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 at peer review at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings).

The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and The Rambling Man, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least ten days (though most last a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved; or
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached; or
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met.

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

After a reasonable time has passed, the director or delegates will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page).
  • To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this.
  • To oppose a nomination, write * '''Object''' or * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits.
  • If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature, rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.
  • Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.
Nominations urgently needing reviews

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



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

NominationsEdit

List of Roman emperorsEdit

Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk), Avilich (talk) and Tintero21 (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

We are nominating this for featured list because it is well-sourced, comprehensive and clearly presents the information it is supposed to. This list has been the subject of five past failed featured list nominations but the last one was in 2008, 13 years ago. The main criticisms in the past have been format issues, lack of clarity and very few references. All of these issues have in my mind been sorted in the present version. The present version has clear references for every entry as well as a clear and referenced set of inclusion criteria (per WP:LISTCRITERIA). Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comments
  • The lead has no references at all
Fixed - the lead is now fully referenced. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • There are rows where colour is used to indicate something - per MOS:COLOUR, colour alone cannot be used in this way, it needs to be accompanied by a symbol for the benefit of people who cannot distinguish the colours -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Do you have any suggestions for how this could be done in a seamless way? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Assuming the question relates to my second point, then for every row which currently uses colour to indicate ambiguous legitimacy, you also need to add a symbol such as  . I would suggest that the best place for it is after the emperor's name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Added hash-tags. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)Edit

  • Seconding what ChrisTheDude said about color - {{dagger}} is an easy way to add a non-color indication.
I understand why this is necessary but I worry that the   symbol in particular could cause misunderstanding since this list deals with people (could perhaps be taken as an indication for a specific type of death) of different religions (could perhaps be misunderstood as marking them as Christians). Would something like § work just as well? Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
{{Hash-tag}} might be best, as it definitely meets accessibility requirements and I don't think would carry any other implications. Don't forget to add it to the key as well as the rows -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • 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. ! width="17%" |Name becomes !scope=col width="17%" |Name.
  • 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. |'''[[Augustus]]'''<br /><small>''Caesar Augustus''</small> becomes !scope=row |'''[[Augustus]]'''<br /><small>''Caesar Augustus''</small>. (Although it's the 2nd column, not the 1st, I'd go with making the name column primary since the image one isn't really "identifying" the row on its own.)
  • The images need alt text. There's already a name in the second column, so the alt text can be as simple as |alt=bust.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 15:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

List of Interstate Highways in WashingtonEdit

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 11:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

This list covers the seven Interstate Highways in the U.S. state of Washington, which cost a whopping $4.5 billion to construct ($8.3 billion today) and transport hundreds of thousands of people everyday. I have completely overhauled this one over the past few days, based on the existing FL for Michigan, and think it meets the FL criteria. I'm hoping to have this as the main article in a good topic on these Interstates soon, as a few have already been promoted. SounderBruce 11:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Support – After multiple readings of the article, the only issue I found is that the Vantage Bridge image lacks alt text, but I'm sure you'll fix that and won't wait to support over that one issue. Nice work! RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed it now. SounderBruce 04:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Drive-by comment
  • I notice that this article is in Category:Lists of roads in Washington (state), which has the disambiguator in its name (presumably to distinguish it from Washington DC) but none of the individual articles have it. Don't know if this is an issue, but I just wondered about the inconsistency...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    • As Washington, D.C. is not a state (for now), it would not have state routes/highways, which eliminates a good number of entries. I think that moving the Interstate and U.S. lists would be a good idea, but I will need to check the naming guidelines first. SounderBruce 10:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Comments
  • "It comprises" - previous sentence only talks of the roads in the plural and then suddenly we have the singular "it"...?
    • Changed to "The system"
  • "three primary Interstates and four auxiliary routes that serve most of the state's major cities" - pedantically, is it only the four that serve cities or all seven? Could maybe do with a tiny re-wording to remove this slight ambiguity
    • Added a semicolon.
  • "The general plan and federal funding for the Interstate Highway System was approved" => were approved (the subject of the sentence covers two distinct things)
    • Fixed.
  • "It incorporated elements" - what's the "it" here? The plan?
    • Fixed.
  • "was never submitted for formal approved" - "formal approval", surely?
    • Fixed.
  • " A second bill in 1951 authorized the construction [....] and was expanded" - the bill was expanded.....?
    • Added "the program"
  • "and a series of lids in Seattle and Mercer Island" - what's a lid in this context?
  • "The state government had never formally applied for its addition to the Interstate Highway system" => "The state government has never formally applied for its addition to the Interstate Highway system"
    • Fixed.
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comments. I've fixed everything you've brought up, and am preparing to move the page (and its siblings), though I also want to make sure it doesn't screw up the nomination templates here. SounderBruce 02:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - the title isn't a big deal, I was just curious..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

