on the prose flaws?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm afraid I may not be able to help you here. I feel the text is not as clear as it could be: I've read it multiple times now and it still requires quite a lot of effort to get the gist of it. That's why I'd rather rely on the opinion of others here, so I will not either support or oppose. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Alavense, There were recent minor tweaks to the prose. I don't know if this takes the prose far enough in the right direction.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

MPGuy2824

• In the four-division era table, you don't need to use all that styling for the header cells. Copy what you've used for the previous table and remove the explicit bolding of the column names.
  • I think I've done what you suggested.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Stanford University has had the most women's basketball Academic All-America honorees (17..." The linked source says they have 18 honorees. Maybe update the number and the date.
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• "(1995 before there were separate awards by level)" -Add a comma after 1995.
  • Done.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:26, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• Replace "&" with "and" everywhere, per MOS:AMP.
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
• "Selected based on excellence in both classroom achievement and athletic competition performance by the College Sports Communicators (CSC, known before the 2022–23 school year as College Sports Information Directors of America, or CoSIDA), the Academic All-America program recognizes combined athletic and academic excellence of the nation's top student-athletes." This is quite a complicated sentence with sub-clauses. See if you can divide it.
  • I have streamlined the sentence.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
• Aliyah Boston's rows sort weirdly (probably due to the flag). Please fix.
  • I got some help at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Sort irregularity.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
• That's it for now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:56, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This nomination has been open for over 2 months without any supports, and will be closed soon unless that changes. It looks like MPGuy2824 and Alavense's comments have been addressed, but were not pinged again. --PresN 01:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Support promotion. @PresN: one point: Is it a problem that multiple columns have the same header ("School") in the table? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

It's fine, I think it's clear that they're associated with the previous column. A more specific name could be nice, but I couldn't think of a short one. --PresN 16:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• @Staraction and ChrisTheDude: both supported the prior nomination of this "series" at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Football Academic All-America Team Members of the Year/archive2. The article from that nomination has greatly benefitted from advice here, which I have used to elevate the whole set of articles. If either of those editors would care to comment here that would be helpful. --TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

This nomination has been open well past the time it would normally be closed, so in order to move it past the finish line, pinging everyone involved who has not formally closed their review: @Alavense:. Please support/oppose/recuse as appropriate. --PresN 14:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• User:Hey man im josh, you are the only discussant (Other than PresN, who is visiting this page in a seeming administrative role) here who has not really given a verdict. I have one support and one neutral/abstain. In order to have a meaningful close, your opinion is important here. Although your prior commentary here was not substantive, a substantive evaluation is requested.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:30, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  @TonyTheTiger: I have not given a verdict because I have not made an attempt to evaluate the article. My comments on this nomination were following up with respondents in an effort to push this nomination along. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  User talk:Hey man im josh, Care to opine before I have to restart this nom?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry, but I am not interested in reviewing the list at this time. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• I am also pinging @Staraction and ChrisTheDude: again for their input.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "chosen from both the College and University Divisions for all twelve Academic All-America teams, including football." - why mention football? Seems a bit random......
  • You are right.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:59, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• "The Academic All-America program recognizes combined athletic and academic excellence of the nation's top student-athletes. " - you literally just said that in the previous paragraph
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• "One of these [singular] is selected as the Academic All-America Team Members [plural]".....?
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• also, "twelve sport-by-sport Academic All-American of the year" - should be plural
  • Good catch.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:03, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• As the tables are sortable, repeat winners should be linked each time, not just the first
  • Thx.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thx for dropping by. I hope I have addressed your concerns and that you are able to offer an opinion on this candidate.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; did my own edits to the text and references because this has been open so long. Promoting. --PresN 22:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC) [40].

---

List of Detroit Lions NFL All-Decade Team selections

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Another Detroit Lions list, which I hope will be my seventh Detroit Lions featured list. NFL All-Decade Teams are meant to represent the best players in each decade. It's a significant accolade which is weighted fairly heavily when considering a player's candidacy for the Pro Football Hall of Fame. It's based on List of Green Bay Packers NFL All-Decade Team selections, which was promoted on September 10th of this year. Please let me know if there are any issues or concerns and I'll do my best to respond in a timely manner. Thank you in advance to anybody willing to review or provide any feedback! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007

• The most recent Lions selections were for the 2010s Team: Calvin Johnson and Ndamukong Suh. --> The most recent Lions' selections were Calvin Johnson and Ndamukong Suh as part of the 2010s Team.

Support That's all I got Hey man im josh. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the base that I built this on, thanks for taking a look, and thanks for the helpful feedback as always @Gonzo fan2007! Done. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Comments

• "did change from decade-to-decade" => "did change from decade to decade"
• "TThe most recent Lions' selections" - there's a stray extra T at the start. Also I think "The Lions' most recent selections" would read more naturally
• That's it I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Hey @ChrisTheDude, I've made the changes. Thanks so much for looking this over for me! Hey man im josh (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Airship

• The second lead paragraph is pretty chunky; consider splitting it.
• The tenses in this paragraph are slightly confusing, in switching from past to present: (" Each team was selected by the Pro Football Hall of Fame Selection Committee, which is primarily made up of national sportswriters. The Selection Committee is asked...") I would suggest changing the "was selected" to "has been selected" or something similar.
• "to develop the team" I'm not sure "develop" is the right word for a selection from scratch, maybe "construct"?
• Are we sure that "team" should be capitalised e.g. in "2010s Team"?
• "although starting with the 2010s Team" implies that this will become a pattern, but CRYSTALBALL applies.
• "although standard offensive, defensive and special teams positions were always included, the position names, types of positions and the number of positions did change from decade to decade" again the tenses are a bit odd, would suggest changing to "have always been included" and "have changed".
• Mind glossing what the "Pride of the Lions" is?
• If you have Calvin Johnson as the lead image, you might as well have Ndamukong Suh too ({{multiple image}} may be helpful here). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks for the review @AirshipJungleman29!

