Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

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

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

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

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



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

Nominations edit

United States congressional delegations from Arizona edit

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

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

List of forest-inventory conifers west of the Mississippi edit

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

Next up: US conifers. Licensing information for the images (there are a lot of them) will be up shortly on the list talk page. (Part of your reviewing work is already done here, since some rows are almost identical to the ones at WP:Featured list candidates/List of forest-inventory conifers in Canada/archive1 ... if you sort on the 3rd column, these rows will be displayed first.) Once again, there's some basic information here about some trees that are common in North America (and many are common in temperate zones around the world). Feedback is welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 edit

  • Support on prose. Found nothing that require further improvement. Another great list! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of general elections in Botswana edit

Nominator(s): 48JCL (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Botswana is a country located in sub-Saharan Africa. It is usually referred to as one of the most democratic countries in this region, however not much attention is given to this country. Currently, WP:BOTSWANA does not have any FLs so I think having one would be nice. 48JCL (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment edit

  • As none of the people in the images are mentioned anywhere in the article, you need to give some explanation as to who they actually are..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    after thinking, they were kinda unnecessary so I removed them 48JCL (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of historic places in Gore District edit

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

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

Driveby cmt by Queen of Hearts edit

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

Hey man im josh edit

Source review: Pending

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

Feedback:

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

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

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

Comments edit

  • Lead image could be made larger
  • "Former passanger station of the Main South Line" - second word is spelt wrong
  • That's all I got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Okay! Fixed :) Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:31, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in Donetsk Oblast edit

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

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

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

Comments edit

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

Comments edit

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

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

Yup, the Next Ukrainian census doesn't seem like it's happening anytime soon and with the current war, I don't think the statistics would be as useful anyways since they've been changing a lot frequently. Let me know if there's anything else I can do and many thanks Mattximus for all the comments!!! :D Dan the Animator 05:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jacksonville Jaguars first-round draft picks edit

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is nomination #12 in this series and will be, provided everything goes well, THE LAST IN THE 32-TEAM SERIES! WOO! This is the shortest list of the bunch because the Jaguars are one of the newest teams to enter the league, doing so in 1995. This lists' format is based on my previous successful nominations/other lists in the set. As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

  • Good job on the series. I'll take the source review. I don't see any unreliable sources and everything is archived. Ref numbers from this rev. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 1 Good; Written by Mark Long
  • Ref 2 Good
  • Ref 3 Good
  • Ref 4 Good
  • Ref 5 Good
  • Ref 6 Good
  • Ref 7 Good
  • Ref 8 Good
  • Ref 9 Good
  • Ref 10 Good
  • Ref 11 Good
  • Ref 12 Good
  • Ref 13 Good
  • Ref 14 Good
  • Ref 15 Good
  • Ref 17 Good
  • Ref 17 Good
  • Ref 18 Good
  • Ref 19 Good
  • Ref 20 Good
  • Ref 21 Good
  • Ref 22 Good
  • Ref 23 Good
  • Ref 24 Good
  • Ref 25 Good
  • Ref 26 Good
  • Ref 27 Good
  • Ref 28 Good
  • Ref 29 Good

I decided to check all of them given how few there are. Let me know when you make the fix. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking a look @OlifanofmrTennant! I've reviewed ref 1, including turning off my ad blocker just in case, and I'm not seeing an author of Mark Long. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over it now I confused two AP news sources. That's my bad. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it happens. I'm just happy and grateful to have received a review, especially a source review, so quickly! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Dylan620 edit

  • All images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
  • All images have suitable alt text.
  • All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
  • Sourcing for each image checks out; ditto for the captions.
  • The captions themselves are well-written and present pertinent information on the players pictured.

Support on images – congratulations on finishing an impressive series! Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 19:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the congratulations! Of course, much of that congratulations goes to the individuals who helped to promote the 20 other lists before I started chipping in, but I'll post a recap about it once this one gets promoted :) Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • "Since that time, he's been selected" - write "he has" in full
  • Is there a link for "edge rusher"? I've not encountered this term before and it isn't mentioned in the position key.
  • That's all I got. Great work as ever :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @ChrisTheDude, thanks so much for the review and for catching what you did! I've addressed both your comments. For a long winded explanation though... In American football, "edge rusher" is a catchall term that typically refers to a defensive player who rushes the quarterback from the edge of the offensive line, pretty much always outside linebackers and defensive ends. NFL teams typically use 4-3 (4 defensive linemen, 3 linebackers) or 3-4 (3 defensive linemen and 4 linebackers) as their "base" defense, though this base can change depending on the plays. An edge rusher, such as prominent players TJ Watt and Von Miller, will sometimes be designated as a linebacker or a defensive end depending on the scheme and you may notice the role being the same as an outside observer. The Josh Allen in this article was once located at Josh Allen (defensive end) but was moved to Josh Allen (linebacker). Their role didn't really change, but their official designation did. Given that they are listed as a linebacker now and were drafted as a defensive end, using this term makes the most sense in this context. Josh Allen is actually a great example of this. If you look at his PFR, you'll see he was listed as a DE (defensive end) his first two years and then as an OLB (outside linebacker) his last three years. PFR also designates his position as edge. The position label is being more used often in recent years, even becoming a dedicated slot on the 2023 All-Pro Team. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 edit

  • Support. Didn't find anything that require further improvement from my read. Congrats on completing this series. Great work! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the review and the congrats, much appreciated @Pseud 14! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gonzo_fan2007 edit

  • Support even nitpicking, I can't find any recommended edits. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brooklyn Nine-Nine episodes edit

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

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

Comments edit

  • "Peretti departed the series in the fourth episode of sixth season" => "Peretti departed the series in the fourth episode of the sixth season" Done
  • "During the course of the seconds season" => "During the course of the second season" Done
  • "which aired on September 27" => "which began airing on September 27" (the whole season didn't air on that one day) Done
  • "The fourth season aired on September 20" - same again Done
  • "The eighth and finale season" => "The eighth and final season" Done
  • "Season one, was initially given" - no reason for that comma there Done
  • Something seems to have wonky with the season one column headings Done
  • "Season three aired on September 27, 2015" - as per above Done
  • "The fourth season aired on September 20, 2016" - same again Done
  • "The season was the final to air Fox" => "The season was the final to air on Fox" Done
  • "The eight and finale season aired two episodes a week" => "The eighth and final season aired two episodes a week" Done
  • Hitchcock's forename is spelt wrong in the webisodes section Done
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of myosoricines edit

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

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

Hey man im josh edit

Source review: Passed

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

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

Pseud 14 edit

  • May have made the same comment on another FLC you nominated earlier. Regarding the ecosystems shrublands, grasslands, and wetlands, perhaps consider linking for those who are unfamiliar. Other than that, nothing preventing me from supporting another solid work from you. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did; now done (and done for the next couple of lists to be nominated). --PresN 15:10, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Listed buildings in Sleaford edit

Nominator(s): Noswall59 (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sleaford is a small town in the rural English East Midlands. It's not particularly well known, but it has over 180 buildings that have been "listed", which means they've been officially designated architecturally, culturally or historically significant. They include the remains of a castle, a pub named after bull-baiting, a building which one critic called a "puzzle", and one of the longest brick industrial facades in the UK. A lot of the other listed buildings are more modest, but they come together into an pretty, quintessential English market town. Based on similar FLs like Runcorn's, this list summarises all of Sleaford's listed buildings. The lead introduces Sleaford and explains the listing process, while placing the more notable specimens within the context of the town's historical development. Sortable, reliably sourced, well-written and comprehensive, I believe it meets (or very nearly meets) the criteria to be featured. Technical terms inevitably crop up; they are linked on first use and I have sought to minimise them where possible.

Note: I have scoured the internet for free images of the listed buildings, but the majority are not photographed in a way compatible with Wikipedia's licensing requirements. This is a shame and something I want to rectify in the long term, but I am not in a position to photograph them myself at this time – and, thankfully, the really interesting buildings are illustrated in the article. —Noswall59 (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Name becomes !scope=col | Name. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row (the name, in this case), 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. | Vicarage becomes !scope=row | Vicarage (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @MPGuy2824: really helpful. I believe I've done this through this edit. —Noswall59 (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Please see the third bullet point above. You need to make the name cell in every row a header cell (it should start with a '!' instead of a '|'). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: I've now done this -- is it okay now? —Noswall59 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Drive-by comment edit

  • Notes which are not complete sentences, eg "A two-storey rendered building", do not need full stops -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent catch, @ChrisTheDude: I've removed extraneous full-stops here. —Noswall59 (talk) 12:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by Support from KJP1 edit

First off - it's a lovely list and, having read through, I'm looking forward to commenting. This I will have to do in batches, so feel free either to respond as I go along, or wait until I've finished, at which point I shall ping you. I do have two initial thoughts:

Bluelinking
  • Most of the Grade IIs are unlikely ever to have their own articles, given the difficulty of finding sources for such buildings. As such, I wonder whether it would be better to link them to their main articles, assuming they have such. The best examples are the fifteen listings beginning with the Eastern Cartshed (Ref 110). They all relate to Bass Maltings, Sleaford and many (all?) are actually mentioned in that article. So I wonder whether they could be bluelinked to the Maltings. Another example would be the three (lodge/stable/wall) all related to Westholme House. Again, could they be linked? With a minor tweak to that article, they could all actually be mentioned there. To give you an idea of what I mean, I've tweaked the Westholme House article. If it doesn't appeal, feel free to revert. I'm thinking of this in relation to Criterion 5a, Redlinking. While I appreciate you haven't red-linked them, they could be. Anyways, see what you think.
  • Excellent idea: I've linked all the Bass-related links to the Maltings article. I've also linked the Westholme-related ones to Westholme House and the two ones related to the Navigation to Sleaford Navigation (archway and Navigation House).
Accessibility
  • In relation to 5c, while the list reads fine on my laptop/ipad, it doesn't read/look so good on my phone. This is because the lengthy Notes column gives me huge amounts of white space in the left-hand columns. There may well be nothing that can be done about this, but someone more technically-minded than I may have a fix.
  • Agree, but I'm also not sure what if anything can be done.

So, I shall now go through, leaving comments. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 08:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • Note 1 contains an embedded External Link, to this, [The Local Government (Successor Parishes) Order 1973]. I'm no MoS expert, but Wikipedia:EXTERNAL suggests "External links normally should not be placed in the body of an article". I wonder if this would be better as a Reference?
  • I've formatted this as a reference now. There is Template:Cite legislation UK, but that formats in CS2 not CS1 which is used for the rest of the article, so I've manually formatted the citation to match everything else on the page.
  • There are a couple expressions of opinion, "a particularly fine example of England's Decorated Gothic", "William Alvey's fine Baroque house". I wonder if these should be supported by cites?
  • I've added citations to them both
List
  • Former Maltings - I think Bass & Co. should be linked. Re. cite 23, does it actually support the stated text? I know the Maltings is/was on the At Risk list, but I don't think this cite actually says that.
  • The BBC article says "English Heritage has welcomed plans to renovate the largest building on its industrial heritage at risk register."
  • Better still, I've linked to the at-risk register too.
  • Manor House, Rhodes House - I think the url for Rotberg (cite 26) is wrong, as it's taking me to the Book of Sleaford. And I wonder whether Rhodes, whom I'd probably term an imperialist rather than a colonialist and he is the main illustration for that article, and Frank's learning to ride there is a bit of a detail too far.
  • I did think it tinkered on the edge of trivia; removed, and also removed Rotberg from the bibliography
  • Town Hall (Sessions House) - I think this is more accurately described as "Gothic Revival" rather than "Gothic", and there is an excellent bluelink! Secondly, I'm confused by "the ground level is arcaded with six-pointed arches". I don't presently have access to Pevsner, but isn't it actually "six pointed arches, i.e. there are 6 of them, rather than they are six-pointed? The HE listing has "6 4-centred arches to Market Place".
  • Linked and excellent catch - my bizarre mistake on the arches
  • Vicarage - "beneath a large gable with timber oversails" - although they're both technical terms, I wonder of jetties might be the more commonly-understood of the two?
  • Good call - changed
  • Garden house at the Pines - would this be a useful bluelink?
  • Yes, I think so: done
  • Old Place - more of a query, but it relates to my Bluelinking comment above. This, the Vicarage and Carre's Hospital are the only redlinks. I'm wondering about the rationale. Is it that you think/intend these will get independent articles, but the others likely won't?
  • In short, I think there's enough for articles to be written about them. There's definitely enough written about Old Place and Carre's Hospital to justify GA-quality articles for them both, I just haven't got round to making them yet (both have recently had books written about them by local historians); I am less certain of the vicarage, but there is probably scope; if not, it could have an section in St Denys's article and be linked to that.
  • Old Place Cottages: 1-2 Boston Road - "coursed-stone" - is this, Course (architecture) not a suitable bluelink?
  • Yes, done
  • Old Place Cottages: 10-12 Boston Road - "shopfronts" - Façade would seem a suitable bluelink.
  • Done
  • Former office building in centre of yard formerly occupied by Hubbard and Phillips Ltd - cite 50 is giving me a "Fail to load" error on Wayback, although the original works.
  • Me too. I've manually generated a new archive link which is working for me.