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. The tables here are generated via template, so I edited the template to add an optional |caption parameter. Visual captions can be added by putting |caption=caption_text in the routelist top template; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |caption={{sronly|caption_text}} instead. --PresN 15:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for adding that parameter to the template. I've added it to the list. SounderBruce 22:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Mnet Asian Music Award for Best Music VideoEdit

Nominator(s): ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because the Mnet Asian Music Awards is commonly known as the biggest K-pop awards show in the industry. The Best Music Video category, in particular, was perhaps the most prestigious award in the event from its inauguration ceremony from 1999–2005. Since then, it has been demoted to one of the regular awards; however, it still holds important value in the event's history as it was formerly an event that aimed to honor the development of music videos in a time where the modern music industry in South Korea was still developing. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments
  • "and was retitled as "Best Music Video"" => "and it was retitled as "Best Music Video""
  • "the most wins in the category—having won for four consecutive years" => "the most wins in the category, having won for four consecutive years"
  • Lee Seung-hwan, 2PM, Blackpink, and BTS image captions are all full sentences so need full stops
  • Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

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.
  • Avoid having column headers in the middle of the table, like you have for "Music Video of the Year (daesang)" and "Best Music Video". Screen reader software won't treat it the say you're intending visual readers to treat it - like an exception line in the middle of a table - but instead as a stretch out first column cell (so, "year: Music Video of the Year (daesang)"). They also prevent you from having the table be sortable. See MOS:COLHEAD for more details.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 00:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    Done. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

List of Harlem Hit Parade number ones of 1942Edit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Before there was Drake, there was Lucky Millinder. Before there was Cardi B, there was Lady Day. This list covers the start of what Billboard magazine regards as the earliest incarnation of its R&B chart. Feedback as ever will be most welcome..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Ojorojo

  • The second and third sentences of the lead are both over 40 words and could be split up for readability.
    • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
      It wasn't a big deal, but I think it reads better now.
  • The 1942–1944 musicians' strike and the wartime diversion of shellac used in 78s were getting underway. Some info on how this impacted record production and sales may be of interest.
    • I've had a search but not really found anything on those points that is pertinent to this chart. I mean, I could mention that they happened, but without being able to link them to the songs which topped this chart or to African American-oriented music specifically in 1942 (and I haven't found anything along those lines), it would just seem like a random disconnected fact dropped into the prose IMO (if you look at the list for 1943 I did mention it there, because I managed to specifically link it to that year's chart-toppers, but I didn't find anything equivalent for '42......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
      If there's no pertinent info, then there's nothing to add.
  • The artists column sorts on their first name. For individuals, it's usually on their last.
    • Very confused by this comment, because the names already sort by last name and have done for over a year.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
      Yes, it works fine. I must have been looking at another table.

The rest looks good; refs and the image FURs all check out.

Ojorojo (talk) 17:22, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment from another reviewer: more often these days, I'm seeing complaints that sentences are "too long". I agree with the principle (sometimes), but the end result of chopping sentences in half winds up being a net negative more often than a net positive. I'm not sure what to do about this trend. Chris, I'm open to whatever you want to do with this. - Dank (push to talk) 18:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I've broken up the sentences and don't think they read too badly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Works for me if it works for you two. - Dank (push to talk) 19:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Support All of my comments have been addressed. Good job as always. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • The table needs a caption.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. No comment on hyphens (in "African American", "highly-regarded"). For today and for future reference too, usage tends to change over time on phrases such as "African American" and "black capital of America", and I haven't been keeping up. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table; When the Lights Go On Again is a redirect. FWIW, my advice is to lowercase "orchestra", generally, in "and his Orchestra" ... when I looked at the relevant articles, "X and his orchestra" didn't appear to be a consistent proper noun. (Maybe the articles are wrong, but if so, it would make sense to change the usage there first.)
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 21:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Looks good so far, so I'll unwatch, but don't forget the table caption. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Comments
  • Refs 3 and 5 need en dashes in their titles for the year ranges.
  • Those two refs have the same ISBN numbers despite being from different years. Would you mind double-checking that this is correct?
  • The publisher of ref 7 should likely be italicized. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@Giants2008: - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – My few concerns have been addressed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