  • The second lead paragraph is pretty chunky; consider splitting it. – Split, hope that's a good spot.
  • The tenses in this paragraph are slightly confusing, in switching from past to present: (" Each team was selected by the Pro Football Hall of Fame Selection Committee, which is primarily made up of national sportswriters. The Selection Committee is asked...") I would suggest changing the "was selected" to "has been selected" or something similar. – I went with "has been selected", you're right about the tenses there.
  • "to develop the team" I'm not sure "develop" is the right word for a selection from scratch, maybe "construct"? – I like that, done.
  • Are we sure that "team" should be capitalised e.g. in "2010s Team"? – Honestly I'm not. I followed the capitalization used by Gonzo fan2007 on List of Green Bay Packers NFL All-Decade Team selections. I recognize that sometimes a shorter form of a name may maintain capitalization of the full name, but I'm not an expert at when to use this. I've pinged Gonzo in an effort to hear whether they believe it should be and so that we can maintain consistency.
  • "although starting with the 2010s Team" implies that this will become a pattern, but CRYSTALBALL applies. – Good point, I've changed it to just "... whereas the 2010s Team did not make this distinction."
  • "although standard offensive, defensive and special teams positions were always included, the position names, types of positions and the number of positions did change from decade to decade" again the tenses are a bit odd, would suggest changing to "have always been included" and "have changed". – Damn, yeah, you're right. Changed to "While standard offensive, defensive, and special teams positions have always included, the position names, types of positions, and the number of positions have changed from decade to decade".
  • Mind glossing what the "Pride of the Lions" is? – I added ", a permanent display at Ford Field meant to honor the team's greatest players." with a reference, I hope this is concise and informative enough.
  • If you have Calvin Johnson as the lead image, you might as well have Ndamukong Suh too ( may be helpful here – While there were two selections to the recent team, I chose Calvin Johnson because he's been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame and Pride of the Lions. I'm open to including Suh, but I think by doing so I push the images in the team selections down further than they should be, which then pushes into the see also section for me.

  This was a lot of great feedback, I'm grateful you took the time to provide this review and I hope I've addressed all of your points. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Support on prose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Elias

Hey man im elias :) As I said on WP:DISCORD I am volunteering to review this FLC, the first of yours I have reviewed, based primarily on how concise the prose is. In celebration, have a hot dog 🌭

• "in recognition of the 50th anniversary" we can shorten to "to recognize the 50th anniversary"
• "history of the league" -> "league's history"
• "have always included, the position names, types of positions, and the number of positions" what is the first comma supposed to be doing there ?
• "As an example, for the 2010s Team, due to its greatly reduced usage, the fullback position was not included and a new "flex" offensive position was added" that is a mouthful. Perhaps "For example, due to greatly reduced usage, the fullback position was not included for the 2010s team and a new "flex" offensive position was instead added." Or you can split that into two sentences, which arguably would make this more readable
• "and both made" I don't think the "both" is necessary

That's all from me @Hey man im josh. Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 04:02, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review @PSA!

• "in recognition of the 50th anniversary" we can shorten to "to recognize the 50th anniversary" – I'm having difficult explaining why I think the first option is better. It would make it shorter, but I think it flows better with this wording instead.
• "history of the league" -> "league's history" – I chose "history of the league" as the phrasing to better match the target, History of the National Football League.
• "have always included, the position names, types of positions, and the number of positions" what is the first comma supposed to be doing there ? – Well you see the purpose of that comma was to help me realize I missed a word! Changed to "have always been included..." which makes the usage of the comma in that context make more sense.
  • That makes more sense
• "As an example, for the 2010s Team, due to its greatly reduced usage, the fullback position was not included and a new "flex" offensive position was added" that is a mouthful. Perhaps "For example, due to greatly reduced usage, the fullback position was not included for the 2010s team and a new "flex" offensive position was instead added." Or you can split that into two sentences, which arguably would make this more readable – I changed it to "For example, due to its greatly reduced usage, the fullback position was not included for the 2010s team and a new "flex" offensive position was added instead.", hope this is satisfactory.
• "and both made" I don't think the "both" is necessary – Ehhh, I'm iffy on this, how strongly do you feel? I do feel like while it should obviously be inferred that they [both] made the 1950s team, I think it's more clear, direct, and less ambiguous. I'm not married to the phrasing though.
  • My experience is limited to FAC and GAN where I've been acclimated to keeping phrases as concise as possible wherever applicable, which contextualizes my comment. In this case, though, both verbiages are valid, and I want to avoid splitting hairs over what's essentially one word

Let me know your thoughts on the parts I didn't implement. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Following up @PSA. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Hey man im josh, and thanks for your patience. I'm still getting into the swing of things with FLC, which may slightly affect the quality of my comments. Your responses were thoughtful and sufficient enough; I won't prod on the ones that were stylistic-preference in retrospect. A support from me Elias / PSA 🏕️🪐 ^{[please make some noise]} 01:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 22:05, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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