Thanks so much @KJP1: I look forward to the remainder of your comments. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]


[continuation]

  • 1 Eastgate - "A one-storey building (with a gabled attic) in coarse rubble" - I think this is "coursed rubble".
  • Done
  • 26 Jermyn Street - "There is datestone of 1793; it was owned by a tanner" - it needs a definite article and you could link tanner, thus "There is a datestone of 1793; it was owned by a tanner".
  • both done
  • 1-6 Kingston Terrace - Marmaduke Bennison, great name, guy certainly warrants an article! But HE call his style 'Jacobean' (their single quote marks), so I wonder if Jacobethan would be a more appropriate link.
  • Changed
  • Garden wall to the rear of former stables to Westholme - I'm guessing from the dates that this is another work of Charles Kirk the Younger, and this should probably be specified.
  • The register doesn't say "the younger", but as the elder died in 1847 and the building is dated c. 1850, I have added the epithet
  • Redcroft - "The right and rear sides of the building have a bay windows" - the "a"'s not necessary.
  • Done
  • Done
  • Drinking fountain - another that I'd call Gothic Revival rather than Gothic.
  • Done
  • Lock-up in north-east corner of Churchyard - "which served as St Denys' Church's lock-up". While I appreciate that the lock-up is located in the churchyard, I'm not sure it can properly be described as the church's lock-up? As far as I'm aware, such Village lock-ups were administered by local judicial, magistrates etc., rather than ecclesiastical authorities. The source suggests it was operated by the "parish authorities", although it does say the vicar later bought it because he didn't like it! Presumably, he then closed it?
  • I've changed this to remove reference to the church and link to village lock-up; I think the HE list is less reliable about its past use than the local history work, so will use "town's lock-up".
Need to break off now, done as far as the lock-up. Will pick up later. KJP1 (talk) 11:14, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, I've made all the changes requested so far. I appreciate you taking the time to review this in such depth. —Noswall59 (talk) 11:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

[continuation]

  • War memorial - "Major H. A. Peake" - this is one where we can only go with what the source says, and I can't access cite 135, but our article on Bawtry Hall, and some other sources, not all RS, [1][2], call him Major George Peake.
  • Short story: this is sorted now. Long story: the sources were not clear about what was going on here, so I had a deeper dig. I knew that the Peakes had lived at Westholme but left the town in the 1920s, so thought (when the source was vague) that it was Mrs H. A. Peake's husband Herbert Peake who was at Bawtry; having now tracked down the local paper, I have found that Herbert and his wife were still at Westholme and that it was his brother G. H. (George) Peake who was at Bawtry and who gave the address in Herbert's place when Mrs Herbert Peake unveiled the ceremony. According to Herbert Peake's obituary (he died in 1923), he was so devastated by the loss of his three sons that he retired from public life; this probably explains why George gave the address instead. A very sad story. And now disentangled -- an excellent spot on your part, and exactly why this process is so useful.
  • 5 and 6 Market Street - "Nos 5 to 6 spans three storeys" - super picky but as it's two houses, should it be a plural "span"?
  • Done
  • 7 Market Street - again, apologies for the pickiness but, for me, cite 144 is actually more of an explanatory Note rather than a Citation and would sit better in the Notes section.
  • Moved to note form
  • 17 Market Place - "across three stories" - rather, "across three storeys".
  • Done, oops
  • Carre's Charity - another where I'd go for Gothic Revival, rather than Gothic.
  • Done
  • Lloyds Bank - "by Alvey Darwin" - I can't access the source but given he inherited it from William Alvey, are we certain his name is this way round, rather than Darwin Alvey? Your might also link armorial bearings.
  • No, his name was actually Alvey Darwin; he was a relative of the naturalist -- the source calls him "Alvey Darwin", but he was presumably the William Alvey Darwin (1726–1783) of New Sleaford in this tree, uncle of Charles, and son of Robert Darwin and his wife Elizabeth, daughter of John Hill of Sleaford and presumably through her somehow a relative of perhaps godson of William Alvey who built the house. (Also, I've linked armorial bearings)
  • Parry's Court (3/4/5 Northgate) - "The doorways are under Tudor arches" - given they aren't actually Tudor, perhaps "Tudor-style" or "Tudorbethan?
  • Done -- and corrected in one other place too.
  • 27–29 and attached gateway to 25 - "with Doric columns" - if you haven't already, and you may have done, it's a long list!, I'd link Doric. Also, I'm not sure "their firm's successor's offices are still at 27 to 29 Northgate as of 2024", particularly "firm's successor's offices", quite flows. Perhaps, "As of 2024, their successors still operate from the building" or something similar?
  • Doric is already linked further up. I've changed the wording to the one you suggested.
  • 23–27 Southgate - "pantile roof" - has pantile been linked before?
  • Yes, on its first usage.
  • White Hart Hotel - "The Hotel closed and has been an office since 2011" - lower case "h" for hotel.
  • Done
  • The Ivy - "it was renamed Beer and Bean", "the Beer and Bean", unless it self-consciously eschewed the definite article?
  • Done
  • Sleaford railway station - there's another "stories" that needs to be "storeys"
  • Done, oops again
  • Westgate House - "used as their birth, marriage and death register office", would "used as their births, marriages and deaths register office" be the more commons usage?
  • I've simplified to "used as their register office"
Notes
  • Note 5 - aside from wondering whether we really need this level of detail, and why it's a Note within a Note, i.e. Note 6, was it ECS (the company) that was bought by MRI or their Qube software product? But, either way, I'm not sure it's very relevant to the building.
  • I'd argue that the detail is okay for a footnote; it's a substantial, well-known house which has had some locally important owners, but it's also not had enough written about it yet to sustain its own article. I'd rather keep the ownership history here and a note keeps it uncluttered while giving interested parties the facts. Regarding the nested note, I've clarified the relationship between the companies. And I agree it's a bit silly, but I need to cite the fact that the company ECS (who bought the house in 1995) merged into Qube in 2007 and then bought in 2017 by MRI, who then left in 2021; clarifying the link between the companies requires an explanation.
Citations and Bibliography
  • These look good to me.

And that's it from me. A lovely list, and who knew Sleaford held such a rich haul of listeds. Certainly not me. You've responded very promptly to my issues to date, and I look forward to Supporting when you've had a chance to review the last batch. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much – I've gone through and addressed all of your concerns (other than the last point about notes 5 and 6). And, yes, most people even in the Midlands won't have heard of Sleaford, let alone been there. It's not much appreciated, even by a lot of the locals. Sure, it's got a lot of dull suburban housing, it's too congested at rush hour and its High Street shopping has got progressively down market (which town's hasn't?) But it has a quaint little centre and a great church, and on a sunny day the Ancaster stone and red-brick Georgian buildings make it quite pretty. Hopefully this will shine a little more light on all that. Glad you found it interesting. All the best, —Noswall59 (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Sincere apologies, yesterday RL was distracting, today Wiki was the same. All the issues I flagged, most of which were minor, have been promptly addressed. For me, the list meets the FL criteria and I am pleased to Support its promotion. KJP1 (talk) 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of roles and awards of Liza Soberano edit

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After recently expanding the main article of American and Filipino actress Liza Soberano, here's her work and awards list which I have lumped into one article, tailored to FLs like List of roles and awards of Oscar Isaac and List of roles and awards of Catherine Zeta-Jones. Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DBC

  • You can remove the notes column from the Film table since all the cells are empty.
I don't think the notes column is ever removed even if empty (i.e. List of James McAvoy performances#Video games, List of roles and awards of Oscar Isaac#Podcasts)
  • In the Music videos table, making the "title" column as the header cell in each row would make the table consistent with the other tables in the list. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching this. Done.
@MPGuy2824: thanks for the comments, provided my responses. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh edit

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 14 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

  • Ref 31 should use News.ABS-CBN.com instead of ABS-CBNnews.com
      • Done
  • Under the Awards and nominations table...
  • Discography table
    • Is there any reason you don't re-link Doice Amore and Star Music? I understand this is a small table, but you often include duplicate links, which is of course allowable and perfectly acceptable in a number of these tables, but I'm asking for the sake of consistency across all tables in the article.
      • Thanks for raising this. Since the table is not sortable (because it is small), there is no need to repeat the link. Repeat linking only applies for sortable tables (as the sorting order would have changed depending on which column)

Good job! Ping me when you reply please. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and doing the source review Hey man im josh. All actioned and responses provided. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed or needs changing. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good stuff Pseud! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Michelin starred restaurants in Mexico edit

Nominator(s): (CC) Tbhotch 20:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because... a few days ago, Michelin added Mexico to its list of destinations. Since there aren't any featured Michelin lists, I had to establish a standard. Yearly, the list will be static, and new restaurants will be updated if they receive or lose stars accordingly. (CC) Tbhotch 20:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • Its a bit weird to have three different ways to show the same information (color, symbol and stars). I suggest that you move the color to the star column and remove the symbols used. Instead you can use a single symbol for the taco stand, since it is a rarer quality.
  • The main table is missing its caption. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I did it. (CC) Tbhotch 07:16, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is one spanish ref. You should tag it with "lang=es".
    • "Eleven Mexican food restaurants worldwide have one Michelin star, and two have two, he added" Somehow indicate that this is only outside Mexico. The number increases when the restaurants in Mexico are counted too. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch 18:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • I'd be tempted to just go with the Quintonil image. The top picture just shows some unremarkable concrete steps and there's nothing in the picture to indicate that it even is a restaurant
  • "The Michelin Guides have been published [.....] It was designed as a guide" - jumps from plural to singular
  • "forcing drivers to replace them as they wore out" - I think "by encouraging drivers to use their cars more and therefore need to replace the tires as they wore out" would get the point across better
  • "Likewise, the stars are not permanent" - no reason for the word "likewise" there
  • "Michelin awarded a Mexican taco stand, Taquería El Califa de León, for the first time" - the "for the first time" bit reads a bit weirdly, as obviously if the inspectors never visited Mexico before this year it would have been physically impossible for them to have awarded stars to any Mexican taco stands previously
  • "Eleven Mexican food restaurants worldwide have one Michelin star, and two have two, he added" => "he added that eleven Mexican food restaurants worldwide have one Michelin star, and two have two"
  • That's what I got. Always nice to see an FLC in a new subject area :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch 18:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review edit

I'll take this source review ref numbers from this revision.

  • Ref 1 Good
  • Ref 2 Good
  • Ref 3 Good
  • Ref 4 seems to be sindicated from a non yahoo source titled Robb Report. Originally found here [3]
  • Ref 5 Good
  • Ref 6 Good
  • Ref 7 Good
  • Ref 8 Good
  • for the ref collom use something like

!scope="col" class="unsortable"| {{Ref heading}} instead of what's currently in use

Everything archived and seems reliable. Dating is consistent. Ping me once you can address the concern. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OlifanofmrTennant: Done. Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch 20:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of principals of Somerville College, Oxford edit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's that guy known for all those dozens of popular music lists, back yet again with an FLC on.......higher education??? I decided to step outside my comfort zone for once and, inspired by IntGrah's excellent work on List of masters of Trinity College, Cambridge, work on this one. My connection with this particular institution is that my son currently studies there, but I am reasonably certain that that doesn't count as a WP:COI :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me it was because I saw Jesus College Oxford was a featured topic—and so the rivalry continues... Nice work! IntGrah (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • "a limit on the numbers of students which the women's colleges could recruit": "admit" would work better than "recruit".
  • The cells of the header row are missing their scopes.
  • A cropped version of Fiona Caldicott's image can be used.
  • "(2008–2010) then Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords". A comma before the "then" would work better, imo.
  • I'm unsure if the peerage title needs to be mentioned for the current principal, in the table.
  • That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @MPGuy2824: - thanks for your review. All done apart from the last one. The name used here matches her article title and is the one she uses in public life including her capacity as principal ([4]) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Good justification. Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 edit

  • Great work branching out to a new subject area. No others comments on prose. Support for promotion. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo edit

  • Add the doi to Refs 7, 9, 10, 12, 14 and 19,
  • For Ref. 20, add '– Somerville College' after 'Emily Penrose' to keep it consistent with its usage in the other sources.

I can't see any other issues. Support promotion as comments are minor. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sgubaldo: - apologies for being dumb, but what is a "doi" and where do I find it for each source? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:01, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should've explained that better. A digital object identifier (doi) is a string of numbers and letters that uniquely identifies a document, usually a journal article. For the references in this article, you can find them just below the author.
For example, for Ref. 9, below 'Enid Huws Jones', you can see https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/34836. The doi here is 10.1093/ref:odnb/34836 and you can add it a WP citation as |doi=10.1093/ref:odnb/34836, producing:
  • Huws-Jones, Enid (23 September 2004). "Maitland, Agnes Catherine (1849–1906)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/34836. Archived from the original on 9 May 2024. Retrieved 8 May 2024.
Adding it to the citation produces a link to the article so, to be fair, I can see why it may be redundant with the url already there.
Sgubaldo (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgubaldo: - thanks for clarifying, that is done now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh edit

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 12 sources match what they are being cited for

I assumed good faith on the sources I did not have access to. Scoured for something to criticize, but I got nothing. Great work Chris! Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comments edit

Timeline of the 2002 Pacific hurricane season edit

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 03:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fifth in an ongoing series of hurricane season timeline nominations, and the first from this century. The 2002 season was fair to middling in terms of overall activity, but had a disproportionately high number of major hurricanes – indeed, it managed to generate a record-tying three Category 5 hurricanes. Two of those Category 5s stayed safely out to sea with no impacts to life nor property (the absolute best kind of tropical cyclone), but unfortunately, the third caused immense damage in Mexico when it rammed into the little fishing village of San Blas as a Category 4. That storm, Hurricane Kenna, had its name retired the following spring. Similarly to the subject of my previous nomination, this is a formerly merged timeline that I have given a significant overhaul – it now includes quite a bit of information that was missing from the old version. I eagerly anticipate the community's feedback, and will do my best to swiftly address any concerns. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 03:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Women's Premier League (cricket) captains edit

Nominator(s): Vestrian24Bio (UTACS) 14:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it's a well-organized list about a noteworthy topic. Vestrian24Bio (UTACS) 14:51, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB) edit

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

List of accolades received by Joker (2019 film) edit

Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my third accolades-related FLC. I have brought the article in line with similar FLs, added missing awards, removed some non-notable ones and improved sourcing. Joker was initially somewhat controversial, but it has also received significantly more awards than the films in my other nominations.

Note: My Hacksaw Ridge nomination has received three supports, so I am adding a second one. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • The result column sorts weirdly with won > runner-up > nom > 23rd > 20th > 13th.
  • That's all I got for now. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It sorts alphabetically. Is it supposed to sort as win, runner-up, numerical places, nom and viceversa? Sgubaldo (talk) 09:03, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping in to say that IMO it should sort by placement, for want of a better term, so Won, then runner-up, then "numbered" places from 3rd downwards, then un-numbered "nominated"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Now sorts properly regardless of whether you look in ascending or descending order. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

I'll do this source review, numbers taken from this revision [5] Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refs 7, 10, 32, 41 are live, though seems to be listed as dead.
  • Ref 41 is listed as ANSA and not spelt out as opposed to British Society of Cinematographers.

Only problems I see now. I'll have the spoties done soon. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • All have been returned back to life.
  • Fully spelt out.
Sgubaldo (talk) 09:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 5 Good
  • Ref 10 Good
  • Ref 16 Good
  • Ref 19 Good
  • Ref 22 Good
  • Ref 28 Good
  • Ref 30 Good
  • Ref 35 Good
  • Ref 48 Good
  • Ref 57 Good
  • Ref 68 Good
  • Ref 70 Good
  • Ref 74 Good
  • Ref 97 Good
  • Ref 101 Good
  • Ref 105 Good

Spell out RTBF in ref 24.

What's the relability of AwardsWatch? That's all I got. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spelt out RTBF.
  • AwardsWatch is a website on the film industry and awards; it's similar to Awards Daily. It seems reliable for film awards and it's been used in FLs already. My reasoning for using it was because I wanted secondary source for all the accolades, but sometimes none of the bigger websites covered a specific one while AwardsWatch did. Sgubaldo (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of constituencies of the Madhya Pradesh Legislative Assembly edit

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

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

Comments edit

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

List of accolades received by The Boy and the Heron edit

Nominator(s): TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Boy and the Heron (2023) is the latest — and potentially last — animated feature film from Hayao Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli. It collected a total of 27 wins among its 64 notable award nominations; among them were wins at the 96th Academy Awards and 77th British Academy Film Awards, which had seldom, if ever, recognized Japanese animations in the past. I hope you'll enjoy the read, and I look forward to hearing your comments! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am a first-time nominator at FLC, so feel free to leave me detailed feedback or conduct in-depth spot checks as necessary. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DBC edit

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the tip, MPGuy2824; done! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like other reviewers have helped you fix the small issues that were in the list. Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sgubaldo edit

  • Infobox
    • In the infobox, please count each win as having a prior nomination as well (e.g. for Academy Awards, it's currently counted as 1 win and 0 nominations, so change that to 1 win and 1 nomination).
      Done. TS
    • I'm not sure if it's a standard but, in all other FLs I've seen, runner-up and 3rd places are also counted as wins.
      I'm not very inclined to do this, especially since several sources clearly delineate the winners and runners-up in separate sections. TS
  • Table
    • Checking the IMDb link,, it's missing a seemingly notable award from the Turkish Film Critics Association (not a dealbreaker if you can't find any sources).
      That's exactly the issue I encountered, which is why this wasn't included. It's worth noting that an article for this yearly event has not been created since 2011, leading me to believe it may no longer be a notable awards ceremony. TS
    • I feel the article would look a lot nicer if the awards in the table were listed in alphabetical order already without needing to sort by clicking on the column.
      Done. Chronological order made it easier to collaborate with other editors while the film was still receiving awards, but I must admit to also preferring alphabetical order. TS
  • Lead
    • [...] second hand-drawn production to do so after Miyazaki's 2001 film Spirited Away. ==> This may need a comma after 'so'.
      This seems gramatically correct as is; not done for now. Feel free to correct me if I'm missing something. TS
    • The film was released on July 14, 2023, by Toho. ==> The film was released theatrically in Japan on July 14, 2023, by Toho.
      Done. TS
    • After that sentence, I'd add a bit about its release internationally. Perhaps roughly along the lines of "The film had its international premiere at the 2023 Toronto International Film Festival on September 7, and had its theatrical release in the United States on December 8.", but you can write that however you want.
      Done. TS
  • References
    • The Box Office Mojo reference had BOM as the publisher, but BOM should be the website, and IMDb should be the publisher; also, if you want you can use Template:Cite Box Office Mojo.
      Done. TS
    • Add Fandango Media as publisher for the Rotten Tomatoes reference.
      Done. TS

Most of these are pretty minor, well done on your first FLC nomination. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:19, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the feedback, Sgubaldo! All comments addressed. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three More
  • In Note e, I don't think you need "(all 2023)" considering it's the Top Ten Films of the Year.
Done. TS
  • Ref. 31 is missing an author (Kelly Ng)
Done. TS
  • At the 77th British Academy Film Awards, Miyazaki and Suzuki received Best Animated Film, marking the first time a Japanese-language film had received the award ==> At the 77th British Academy Film Awards, Miyazaki and Suzuki won Best Animated Film, marking the first time a Japanese-language film received the award; just to avoid repetition of received in the same sentence
Done. TS
  • Two Nitpicks
  • Wikilink Florida Film Critics Circle in Ref. 28 (and change from website to publisher in both Ref. 28 and Ref. 29 to make consistent with all the other critics circle/society/association references)
Thanks for calling these out; I made a few passes to get all of the citations standardized before nominating, but evidently couldn't catch everything! Done. TS
  • Ref. 2, Ref. 40 and Ref. 43 have Anime News Network as a publisher while Ref. 6 has it as a website; make them consistent.
Done. TS
A comment on the infobox
One of the reasons I included the point about runners-up and 3rd places being counted as wins is because Template:infobox awards list automatically includes the note:

"Certain award groups do not simply award one winner. They recognize several different recipients, have runners-up, and have third place. Since this is a specific recognition and is different from losing an award, runner-up mentions are considered wins in this award tally. For simplification and to avoid errors, each award in this list has been presumed to have had a prior nomination.".

I appreciate that this is not necessarily the best way to do it (and maybe something to bring up on the template page) but, for the purposes of this FLC, I'd like them to be included as wins. I'm not going to die on this hill though so, after the five comments above are resolved, I'll support.
Ah, I'd forgotten about the note baked into the infobox. This seems like a fairly problematic consequence of the template being inflexible, but now may not be an appropriate moment to propose changes to it for one article. Done for now. TS
Sgubaldo (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgubaldo: Responses above. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great work. Sgubaldo (talk) 07:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review! TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

I'll do the source review. Numbers from this revision [6].

  • Refs 9 and 10 have contradicting numbers.
  • Refs 11-13, 28, 31, 44 are good.
  • Ref 15 Good
  • Ref 23 Good
  • Ref 28 Good
  • Ref 33 Good
  • Ref 36 Good
  • Ref 40 Good
  • Ref 44 Good
  • Ref 48 Good
  • Ref 55 Good
  • Ref 56 Good.

Everything is archived so just clarify the box office thing and it should be good.Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you, Oli, and thanks for the review! I've removed the Box Office Mojo reference for now as it seems to be out of date — presumably not displaying the film's recent earnings in China. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:08, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 22:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh edit

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 22 sources match what they are being cited for

Feedback:

  • Would writing "Third place" instead of "3rd place" be more appropriate for the December 11, 2023, IndieWire Critics Poll result?
    Sure, why not? The relevant guideline is neutral on this specific situation, but there seems to be a general preference for ordinals being spelled out. TS
  • Is there a reason you're using linebreaks to put references on new lines? I don't believe this is a best practice and, while I don't believe this is your intention, it sort of looks as though you're trying to separate the references into their own cells.
    The references are in the correct cells to verify the information in their rows as far as I'm aware. I'm using <br> tags to prevent the column from being unnecessarily widened when multiple footnotes are being used, emulating the style I've seen used on many other lists. If you know a better way to do that, do let me know and I'll apply it. TS
  • Refs column should abbr instead, since some columns have multiple references
    Done. TS
  • Ref 25 – Change Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association to Dallas–Fort Worth Film Critics Association
    Done. TS
  • Ref 27 – Add date of December 21, 2024
    Done. TS
  • Ref 45 – No publish date listed at the source. Archive date should also probably be updated, given that relevant information has since been added to the live page.
    Done. TS
  • Ref 52 – Not seeing a date at the target that matches up with the December 17, 2023, date listed. Perhaps this was mistakenly added based on a portion of the source stating nominations were announced that day?
    That might have been the case; removed. TS

I too did a source review, just because you did one for me and I figured it'd be good to help you by being extra thorough with your first (of many I hope) FLC. Very good stuff for your first go of it. Ping me when you reply please. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the comments, Josh! Responses are above. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cincinnati Bengals first-round draft picks edit

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is nomination #11 for me in this series and will hopefully be #31 in the series to be promoted. This is the second to last nomination in the series, so we're almost done! This nomination's format matches that of other AFL team lists I've helped to promote, such as the Buffalo Bills, New England Patriots, and Tennessee Titans. As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source & image review from Dylan620 edit

I'm going to tackle a source review this time around – a (very) cursory glance is already promising, with extensive usage of at least two reliable sources that have been cited extensively in previous lists. Should be finished tomorrow or the day after. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 20:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review on hold, details below:
  • The refs to the Chicago Tribune, AP News, and United Press International (and probably USA Today as well) should use {{cite news}} instead of {{cite web}}.
  • Spot-checked refs 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 24, 26, and 30 (ref numbers as they appear in this revision):
    • Ref 4 is hosted on the website for USA Today, but the Cincinatti Enquirer is named under the byline... should the source be credited to the Cincinatti Enquirer, with a via parameter added to mention USA Today?
    • Footnote A, cited to ref 24, states that the last pick in the first draft was No. 26 overall, but the source states No. 27.
    • Ref 26 makes no mention of Charles Alexander; I would recommend additionally citing ref 24 in footnote F, since that one does mention Alexander.
    • Adding {{rp|page(s)=n}} after each citation to ref 24 wouldn't hurt, just so the reader knows which page(s) specifically to look for the information that the source is being used to verify.
  • Source formatting is consistent across the board.
  • All sources are reliable enough for the information they are being used to verify.
After finishing the above source review, I decided to do an image review as well. Image review passes, details below:
  • All images that are present contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
  • All images have suitable alt text.
  • Sourcing for each image checks out, as do the sources for the captions.
  • The captions themselves are well-written.
  • All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.
Excellent work once again, Josh! I have no concerns with the images, and only a few quibbles with the sources; once those are resolved (or adequately explained), I look forward to supporting. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 23:45, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple minor things I forgot to mention:
  • "as a result of the 1970 AFL–NFL merger.[4][5][3]" – the refs should be listed in ascending order here.
  • "Only one of the team's first-round picks ... have been elected" – have → has
Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 23:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The refs to the Chicago Tribune, AP News, and United Press International (and probably USA Today as well) should use cite news instead of cite web . – Done.
  • Ref 4 is hosted on the website for USA Today, but the Cincinatti Enquirer is named under the byline... should the source be credited to the Cincinatti Enquirer, with a via parameter added to mention USA Today? – I actually hadn't noticed that and skipped the middle man by replacing the ref with the version from the Enquirer.
  • Footnote A, cited to ref 24, states that the last pick in the first draft was No. 26 overall, but the source states No. 27. – That's a definite mistake on my part. The mistake stems from the wording of "second and last pick in the round". Normally there'd be 26 picks in the round (1 per team) and I didn't factor in that this added a pick to the end of the round. Fixed.
  • Ref 26 makes no mention of Charles Alexander; I would recommend additionally citing ref 24 in footnote F, since that one does mention Alexander. – Normally it'd be fine not to mention Alexander, as the notes are mostly about how the pick was acquired / why the team's position in the draft changed. I use the reference at the top of the column to verify the player who was picked, their position, college, etc. So, while it's not explicitly cited in that note, it is verifiable based on the column reference. With that said, I noticed that my source I used didn't explicitly state the pick number, which is something I'm always trying to verify. As such, I did add another source to verify the info (from the Pro Football Hall of Fame).
  • Adding after each citation to ref 24 wouldn't hurt, just so the reader knows which page(s) specifically to look for the information that the source is being used to verify. – Personally I think the small page range (226–232) and the numbered subheadings for drafts in the source should be straight forward enough to make the information easy to find.
  • "as a result of the 1970 AFL–NFL merger.[4][5][3]" – the refs should be listed in ascending order here. – Is that an actual thing noted down anywhere? I personally prefer to use the references in the order that they would be verifying information for the sentence. For instance, if the lowest numbered ref (let's say 3), verified the end of the sentence, I would want to use it as the last reference despite the order. That may just be a stylistic preference of mine, but I'm now really curious if that's an MOS thing we should adhere to?
  • "Only one of the team's first-round picks ... have been elected" – have → has – Done.
I believe/hope I've addressed all of your concerns, pending a reply to a couple. Thanks so much for providing a source and image review and the helpful feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems you are correct about the ref ordering—I had seen it brought up as an issue in another FLC, which led me to point it out when noticing it in subsequent reviews I've conducted, but upon double-checking WP:CITEORDER, I read that both approaches are acceptable and it's all down to stylistic preference. All other fixes and explanations look/sound good to me. All that needs to be done now is for archived URLs to be added for the updated ref 4 and the newly added ref 27, but that is minor and easily fixable—the source review passes and I am pleased to support this FLC. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 18:50, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • Support promotion. No issues with the text or table accessibility. A couple of refs are missing archive links, but that's not a deal breaker. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review @MPGuy2824! I manually saved the two pages missing archive links to the Internet Archive. They should be available to IABot in about an hour and I'll be sure to re-run the bot to make sure that's addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gonzo_fan2007 edit

  • There would be a few recommendations (spelling out the positions, shorter See also section, etc) but we have discussed these and I respect your consistent approach.
  • Recommend adding File:Ja'Marr Chase.jpg as a recent and well-known draft pick.

Support, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, I've gone ahead and added that image. Thanks for the review and suggestion @Gonzo fan2007! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Tunisia edit

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

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

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

MPGuy2824

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

Comments edit

  • "By 2006 the situation has improved" => "By 2006 the situation had improved"
  • "The ruins, which date to the 4th and 3th centuries BCE were discovered in 1952" => "The ruins, which date to the 4th and 3th centuries BCE, were discovered in 1952"
  • "The island of Djerba has a semi dry climate" => "The island of Djerba has a semi-dry climate"
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed! Two of these were already mentioned above and I just took care of them :) Tone 09:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You still have "By 2006 the situation has improved" in the lead...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, fixed now :) Tone 14:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities of Nayarit edit

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it going. Here is one more list of municipalities with a standardized format that now includes 45 (!!) lists in North America. Inspired by real encyclopedias with consistent formatting and high standards, I'm helping to achieve this for lists of municipalities. I tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations but I'm sure I've missed some and there can always be improvements. Thanks for your reviews Mattximus (talk) 14:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • "Santiago Ixcuintla is third largest municipality by population." => "Santiago Ixcuintla is the third largest municipality by population."
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • There has to be a more urban-looking image for Compostela.
  • I agree but there does not seem to be any. The urban area is quite tiny, and would be more of a town feel, which is perhaps why there are no images? Mattximus (talk) 14:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since municipalities are the second-level administrative divisions in Mexico, it would be nice to get a map of Nayarit divided into its municipalities.
  • Well I did my best at making my own map. It's not perfect, but does it do what you wanted? Mattximus (talk) 14:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Compostela image: The other municipality images in the list are urban. I think using the lead image of Compostela, Nayarit, instead of what is there now, would be better.
  • Done
  • Map of municipalities: Nice job. If you still have the svg file, then upload that as well, to commons. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:02, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saved it as png unfortunately, however I realize an error, in that I didn't use the Spanish spelling (missing accents) on a few words. I suppose it's ok for English wikipedia, but I don't think I have time to redo it. Mattximus (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dank edit

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Additional disclaimer: my Spanish is very poor.
  • "West Mexico": The capital "W" means that there's a well-known area called "West Mexico" ... if so, please link "West Mexico" to a Wikipedia page that tells us what it is. If not, then use "western" instead of "West".
  • "all the public services for their constituents": I'd shorten it to "all public services" (without "constituents"), unless I'm missing something.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. Nothing else is jumping out at me as a prose problem. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The sources appear to be reliable (but note my disclaimer), and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine except for the last one; see below.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • I'll go ahead and support, but I recommend either removing the last image or doing some research on the validity of the license, since a banned sockpuppet uploaded it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm agreed with the reviewer above about looking for other images for Compostela. Your choice, but I agree with him that the lead image of Compostela, Nayarit, looks like it would work. And ping me sometime about whether there's a "West Mexico" or not. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure, switched picture, no problem. Should I write Pacific Mexico? I'm completely open to other wording! Thanks! Mattximus (talk) 15:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • In general, I stay away from discussions over what to call a geographic area ... but this is a different issue, it's about the capitalization. A proper noun means: "This is a thing. Maybe there's some disagreement over exactly what it is, but it's a definite thing, and this is what I think the name is". So, is West Mexico a thing? Is Pacific Mexico a thing? If so, then there's probably a paragraph somewhere on Wikipedia that tells you what that term means. If not, then it's best to avoid the proper noun. "western Mexico" means just "somewhere on the western side of Mexico". - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right that makes sense. I did some poking around and there is a region in spanish called "Western Mexico" which contains this state. I used that term now, with proper capitalization. Thanks for the tip! Mattximus (talk) 16:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the phrase doesn't seem to exist (as an actual thing) on the English Wikipedia or in English-language dictionaries (that I can find), so I lowercased it. Everything looks good now. - Dank (push to talk) 17:44, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969) edit

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every draft selection by the Green Bay Packers from 1936 to 1969 (companion to Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present)). As always, happy to address any concerns or comments. Thank you for taking the time to review (note, I strove to implement comments made at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present)/archive1 in this article). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:06, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • Explain the first instance of AAFC.
    • Explained. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "may not be representative of a player’s college position or current position." - I hope none of them are "current" players.
  • Is there a good reason to limit the width of the tables to 50% of the screen? They would take up less space if the width was increased (or removed).
    • This came about when I made the decision to forego one large sortable table for a table for each draft. Without any width established, the tables varied significantly in total width and column, making for a graphically displeasing result. The purpose is primarily to standardize the column width to convey the feel of one cohesive table while still providing separate tables. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like the pick column is the same for each year, except for a few rows (e.g. 1968 and 1969). If explanations are available for them, then add them as notes.
    • The Pick # changes for a number of reasons, including trades and specific rules for each draft. Explaining each one of these, especially when applied to Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present), would be seriously excessive. We would be talking hundreds of notes. As an example, just in 2024 the Packers had multiple compensatory picks, and completed 3 trades involving 10 picks. This also changed the Pick # for them, and would likely require at least 4 separate notes, maybe more. I am open to adding some type of note explaining why the Pick # changes, but I feel like any more stumbles into sports almanac territory. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • An explanatory line or two in the 1950 AAFC section would be nice.
    • I added an additional line in the lead that the AAFC was formed as a competing league in 1946. Is there more that you feel needs explained? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MPGuy2824 for the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentences about the 1950 AAFC draft might not make too much sense in the lead. You can move it to the top of the relevant section.
  • Respectfully MPGuy2824, I disagree. In this type of list, as a reader, I am not expecting just one section to have some explanatory text (especially one buried halfway down the page). My expectation, as is for most lists, is that the lead is going to summarize what the table is all about (in this case, for ease of navigation, I broke the table up into 35 smaller tables). Note that even if someone took a direct link to that section (i.e. Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969)#1950 AAFC dispersal draft) the hatnote would provide a quick reference to get a larger understanding of what the dispersal draft is. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • MPGuy2824, just wanted to touch base to see if you are ok with my response and make sure you did not have any other comments that need to be addressed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, sure. Looks like this got missed out somehow. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From 1936 to 1969, eleven players drafted by the Packers have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame" to "Eleven of the players drafted by the Packers between 1936 and 1969 have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:39, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment edit

  • I am seeing "Cite error: The named reference "Position" was defined multiple times with different content" at the bottom...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ChrisTheDude, it got fixed by another editor. I noticed that and fixed all but one instance, which is why the error was still present. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 edit

  • Looks consistent with the 1970 draft picks list. Nothing that requires further improvement. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:49, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh edit

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

  • Ref 9 and 27 are the same, you should name ref 9 and re-use it
    • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...while most of the remaining players from the other five AAFC teams were placed in the dispersal draft for selection by existing NFL teams. – I think this phrasing can be improved. Perhaps something to the effect of, the players from the defunct teams became automatically eligible for selection by existing NFL team in the dispersal draft.
    • Reworded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if we want to complicate things a bit, but do we want to discuss anything regarding rights of players on those 5 teams who were previously drafted by NFL teams? Probably not I imagine, but I thought I'd ask.
    • Probably not. Honestly, finding anything on the dispersal draft was real challenge. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The acronym NFC is defined but never re-used, can be removed
    • I think I mentioned this on another list, but I like to keep it because the acronym is eponymous with the Conference (i.e. it is more well known as "NFC" then spelt out). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding the {{Use American English}} template to the top of the article under the short description
    • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the 1944 draft section, there's a draft entry for Alex Agase who seems to match one of the images. However, the wikilink in the image links to Andre Agase (back at it again!) instead
    • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the 1962 draft section, the image has a typo. It wikilinks Buck Buchanon instead of Buck Buchanan
    • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sections for 1967, 1968, and 1969 should have the "main article" pointed to "YYYY NFL/AFL draft" instead of "NFL draft".
    • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the 1950 AAFC dispersal draft took place before the 1950 NFL draft, the dispersal draft should come before the regular draft in the order
    • Reordered. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hey man im josh, I have responded to or fixed everything you notes. Appreciate the review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good stuff Gonzo! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker world rankings 1985/1986 edit

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another in the series of snooker world rankings lists. Steve Davis held a large lead over anyone else. Unlike the previous two years, the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association did not change its mind about how to compile the list after it was published. As per usual, copies of relevant source extracts can be provided to reviewers, and all improvement suggestions are welcome. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • I don't know if there's a hard and fast rule on this, but to me the lead image looks a bit odd in the middle of the lead rather than its usual position of right at the top
  • Dashes within dashes looks a bit weird in the second paragraph. Maybe change the one before "which were" to a comma
  • Amended in a different way, but happy with your suggestion here instead.
  • "In the 1983/84 snooker season" vs "with effect from the 1984–85 season" vs "for the 1985/1986 rankings".....? Three different formats?
  • "The tournaments that counted towards the 1985/1986 were those" - think the word "rankings" is missing
  • "No points were awarded to a player who did not win any matches in a given tournament. (For example, a top 16 player seeded into the last 32 of the world championship would not win any merit points if they lost their first match.)" => "No points were awarded to a player who did not win any matches in a given tournament (for example, a top 16 player seeded into the last 32 of the world championship would not win any merit points if they lost their first match)."
  • This needs amending in the "points tariff" section too..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 edit

  • Initially the rankings were based on performances -- comma after initially
  • The UK Championship and Dulux British Open were added for to the ranking list with effect from the -- unless it is a BEng styling - for conciseness The UK Championship and Dulux British Open were added to the ranking list
  • In additional to standard ranking points awarded as per the table below -- In addition to standard ranking points
  • That's all from me. Great works as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, {{u|Pseud 14}. Hopefully now sorted, but let me know if nayhting else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ping didn't go through. Just a couple points missed, but made the edits so it's easier. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed
  • Images have succinct captions and are relevant to the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • Alex Higgins' total needs to be corrected.
  • I don't quite understand the sentence "Merit points were only used to determine placings between players that had an equal opportunity to earn them." An explanation might help me justify the relative rankings of Meo, Thorne and Charleton (10-12). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks, MPGuy2824. I've added a little to that sentence. Although sources don't specify it, I believe that Meo being ranked above Thorne is because at the 1983 World Snooker Championship, Thorne could not earn merit points because he was seeded directly into the last-32, so Meo's merit point from that tournament is disregarded for the purpose of their relative rankings. Regards, 10:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thorne could not earn merit points because he was seeded directly into the last-32, so Meo's merit point from that tournament is disregarded for the purpose of their relative rankings This would exacerbate the problem. But, I'd guess that there were similar things in other tournaments which worked in reverse. I assume that you are getting the ranking from one of the books in addition to snooker.org. Should be fine, if so.
    • In any case, I support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB) edit

  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |1|| ... becomes !scope=row | 1, on its own line. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 13:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Bocchi the Rock! discography edit

Nominator(s): Harushiga (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's something different from my past FLCs: this is about the discography...of an anime series! Bocchi the Rock! is one of the most popular anime of 2022, which led to its song album selling over 100,000 physical copies and all of its songs appearing in music charts in Japan. This is my fourth nomination, and any feedback would be appreciated as always! Harushiga (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DBC

  • The "CD singles" table has the non-applicable sentence ' "—" denotes single that did not chart.' Please remove. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824: Done. Harushiga (talk) 13:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of historic places in the Chatham Islands edit

Nominator(s): Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first featured list candidate! This is an extremely niche topic; the Chatham Islands are a tiny New Zealand island chain far to the east of the main islands, most notable for their bloody 19th century history. Most of these structures are so obscure that their New Zealand Heritage List entries are their only online presence, and a lot of them don't even have their full reports available! The obscurity notwithstanding, I hope this is a well-composed list. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh edit

I'll do a more thorough review afterwards, but for now, I wanted to point out that your table needs to be accessible, which includes column and scope rows. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed up! Thank you very much. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

  • Ref 1 – Change website from Te Ara - Encyclopedia of New Zealand to Te Ara: The Encyclopedia of New Zealand, to reflect the name of the article
    • Done. -G
  • Refs 3 and 4 – Where do you get the date of 2023 from?
    • For 4: Copyright date of the website, although I realize that doesn't necessarily match the content. 3 was accidental; I removed the dates on these. - G
  • Ref 7 – Remove website, publisher is enough.
    • Makes sense, done. - G
  • Bibliography item 1 – Shows a publish date of 2010-10-30 but the item only says 2010 for the date
    • Fixed. - G
  • Add archive links with IABot
  • Is there any reason you didn't make this table sortable? I understand the notes section wouldn't be useful for sorting.
    • None in particular, I added sorting. - G
  • I noticed Category:Heritage New Zealand Category 1 historic places and Category:Heritage New Zealand Category 2 historic places exist. For Category 2, it says, This category lists buildings, structures and other places which have been declared Category II under the New Zealand Historic Places Act 1993 - "...places of ‘historical or cultural heritage significance or value" – It might make sense to include a very brief mention that these classifications are a result of the Historic Places Act 1993.
  • You got me to look into it, and this was actually repealed; the categorization system is set up by the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. Added!
  • Consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|May 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been
    • Good idea, added. - G

That's what I've got for now. Good stuff, especially for your first FLC Generalissima! Ping me when my comment has been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Addressed I think! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 18:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • For greater context, I'd be tempted to pinch the opening sentences from the main article on the islands and add them at the start i.e. "The Chatham Islands (/ˈtʃætəm/ CHAT-əm) (Moriori: Rēkohu, lit. 'Misty Sun'; Māori: Wharekauri) are an archipelago in the Pacific Ocean about 800 km (430 nmi) east of New Zealand's South Island. They are administered as part of New Zealand. The first inhabitants, the Moriori, suffered disease outbreaks......."
    • Added. - G
  • "A statue of Tommy Solomon" - maybe add a brief clause explaining who he was
    • Added. - G
  • "A two-story colonial house" - can I just confirm that that is the correct spelling in NZ English and not a typo? I only ask because here in the UK we spell it "storey"
    • Ooh, yep. I'm a Yank, my apologies. - G
  • "Its' construction" - no reason for that apostrophe
    • Fixed. - G
  • I would remove the line break in the description of Hunts Forge, to be consistent with all the other listings.
    • Fixed. - G
  • That's all I got. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good ideas all around! Implemented. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 14:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • One thing that just occurred to me.........what is the initial order of the entries in the table based on? It's not alphabetical or in date order of construction or registration. I might be missing something blindingly obvious but it seems completely random......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @ChrisTheDude: Ah yes! Fixed, put it by date of construction. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 00:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dank edit

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • I fixed 3 sorting problems; two entries needed {{sort}} templates, and the Notes column generally isn't sorted, so I fixed that. (It was sorting with "a" first, then "an" then "the", which isn't helpful.)
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I did some minor copyediting; feel free to revert. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the tables.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Assuming any leftover problems from the reviews above are dealt with: Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of masters of Trinity College, Cambridge edit

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

Nominating for featured list because...

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

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

Comments edit

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

Drive-by comments edit

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

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB) edit

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

MPGuy2824

  • "appointmented" to "appointed" OR rewrite the sentence to "The role is an official appointment by the monarch, at the recommendation of the college, ..."
  • Some stats about the shortest and longest tenure would be nice in the lead.
  • I'll reiterate PresN's point about having a primary cell for each row. I'd recommend the name cell.
  • According to [7] William Bill stopped being master of St. John's in 1551, so you can remove the "?" after that year. In the same cell, remove the full stop at the end since this isn't a complete sentence.
  • The empty ref column for the second William Bill stint looks odd. You can re-cite the earlier ref. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (appointed) I think the version "The role is an official appointment by the monarch..." doesn't allow for the fact that it is only ceremonial nowadays.
  • Partially done I added a bit about Richard Bentley, since his long tenure is significant. (He was charged twice by the fellows, but held the role. The first sentencer died, and the second sentence was meant to be executed by the vice-master, whom he was a friend of.) I didn't think it was interesting enough to talk about the shortest term of office though.
  • I already have | scope="row" |{{Sortname|First|Last}} on each table row, is that enough, or is there a another way to mark these as primary?
  • Done (Bill Bill)
  • Done (Empty ref)
IntGrah (talk) 00:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of | scope="row" | it should be ! scope="row" | -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure? I didn't see this in other featured lists, and I think putting the picture first is better in this case. I made a test edit for now, but I am under the impression that | scope=... is sufficient for screenreader software. Please correct me if I'm wrong. IntGrah (talk) 09:27, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Thoughts? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:19, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has to be a !. The reason is that, for wikicode, ! means a header cell, and | means a regular cell. Scope tags only work on header cells (since they're identifying the header cell for the row). Note, though, that the header cell, oddly, doesn't actually need to be the first cell in the row, so if you want the picture column to be the first one then that's fine. I personally don't like the look, but it's not invalid. --PresN 17:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the highlighted effect on the header cell looks weird when it is the second column. Is the current state fine then? (With the name as the header column) IntGrah (talk) 03:51, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I think it is fine now with the name as the first column (+ header). Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of crocidurines edit

Nominator(s): PresN 23:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Back with animal list #38, we reach our problem list (and first list) of the problem family in the order Eulipotyphla: shrews part 1! You see, at about 475 species, Eulipotyphla is too big for a list—that's normal. At 408 species, Soricidae (shrews) is also too big (as in templates stop rendering too big)—that's a first for our series, but fortunately it has three subfamilies, so we can break it up like that. And here in our first subfamily list, for Crocidurinae, we have 235 species (which is pushing it on length), and we start right off the bat with... a single genus of 191 species. For reference, that's almost 10% of the species I've covered in this 38-list series, in a single genus. And it's a genus of almost identical tiny shrews; Walker's Mammals of the World doesn't even break them into species, and just lumps pretty much the entire genus into "they're all about the same size and eat the same things. You tell them apart by their back feet and tails." In any case, they're all here, if with fewer pictures than I'd like, and it follows all the conventions we've built up over the last dozens of FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Pseud 14 edit

  • Nothing to nitpick, but perhaps technical-ish terms of ecosystems/communities such as savannas, shrublands, and grasslands can be linked for unfamiliar readers.
  • That's all I was able to find. An informative and well-structured lists as always. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 02:51, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - epic work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • C. floweri is missing its habitat which seems to be arable land.
  • Wikilink "supratidal" and "intertidal".
  • That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MPGuy2824: Missed this on my watchlist somehow; both now done. --PresN 01:56, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
    Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present) edit

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every draft selection by the Green Bay Packers since the modern draft began in 1970. As always, happy to address any concerns or comments. Thank you for taking the time to review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 edit

  • (the Canadian Football League [CFL] was also included in this supplemental draft). -- I think the flow of the prose should be fine if you remove the parenthetical, and then enclose "(CFL)".
    • Revised. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the "position" and "college" columns are sortable, items should be linked every time, as there's no way of knowing which repeated item will come first.
    • I can't find an MOS on this (please let me know if I am missing it), but in any case I would look to WP:IAR as these are all very short tables with not a lot of overlap in positions/colleges. I think in one draft the Packers haven't drafted more than 3 players from one college and maybe 5 of the same position. Meaning any sort would generally still provide the link in a typical view. If this was one big table, I would agree. The article is pretty big as is, and the addition of all the linking would only make it bigger. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Gonzo fan2007: I’ve always referred to comments from the coords on this. If you revisit discussions from the FLC talk page archive, FLC coords including PresN and formerly TRM have always indicated in their reviews/responses that in sortable tables, WP:OVERLINK is an exception and WP:REPEATLINK applies, regardless of the size of the table. [8] [9]. Hopefully that provides clarification. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Pseud 14 and ChrisTheDude:, I don't mind implementing it, but I feel like the benefits don't outweigh the costs (primarily in page size). @Giants2008 and PresN:, do you have any thoughts on this? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Happy to revisit once coords have weighed in. I just figured that it's an accessibility MOS that I've seen highlighted by coords, which is why I raised it. (not in any way being stubborn on this) Pseud 14 (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Giants2008 and PresN: can you weigh in on this? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • The standard for sortable tables is to link every instance, as the "first" link depends on what you click. That said, you don't need to re-link in subsequent tables if you don't want. --PresN 01:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
                • @PresN, Pseud 14, and ChrisTheDude: I have direct anchored links to each unique draft year table from Green Bay Packers draft history, meaning someone may click a link to take them directly to a specific draft class. Thus, I think it makes sense for each table to still link the first instance of each position and each university. That said, I guess I am asking for a deviation from a community norm so that every instance of a position or college doesn't have to be linked because: each table is relatively short, there are usually not a lot of instances of a specific position (so it's not hard to find the link), but most importantly, linking every position will add 1000s of bytes of data to an already enormous page. Linking positions like wide receiver and quarterback aren't that bad, just adding the brackets, but linking positions with disambiguators, like Guard (gridiron football) and Tackle (gridiron football position) are brutal. This gets real bad in the early years when basically everyone was a lineman. As an example, Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969)#1943 draft, the Packers drafted 30 players at 9 unique positions and 22 unique schools. Meaning just in this table, I would have to provide 21 additional position links and 8 additional college links. Doing that just to this draft table adds almost 1000 bytes to the article size. 35 separate draft tables, let's say 1943 was a worst case, but even assuming an extra 750 bytes per table, we are looking at an extra 26k bytes! The problem isn't as bad for this current article because the draft is only 7 rounds now, but this one has more draft tables and will grow longer each year. Assuming 500 bytes per table and 56 drafts, we are looking at an extra 28k bytes. So just linking positions/universities will grow the article size by about 15%. I just don't see enough benefit to justify that. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:30, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm willing to accept not linking every instance if there's links in all the tables; as you said, the tables are short so it's not a big deal. --PresN 18:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
                    • Thanks PresN. @Pseud 14 and ChrisTheDude: does this satisfy your concerns? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                      Nothing further from me. I am satisfied with Gonzo's reasoning and thus happy to support for promotion given PresN's clarification. Will take note in my future reviews. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Pseud 14. Replies above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • "With the 2nd pick" => "With the second pick"
  • "became the Packers first modern draft selection" => "became the Packers' first modern draft selection"
  • "Since 1970, two Packers players have been drafted and then inducted" => "Since 1970, two players drafted by the Packers have been inducted"
  • "The Packers have taken part in every modern NFL draft since" - add "1970" (and potentially lose the word "modern")
  • "Mike McCoy was the Packers first-round selection in the 1970 draft." => "Mike McCoy was the Packers' first-round selection in the 1970 draft."
  • "Keith Wortman was the Packers 10th round selection in the 1972 draft." => "Keith Wortman was the Packers' 10th round selection in the 1972 draft."
  • "Larry McCarren, seen here in 2007, was the Packers 12th round draft pick in the 1973 draft." => "Larry McCarren, seen here in 2007, was the Packers' 12th round draft pick in the 1973 draft."
  • "Eric Torkelson was the Packers 11th round selection in the 1974 draft" => "Eric Torkelson was the Packers' 11th round selection in the 1974 draft" (also full stop is missing)
  • "Carlos Brown, shown here in 2003, was the Packers 12th round selection in the 1975 draft." => "Carlos Brown, shown here in 2003, was the Packers' 12th round selection in the 1975 draft."
  • "Aundra Thompson was the Packers 5th round selection in the 1976 draft.2 => "Aundra Thompson was the Packers' 5th round selection in the 1976 draft."
  • "James Lofton, the Packers first-round selection in the 1978 draft," => "James Lofton, the Packers' first-round selection in the 1978 draft,"
  • In fact, just check all image captions for that same issue as it happens in almost every one.....
  • I'll wait and see what the co-ords say about repeat linking but my understanding was also that it should be applied -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh edit

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

  • Ref 2/6 – If the intention is to link the first occurence of NFL.com, the link should be moved from ref 6 to ref 2. For what it's worth though, you have avoided linking in this situation in the past, from what I can tell.
    • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9 – Add that the source is via Google News
    • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 4/5 – In your referencing style, I thought websites are not normally linked unless they're news agencies. If so, wouldn't we want to link to the title of the article page instead of having the website as the URL wikilinked?
    • Fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first-round" is used 11 times in the article but "1st" is not used at all. Some images use "5th round" or "2nd round" (for example). This should probably be consistent.
    • Before I make the change, hyphen on all of them or no hyphen? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a big college football guy, so excuse my question if it's a silly one, but do teams actually abbreviate to "St." instead of "State"? This may be appropriate, maybe it just looks weird to me...?
    • I tried to stick to Pro-Football-Reference.com as much as possible. It also had the added benefit of shortening up the text a bit (a few were so long that they were being pushed to another row). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could link picks #2 in 1970 and 1989 to List of second overall NFL draft picks
    • Definitely. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could also link "second pick" in the third paragraph of the lead to the same place.
    • Definitely. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|April 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been
    • Added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should this be List of Green Bay Packers draft picks (1970–present) instead? I suggest making this as a redirect if not.
    • Made a redirect. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not relevant for this review, but should Green Bay Packers draft picks redirect to a dab instead? It redirects to Green Bay Packers draft history, but a dab could include that page, the picks from 1936–1969 list, this list, and the first-round pick list.

That's all I've got, good stuff on the list Gonzo! Ping me when you reply please. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hey man im josh: all addressed or responded to. Thanks for he review! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the part about "St." vs "State" is mostly a feels thing for me, so I of course wouldn't oppose on those grounds, but I thought I'd mention it. Before I make the change, hyphen on all of them or no hyphen? – I believe we use hyphens when talking about picks, as in first-round pick but if we said selected in the first round, we would leave the unhyphenated. I can't explain the reasoning of it all to be perfectly honest, but this is the norm that I've learned and followed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Got all the hyphens Hey man im josh. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually just noticed something else @Gonzo fan2007. There are a number of image captions that stat something to the effect of "X person was the Packers' x-round selection in the x-year draft", but list multiple players being drafted by the Packers in that round.
    • 1970 (multiple firsts)
    • 1978 (multiple firsts)
    • 1983 (multiple tenths)
    • 1985 (multiple sevenths)
    • 1995 (multiple thirds)
    • 1998 (multiple sixths)
    • 1999 (multiple sevenths)
    • 2000 (multiple sevenths)
    • 2002 (multiple fifths)
    • 2007 (multiple sixths)
    • 2008 (multiple seconds)
    • 2009 (multiple firsts)
    • 2012 (multiple fourths)
    • 2013 (multiple fourths)
    • 2016 (mutliple fourths)
    • 2021 (multiple fifths)
    • 2022 (multiple firsts)
    • 2023 (multiple seconds)
    • 2024 (multiple thirds)
    Seems like these should be tweaked so it's not implied they're the only picks from the Packers' in that round. Possibly by replacing with x overall pick, or one of the Packers' fifth-round selections (as an example). Hey man im josh (talk) 14:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I got them all Hey man im josh. Thanks or catching that! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No other issues I'm seeing then. Suppport! Great stuff, despite it being for the cheeseheads. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hey man im josh, ChrisTheDude, and Pseud 14:, just wanted to note I am currently working on Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969) and will bring to FLC after this one; I will be (or already have) be implementing all of these comments there. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:31, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gonzo fan2007: Minor thing, but in working on a list of my own based on your list I noticed that ref 13 is missing the section and page number, which are section D., page 5. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey man im josh fixed on Green Bay Packers draft history. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Woops, got my wires crossed and for some reason mistook what I was looking at as this page. Sorry about that! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB) edit

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 20:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    • PresN, I have added the table captions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Capaldi filmography edit

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

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

Comments edit

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

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB) edit

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

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

List of Jewish Major League Baseball players edit

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

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

Comments edit

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

More comments edit

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB) edit

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

MPGuy2824

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

List of Billboard Middle-Road Singles number ones of 1963 edit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my third nomination from the history of Billboard's chart for the gentler side of popular music. How gentle? Well in this year an actual NUN reached number one! Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks on 12 sources match what they are being cited for

I got nothing except a suggestion to consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|May 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case there's any references changed in the future and the person isn't as careful about date formatting as you are. Support Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dank edit

  • Well, I have to complain about something. "by Belgian vocalist the Singing Nun, who" doesn't work for me; how about this? "by the Singing Nun, a Belgian vocalist who". - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. Prose: see above. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The sources appear to be reliable, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 16:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dank: - thanks for your review, I have tweaked the bit about the Singing Nun -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I just saw the PD notice in the image ... now I have no problem with it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 edit

  • with the only one of their songs ever to appear on the listing. -- I think "the" here should be dropped.
    • Not sure which "the" you mean, but removing either would make the sentence grammatically incorrect -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: My bad should have been specific. I meant to say if it should state as with only one of their songs ever to appear on the listing or some tweaking like with only one of their songs appearing on the listing. Hopefully the makes sense. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Pseud 14: Neither of those would work, as that wording would indicate that they had several songs on the listing but only one got to number one, which is not the point being made. The point being made is that the song in question was literally the only one they ever had on the chart. The wording has to stay as it is, otherwise the sentence becomes incorrect...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The End of the World" should sort with "E"
  • That's all from me. Great work as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • The Peter, Paul and Mary image uses px size, switch to "upright"
  • Images have alt text.
  • Images are appropriately tagged and licensed as PD.
  • Images have succinct captions and relevant in the article. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB) edit

Somehow missing the table caption. --PresN 20:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @PresN: - hard to believe that after all this time I can still forget that!  :-P Added now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Hacksaw Ridge edit

Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the article over the last few days, and it follows the same structure as many other current FLs. My Interstellar nomination has received three supports, so I am adding a second nomination. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • "with particular recognition for Gibson's direction, Garfield's performance, as well as" => "with particular recognition for Gibson's direction and Garfield's performance, as well as"
  • All the notes with the exception of A are not complete sentences so don't need full stops
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Both done! Sgubaldo (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB) edit

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 20:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the table, where there is a rowspan for a header cell, the scope should be "rowgroup". e.g. the rowspan for "AACTA Awards". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed. Also changed for the Interstellar list since it hadn't been brought up. Sgubaldo (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this is a nearly perfect list. Chompy Ace 21:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh edit

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

  • Ref 4 – Add |location=Sydney to differentiate between The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) at a glance
  • Ref 22 – Missing date of December 11, 2016 (currently the access date uses this date as well, possibly mistakenly so)
  • Ref 21 – Missing date of January 5, 2017
  • Ref 26 – Missing date of January 10, 2017
  • Ref 37 – Replace The Houston Chronicle with Houston Chronicle
  • Ref 46 – Missing date of January 28, 2017
  • Ref 47 – Missing date of February 2, 2017
  • Ref 52 – Missing date of February 11, 2017

That's what I've got. Ping me when you reply please. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh. Thank you for catching those, I'm surprised I missed that many. All done. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations edit

World Figure Skating Championships cumulative medal count edit

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

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

Drive-by comment edit

  • At just two sentences, the lead is much shorter than is expected for a FL. It could do with bulking out with a very brief overview of the history of the event and some key points about the people and nations with most medals. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have expanded the lead per your suggestion. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too have a drive-by comment. You're missing row and columns scopes in a number of tables, which are crucial for accessibility. See PresN's standard comment here for some advice. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was sure I had properly formatted all of the tables. I will of course double-check all of them this afternoon and make any appropriate corrections. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey man im josh, are you referring to the medals by country tables? If so, that’s a template and I wouldn’t know how to change its parameters. The only thing I could do is render it as a table, which I, of course, can do if necessary. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On review, yes, it looks like it's the medals by country tables. I'm actually seeing the same thing with all of medal tables under Wikipedia:Featured_lists#Olympic_and_Paralympic_Games. Is there an exception or are the medal tables formatted in a way that's already accessible @PresN? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming we're talking about the {{Medals table}} under e.g. Total medal count by nation, it's fine- the're no visual indication, but the colscopes and rowscopes (using the Nation column cells) are set by the template, I verified in the html. --PresN 14:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good to know, I'll make a mental note of that. Thanks PresN! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in New Brunswick edit

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

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

Comments edit

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

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

That's a fair question to ask, though I am not the one who created the article so I'm unsure if I could answer it. All that I've pretty much done is do as much as I possibly could to expand onto the article so it stands better as a standalone list, though both articles (list for cities & list for municipalities) were created/promoted as FLC through the same editor. Would it be worth pinging them to ask? Furthermore, would it be beneficial to include former cities to provide leeway for more content to be included into the article? B3251 (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB) edit

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

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

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

Hey man im josh edit

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

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

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

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

List of World Heritage Sites in Morocco edit

Nominator(s): Tone 08:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Morocco has nine World Heritage Sites, including Fez, Marrakesh, and Meknes. There are 13 sites on the tentative list. The source is in French so the names are translated, which I believe is acceptable, given that the reference provides the original name. Otherwise, standard style. The nomination for Venezuela is seeing some support so I am adding a second nomination. Tone 08:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • "Fez was founded in the 9th century and reached its apogee as the capital of the Marinid Sultanate in the 13th and 14th centuries and it remained the capital of the country until 1912." to "Fez was founded in the 9th century, reached its apogee as the capital of the Marinid Sultanate in the 13th and 14th centuries and remained the capital of the country until 1912."
  • wikilink "Medieval period".
  • "Marrakesh was founded in the 1070s as the capital of the Almoravid and later Almohad dynasty until the 13th century when the capital was moved to Fez." to "Marrakesh was founded in the 1070s as the capital of the Almoravid dynasty. It later became the capital of the Almohad dynasty, until the 13th century when the capital was moved to Fez."
  • wikilink "motif".
  • "making Volubilis one of the richest sites in North Africa." to "richest sites for archaeology in North Africa".
  • "Located south of the Strait of Gibraltar, " to "just south" OR "x km south".
  • "it was rebuilt by refugees expelled by the Spanish and" - add a comma after "Spanish".
  • "In the following centuries, it served as the meeting point between Morocco and Spain" - what does this mean?
  • "built a fortified colony of Mazagão" to "built the fortified colony of Mazagão"
  • "including walls and bastions, were build.": to "buit".
  • "It houses a great chandelier": repeated use of the word "great". Maybe replace this instance with one of the dimensions of the chandelier (weight or width/diameter).
  • wikilink "stratigraphic".
  • "arranged in a form of circular steps" to "arranged in the form of circular steps"
  • "Water sources support growing of date palms, there ": Add an "and" after the comma.
  • "The string of oases is located along the Wad Noun in the length of 30 km" to "... Wad Noun, across a length of ...". -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all, thanks! Tone 09:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • "The area is rich numerous animal and plant species that live in arid climates" => "The area is rich in numerous animal and plant species that live in arid climates"
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed, that was easy :) Thanks! Tone 08:59, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current United States governors edit

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

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

Comments from Steelkamp

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

Sourcing

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

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

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

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

@Hurricanehink: Thanks for the review and sorry for the delay. I have replied to your comments above. SounderBruce 02:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SounderBruce: I think you may have missed this reply to your FLC, so I wanted to ping you to it just in case. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of New England Revolution managers edit

Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this list of managers for my favorite team, the New England Revolution. I think this meets the criteria for a FL- it's comprehensive and thoroughly sourced. I mostly followed on the List of Arsenal F.C. managers for formatting, so this list includes prose overviewing the managerial history of the club, as well the list itself. Thanks in advance for reviewing!

Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • Lead image could be made larger
  • "a ten-year run from May 2002 to October 2011" - pedantically, that's not ten years. Ten seasons would be accurate though, I believe.
  • "honors won, which included a US Open Cup win in 2007 and a SuperLiga win in 2008, as well as four unsuccessful trips to the MLS Cup final" - losing the final isn't an honour. I would suggest retooling this to "honors won, having led the team to a US Open Cup win in 2007 and a SuperLiga win in 2008; during his tenure the Revolution also made four unsuccessful trips to the MLS Cup final"
  • "Steve Nicol, a former Liverpool FC player" - any reason why you show the "FC" here but you didn't for Arsenal or Man U?
  • "their first playoff victory, which was against the Chicago Fire)" - there's no reason for that closing bracket there
  • "the club elevated Steve Nicol (current assistant and former interim coach) to be the head coach" => "the club elevated Nicol from assistant coach to head coach"
  • Nicol photo caption needs a full stop
  • "The 2007 season would bring a first: Nicol led the Revolution to a trophy: the 2007 U.S. Open Cup final," - double colon looks weird. Maybe "The 2007 season would bring a first as Nicol led the Revolution to a trophy, the 2007 U.S. Open Cup final,"
  • I kept the second colon, othwerwise the sentence would read as if the Revs beat FC Dallas "in" the trophy, not in the final. Brindille1 (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ending a 10-year run with the team" - see earlier comment
  • "First trophies under Steve Nicol (2002-11)" - when it's a date range, both years should be shown in full, not abbreviated
  • "The next season, the team missed playoffs" => "The next season, the team missed the playoffs"
  • "Honours" is spelt the British way in the table header
  • No need to repeat Arena's full name in note d - you don't do that in notes b or c
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @ChrisTheDude, I've addressed your feedback. Brindille1 (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • With the current fixed width of 100em, the table goes off the screen of my desktop. It looks fine in previews without this restriction.
  • Are the words "manager" and "coach" interchangeable? Maybe add a line or two of explanation for this OR consistently use the word "manager" everywhere.
  • I converted 2 redlinks into redirects. Please do the same if you plan to add more.
  • "the club won the Supporters' Shield for the first time in history," - this kind of implies that they won it again later. Please reword.
  • "He would resign on September 9, saying" to "He resigned on ..."
  • "was removed from his role three days later after Revolution players" to "was removed from his role three days later, after Revolution players"
  • Put in an {{update after}} at the end of the "2019–present" section as a reminder to update the section periodically.
  • That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @MPGuy2824, I've updated according to your suggestions. Brindille1 (talk) 23:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. Looks good. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You'll want to add a "(pictured in <year>)" to the Frank Stapleton image caption since it was taken much before his stint as the manager. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Brindille1 (talk) 13:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season edit

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 22:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh from the oven and hot on the heels of its Eastern Pacific counterpart, which was recently promoted, I present you with the timeline of the 1993 Atlantic hurricane season. The season was quiet but devastating, with two storms (Bret and Gert) each claiming over 100 lives, in addition to several other storms that caused disastrous flooding where they hit. Fortunately, the season ended much earlier than average; the final two months had no activity whatsoever. This timeline was merged in 2011, but I've worked to significantly expand on the original version. Not only do I think this is sufficient to stand in mainspace, but I believe it is up to par with the other timelines I've submitted to FLC over the past few months (including an ongoing candidacy that already has a couple supports). I will try to address any concerns as promptly as I can. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 22:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MPGuy2824

  • June 2: wikilink "gale force".

Looks good otherwise. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of, thanks MPGuy2824! Dylan620 in public/on mobile (he/him • talk) 08:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:50, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14 edit

  • Atmospheric pressures are listed to the nearest -- worth linking atmospheric pressure here in the lead, since it is also linked in the body.
  • That's all I could find. Another well-structured and well-written list. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review : Passed

  • Images used have alt text
  • Images are appropriately licensed and from reliable sources. Maps with trackers used are derivatives from NASA, and storm images are taken from NOAA
  • Images have succinct captions, relevant, and provide context for its use in the timeline. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Tropical Albums number ones from the 1980s edit

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With enough supports and both the image and source passed for List of Billboard Latin Pop Albums number ones from the 1980s, I am now ready to tackle on the FLC for this list! If slow ballads aren't your thing, how about some "hot sauce" to spice up your life? Let me know in the comments about anything I missed prior to nominating it. Erick (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, is there a rule in place for when to do these lists per-decade instead of per-year? ChrisTheDude's songs lists are all per-year, but your album lists are per-decade, so I thought that was the divide, but I see in the navbox that the Regional Mexican Albums and Latin Rhythm Albums are also per-year. --PresN 22:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue it depends on the number of items on the list. Like for example if I try doing this by year by year it would be very short list with maybe three albums at most. Erick (talk) 22:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DBC

  • "were the only the other" to "were the only other".
  • "Luis Enrique had two number one albums on the chart with Amor y Alegría (1988) and Mi Mundo (1989), the latter culminated the decade": It would read better if the sentence ended at "(1989)".
  • ref 65's url is for the week of August 8, 1987, but its title is June 27 and it is shown in the row for June 27. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 Thanks for the quick review! I think I got everything you mentioned! Erick (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion on prose and table accessibility. My ref check was a random click and I've not done a full source review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • "In June 1985, Billboard magazine established Tropical Albums (formerly designated as Tropical/Salsa Latin Albums)" - this doesn't really make sense, as it kinda states that the chart was established in 1985 but that prior to that it had been called something else, which it can't have been because it hadn't been established. I would suggest "initially called...." or "from 1985 until [whenever] called....."
  • Lead image could be made larger
  • "The first album to reach number one on the Tropical Albums chart was Innovations (1985) by El Gran Combo de Puerto Rico" - suggest changing this to "The first album to reach number one on the Tropical Albums chart was El Gran Combo de Puerto Rico's Innovations (1985)" so that you don't say the act's name twice in immediate succession
  • "El Gran Combo de Puerto Rico was also the musical act" - the word "musical" is redundant and can be removed, as all acts on the chart are by definition musical
  • "Ruiz and Santiago were the only other artists with three records to reach number one on the Tropical Albums chart." => "Ruiz and Santiago were the only other artists with more than two number ones on the Tropical Albums chart during the 1980s."
  • "which spawned the single, "Ven, Devórame Otra Vez", and" - don't think those commas are needed
  • "The latter culminated the decade" => "The latter was the final number one of the decade"
  • Santiago image caption needs a comma after "era"
  • That's all I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Thanks Chris! I got everything you mentioned. You ever think about doing #1 Albums for country/R&B albums as well? Erick (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Magiciandude: - I already worked all the country albums number 1 lists up to something approaching FL standard. Maybe I will nom some here one day :-) Oh, and support this one :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source & image review from Dylan620 edit

  • Refs 5, 27, 29, 31, 32, and 34 need archive URLs.
  • Refs 9 and 88 have live URLs that are incorrectly marked as dead.
  • Every ref in the table (13–131) should have the |url-access=subscription parameter added because the live URLs are only visible in full to Billboard Pro subscribers.
  • Alt text in first image: "on a venue" reads weirdly to me, maybe "at" would work better?
  • Alt text in Santiago image: from Santiago's point of view, the microphone is to his right, therefore he is holding the microphone in his right hand.
  • Since the source for the Rodriguez image is a YouTube video, a timestamp should be added to either the source URL, the image description, or both.

Everything else looks good for the most part:

  • A spot check of multiple sources verifies the information for which they are cited.
  • All sources are reliable.
  • No concerns with the alt text in the latter two images.
  • All images have suitable captions.
  • All images contribute encyclopedic value to the listicle.
  • Except for the minor issue with the lede image, all images present in the listicle have suitable captions.
  • Sourcing for each image (mostly) checks out.
  • All images are appropriately licensed for either public domain or Creative Commons.

Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 18:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I'll get to work on this either Sunday or Monday. Erick (talk) 16:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good 😎👍 Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 17:13, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of chief justices of India edit

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another biographical list for me: Maurice Linford Gwyer to D. Y. Chandrachud. I’ve improved the lead, table accessibility and added references. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • "However this convention has been broken twice. In 1973, Justice A. N. Ray was appointed superseding three senior judges. Also, in 1977, Justice Mirza Hameedullah Beg was appointed as the chief justice superseding Justice Hans Raj Khanna." - I'd suggest revising this to "This convention has been broken twice: in 1973, Justice A. N. Ray was appointed superseding three senior judges and in 1977, Justice Mirza Hameedullah Beg was appointed as the chief justice superseding Justice Hans Raj Khanna."
  • Is there an appropriate wikilink for the "bar" heading? What this means is probably obscure to many people
  • "Appointed by" columns don't sort correctly
  • Footnote a isn't a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Fixed all. Do you feel that the "Date appointed as judge" in the second table is an important enough column? Removing it would lead to both tables having the same columns. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't mind either way. Looking at it, though, I notice that Harilal Jekisundas Kania was apparently appointed as a judge and Chief Justice on the same day, and had apparently served as Chief Justices of the Federal Court of India for over two years before becoming a judge - is this correct? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That cell shows the date on which they were appointed as Supreme Court judges. Most of them were judges in lower courts before that date. This obviously looks weird for the first Chief justice, as he was also the Chief justice of the preceding court. In any case, I've removed the column. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Forgot to ping in my earlier reply. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, two more things I missed earlier: the "acting" entry in the first column of the first table doesn't sort correctly, and in both tables the image column should not be sortable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: No need to apologize: I seemed to have missed a lot of things in this list. I've fixed the additional two issues that you've pointed out. If you find more issues, please feel free to point them out. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Z1720 edit

  • Many images use the source link to the current list, but it should link to the former list. Please update these in the images.
  • Almost all of the images need to be reviewed to ensure that they meet the GODL-India licence. If you are not the uploader of the images you can look at them and mark them as reviewed.
  • Per MOS:ALT, alt text should be added to the images.

Comments posted above. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've added the alt texts to all the images and fixed the source url in the images that seem to be from the page showing former chief justices. I don't have the relevant permissions on commons to review image licenses. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns have been resolved. I can support based on the image review. Z1720 (talk) 14:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh
  • Ref 4 – Change "Indian Express" to "The Indian Express", based on The Indian Express being the target
  • Ref 4 – Link is subscription based, please note this
  • Ref 5 – Change "Times of India" to "The Times of India", based on The Times of India being the target
  • Ref 6 – Authors missing
  • Ref 7 – Add wikilink to The Hindu
  • Ref 8 – Missing a publisher
  • Refs 32, 32, 50, 51, 56, 57 – No access date and not archived
  • Ref 58 – Wikilink The Times of India
  • The note under the table, change "Acting" to "acting"

That's what I've got. Please ping me once you've made changes. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: I've replaced ref 4 with one that doesn't require a subscription, and ref 8 with a better one. Fixed the rest. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Version reviewed
  • Reliable enough for the information being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Ref 8 is not linked. Seems to be the same source as Ref 10.
  • Spotchecks on 15 sources OK. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14: I've replaced ref 8 with a different one. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of presidents of Centre College edit

Nominator(s): PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article comes as part of a series on Centre College's presidents that I have been working on for over two years now. After getting a handful of the biography articles to FA, I wanted to go ahead and try to get the list to featured as well - much of the format of this article was inspired by List of presidents of Georgetown University, also an FL. I hope that I have provided an adequate amount of detail on the office's history and the men who have occupied it. Any and all feedback would be much appreciated! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment edit

  • There's something really weird going on with the "name" column. If I sort on that column, the order I get begins Adams > Beatty > Moreland > Morrill > Blackburn. It seems completely random.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Really weird indeed. I think the "Rev." prefixes were messing with {{sortname}} so I've taken the latter out and defined the sorting stuff myself. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments edit

  • "Both Youngs, who were father and son, in addition to McChord, Lewis W. Green, and William C. Roberts, are the five Centre presidents to have died in office" - this reads a little oddly to me. I would change it to "Five Centre presidents have died in office: both Youngs, who were father and son, McChord, Lewis W. Green, and William C. Roberts."
  • Note a isn't a sentence, so it doesn't need a full stop
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Thanks Chris! Both done as recommended. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 12:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

750h edit

Hi PCN02WPS, this is my first FLC contribution, so excuse me if I make a few mistakes.

  • In the third paragraph, "John C. Young" should be changed to "Young" since he's already been introduced.
  • With the three pictures next to the take, do we need to link their articles? They've already been linked at least twice within the article.
  • That's all!  750h+ | Talk  12:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @750h+: thanks for taking a look. I removed the links in the captions but I'd prefer to leave Young's full name since there was another Young (his son, in fact) and in the previous sentence they are mentioned together as "both Youngs", leaving "Young" open to ambiguity at that point. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 12:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Support.  750h+ | Talk  12:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Z1720 edit

  • I added a page number for File:Hillcrest House, Centre College, 1927.png
  • Recommend replacing the Craik House image with Craik House, Centre College, West Main Street, Danville, KY - 51985279388.jpg, as it shows more of the building. Maybe one day we can get an unobstructed view.
  • File:Centre_College_Kentucky.jpg doesn't have alt text
  • px not used.

Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720: Added alt text and replaced the Craik House image as recommended - I have considered taking a picture myself but those pesky trees make quite the obstacle. As for the last comment, I was under the impression that fixed px sizes weren't good to use on images, but perhaps I am wrong. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sorry for the confusion about the px: you are correct, px is not recommended (and we should use upright instead). I was just noting for the coordinators that I checked for this and found no concerns. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review edit

I see that this needs a source review. I'll happily provide one. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 1 Good
  • Ref 7 Good
  • Ref 12 Good
  • Ref 14 Good
  • Ref 20 Good
  • Ref 25 Good
  • Ref 30 Good
  • Ref 46 Good
  • Ref 52 Good
  • Ref 55 Good
  • Ref 62 Good
  • Pelican Publishing Company should be linked
  • Most of the books seem reliable. However I cant find anything on Genealogical Publishing Company.
  • Is Presbyterian Encyclopædia Publishing Company the same as Presbyterian Publishing Corporation if so should be linked.
  • Is New York: Charles Scribner & Co the same as Charles Scribner's Sons, if so should be linked.

Outline of the Marvel Cinematic Universe edit

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB) edit

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

List of Coldplay live performances edit

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

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

Drive-through comments
  • Concert tours table - does everything need to be center-aligned? It would be better for the number columns (shows, gross, attendance) to be right aligned.
  • "width:17.05em" seems like unnecessary precision.
  • COLOR shouldn't be the only means of conveying important information. Add a symbol as well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the centered number columns makes it easier to visualise the information, similar to the List of highest-grossing concert tours. And yes, tables all across the article are precisely aligned, I'm an obsessed perfectionist. With that said, I just made a few adjustments to meet your criteria without compromising mine too much. Sorry for not adding a symbol before, I completely forgot. GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 03:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest center-aligning the "Performed songs" columns as those seem to be the most bulky with substance and are not as easily readable with how much content is there. As a fellow perfectionist, I understand the desire to center these tables, though I concur that the number columns could either be left or right aligned. I've typically seen left-aligned used for release dates in other tables, and the same could work here to help differentiate each table. There are also multiple citations that would benefit from website links and archives, as well. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel like centering the "Performed songs" columns would be weird, maybe having the "Event" column left-aligned in the "Music festivals" section is a better idea to make things more uniform. As for the dates, are you referring to pages such as List of Lady Gaga live performances and List of Taylor Swift live performances when you talk about them? I find their left-alignment very ugly and they don't fit with the tour articles, centering them in the Coldplay gig catalogue was a conscious decision. Lastly, I archived all the online references already. GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 03:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, my mistake on the references. I'm not too big on the alignment, and yeah, I was referring to those more popular ones. I'll leave it up to your discretion. It all looks good to me, so I'll gladly Support. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! GustavoCza (talkcontribs) 03:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment

List of cover versions of Coldplay songs edit

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

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

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

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

Drive-by comment edit

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

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

More comments edit

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

List of UEFA Europa Conference League finals edit

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB) edit

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

Comment edit

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

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

Review edit

@NapHit:

  • "It was envisaged as a way for UEFA to accommodate" -> "It was created by UEFA to accommodate"
  • My understanding is that UECL will shift to the (stupid) 36-team group stage along with UEL and UCL next year. As this list includes future finals, this format shift should be mentioned in the prose as well.
  • "Matches are held over" -> "Knockout matches are held over"
  • "The introduction of the Europa Conference League into European football was announced in 2018, with the competition starting in 2021." is too verbose, try "The competition was announced in 2018, and began in 2021."
  • "The competition aimed" -> "UEFA created the competition in order to", i.e. don't personify the competition.
  • "Italian and English have won" -> "Italian and English clubs have won"
  • Both bullet points under "List of finals" should be removed- the reader doesn't need to have the wiklinks spelled out for them in a second place.
  • The RSSSF source does not mention either the venues (for present and future finals) or attendance figures.
  • IMO, future finals should be its own subsection in the "List of finals" section. Putting them in the same table doesn't make sense to me, and screws up the sort in most ever column.
  • The "performances" section doesn't have a source- add the RSSSF source here
  • Sources look reliable and consistently formatted to me Brindille1 (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments @Brindille1:, I've got most of them and will get the remainder when I'm back at home tomorrow or the day after. NapHit (talk) 21:16, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've got everything now @Brindille1:. Regarding the table, given @PresN:'s comments above, I'm reluctant to model the upcoming finals bit on the Champions League table as I think it doesn't meet MOS:DTT. It does need to be changed as it does mess up the sorting as is. A solution could be to have two separate tables? I think that solves both problems unless I'm missing something. NapHit (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
TIL the pseudoheader is an accessibility issue. In that case two separate tables makes the most sense to me. Brindille1 (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok split it into two tables, @Brindille1: NapHit (talk) 13:14, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NapHit I made a few small changes, namely removing the unused columns from the upcoming finals, and adding sub-headers to the "List of finals" section Brindille1 (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brindille1 (talk) 13:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source check from Z1720 edit

With the small amount of sources, I am going to check them all. Version reviewed.

  • Checked all sources to verify the information. If not listed below, there are no concerns.
  • Ref 2: Could not verify "It was created by UEFA to accommodate at least 34 of its national associations". Where does it say this in the source?
  • Ref 4: Article text: "in order to offer more matches for more clubs". Source text "“There will be more matches for more clubs" Suggest that this be reworded in the article.
  • Ref 5: I don't know what that chart is trying to tell me so I'll AGF it.

Earwig does not detect any concerns. That's it for my review. Z1720 (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]