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. --PresN 23:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@PresN: - done! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

List of birds of NauruEdit

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Nauru is a tiny atoll in the Pacific Ocean that has only slightly more species of bird than square kilometers of land, but this list seems like a good way to try taking something to FL. AryKun (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review
  • There's not tables so not much to comment on there, but please add alt text to the images- alt text should briefly describe, in concert with the caption, what an image is of, rather than a big description of what it looks like, so e.g. "alt=speckled brown, white, and black bird" is just fine. --PresN 19:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Added alt text for all images. AryKun (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123Edit

  • "Three species occurring on Nauru are listed as being near-threatened on the IUCN Red List and two are listed as being vulnerable." – citation needed
I got this by individually looking at the IUCN pages of each species, so should I cite those?
Yes, there needs to be some type of citation for it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Most of the second paragraph needs citations
Done.
  • If the list follows the 2021 edition of Clements, the reference listed at the end should be the 2021 edition and not the 2000 edition
Done.
  • Citations for the descriptions of orders/families ("The Phasianidae are a family of terrestrial birds...", "Pigeons and doves are stout-bodied birds...", etc.) would be appreciated
Added.
  • General references should be alphabetized by last name and should be placed after specific references per MOS:REFERENCES
Done.
  • Inline references are generally preferred over general references (see WP:GENREF), especially for a source like Buden where individual pages should be cited where relevant
Removed Buden from the general references and added inline cites from it.

RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments
  • I have always been told never to start a sentence with a number written in digit form, so to have the entire article start in that way looks very jarring. Is there a way to rewrite the first sentence to avoid this?
  • You write Micronesian imperial-pigeon with a hyphen, but the article on it does not use the hyphen.....?
  • Think that's all I got - good work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Georgia (country)Edit

Nominator(s): Tone 08:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

There are four World Heritage Sites in Georgia and 14 on the tentative list. Medieval churches and monasteries (get ready for many church photos in this list), spectacular mountain villages, as well as prehistoric sites and nature. Standard formatting. The list for Azerbaijan is seeing decent support already so I am comfortable in adding this nomination. Tone 08:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:Homo Georgicus IMG 2921.JPG – Licencing claims that "This is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art", but the object isn't "two-dimensional". Also, why is the underlying work is public domain in the United States?
  • File:Vani boar diadem (detail).JPG – I am not sure about this one, so feel free to get a second opinion, but what is the copyright status of the underlying work?

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: As for the skull, there are some alternatives, such as File:Homo georgicus-MGL 95212-P5030043-white.jpg, which has another licence, what about this one? As for the diadem, this is a photo from a museum of an artefact whose author has been dead for centuries, so I suppose this is fine? --Tone 10:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
That is, better! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Replaced. --Tone 14:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Pass for image review. An image review or any comments for my nomination would be appreciated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Comments
  • "Georgia has four sites on the list and a further 14 on the tentative list." - these should either both be written as numbers or both as words
  • "then delisted as a World Herigate Site" - spelling error
  • "the most recent site listed were the" => "the most recent site listed was the" (site is singular)
  • "In 2010–2017, it was listed as endangered" +> "Between 2010 and 2017, it was listed as endangered"
  • "which had both defensive and residential function" => "which had both defensive and residential functions"
  • "With the height of 50 metres" => "With a height of 50 metres"
  • "The vernacular architectural of the region" - pretty sure that should be "The vernacular architecture", but what actually is "vernacular architecture"?
  • "Shatili is a mountain village at the elevation" => "Shatili is a mountain village at an elevation"
  • "with buildings serving both in residential and defence function" => "with buildings serving both residential and defence functions"
  • Don't think "late antiquity" should have a capital L
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Fixed, thank you! Vernacular architecture refers to the ways people build without professional guidance. I'd link it but somehow I feel it would be confusing to the reader. In this context, I guess it can be seen as "not-church or not-castle". --Tone 08:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't think it would hurt to link it if we have an article specifically on it....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
        • On a second thought, I agree. Linked. --Tone 09:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

United States presidential elections in New MexicoEdit

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that these types of lists on United States presidential elections have a great potential to be FL. I almost completely re-formatted the list, added a lead, and key for political parties. It lists all the elections in which New Mexico participated, with votes and percentage. I would respond to every comment, and try to bring this nomination to FL standards whenever needed. Thanks! (44 states more to go) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment from ChrisTheDudeEdit

  • "Theodore Roosevelt, the Progressive Party's nominee received" - needs a comma after nominee to close off the clause
  • "except in the 1976" - either "except in 1976" or "except in the 1976 election" but not this
  • "except in 1976, 2000, and 2016 presidential elections" =? "except in the 1976, 2000, and 2016 presidential elections"
  • "Also, the winner in New Mexico has been the winner in Nevada in all the presidential elections except for 2000" - why is this significant?
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from OjorojoEdit

I realize that this is one of a series and there is an expected consistency, but is there a reason for not having an explanation for the graph? A simple intro or caption (like for D.C.) might be helpful, rather than just having the axes labeled.

Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@OjorojoDone. Tried to explain the graph in simple words, let me know if anything else is required. — Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Nice. I made a few spot checks and the rest looks good. I'll add my support. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

List of Symphyotrichum speciesEdit

Nominator(s): Eewilson (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because Symphyotrichum is a genus of 96 asters native to the Americas common both as wildflowers and garden plants natively and in other parts of the world. I have been working on this upgrade in order to nominate for FLC since August. It now includes distribution maps, habitats, basionyms, varieties, and original years described. Images have been located for all but a few of the species. Named hybrids and their distributions have been added. The Lead has been expanded, and cladograms for the subtribe and the species within the genus have been created and added. There are NatureServe status categories for 75 of the species, and a NatureServe key was created for this expansion. IUCN categories were not used because only nine of the species are in IUCN, with only two of conservation concern that are covered by the NS statuses. The lists are separated by infragenera using the most recently published circumscriptions by Guy L. Nesom and John C. Semple, primary experts for this genus. Each list is sortable unless it is monotypic. There is a sortable list of infrageneric type species in the Classification section. Eewilson (talk) 19:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

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. You already have column scopes for the table headers, so you're just missing row scopes. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ! {{Anchor|chapmanii}}''[[Symphyotrichum chapmanii|S. chapmanii]]'' becomes !scope=row| {{Anchor|chapmanii}}''[[Symphyotrichum chapmanii|S. chapmanii]]''.
    • I did not know this! Done. Eewilson (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. On an unrelated note, since I'm the main person doing "animal" species lists like these- if you plan on doing more of these and would like to use templates instead of wikitable code (like {{Species table}} / {{Species table/row}}) let me know- I made a genus version ({{Plant genera table}} / {{Plant genera table/row}}) once for someone's draft, but I never made a species version as I didn't know what features would be useful. Your tables here are more straightforward than mine, so it may not be useful to templatize them, but just let me know. --PresN 13:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    • When I began the table upgrade, I reviewed the closest FL formats (all animals), and saw the templates. I think it would be good to look into templatizing plant tables, particularly since we may want more of these species by genera plant lists. We can discuss it on another talk page if you are interested. I'd be glad to give my input. A plant genera version could be of use as well (genera by family, for example). Eewilson (talk) 15:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

List of prime ministers of ItalyEdit

Nominator(s): Nick.mon (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

When I first edited this article on March 2012, the list had a plenty of problems: a lot of work has been done during these 9 years and I sincerely believe the list has been improved so much. Some months ago, I submitted to you a first candidacy and you rightly rejected it. Now, I've corrected those errors and, in my humble opinion, the list now meets all the criteria to be considered a FL. Thank you for your attention, Nick.mon (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments on the lead
  • No article should start with "This article contains...."
  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Benito Mussolini formally modified the office title with" => "Benito Mussolini formally modified the office title to"
  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • That sentence is unsourced
  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Since 1946, 29 men assumed the office in 75 years" => "Since 1946, 29 men have assumed the office in 75 years"
  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The lead overall seems a bit thin. There must be more to mention eg the longest-serving PM, the shortest-serving, other notable facts.....
  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • That's it on the lead, I will look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

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.
  Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! width=1% rowspan=2| Portrait becomes !scope=col width=1% rowspan=2| Portrait.
  Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • 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.
  Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 13:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Comments on the tables and refs
  • Can you split the key into multiple columns so that it doesn't extend so far down the page?
  Done by Nick.mon. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Small text should not be used
 Y Partly done: increased size of term duration. I see that also other featured list articles like List of chancellors of Germany or List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom use small text in the tables. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Below each PM's name you have dates for born-died, but below each king's name you have dates which (I presume) indicate his reign. Can you make the latter clearer, because at first glance I thought that Victor Emmanuel II died aged 17......?
  Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Notes b to g are not full sentences so should not have full stops
  Done by Nick.mon. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Why do most refs have retrieval dates but some do not?
  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What is " Denis Mack Smith, Cavour (1985)."? A book? A journal?
  Fixed it is a book. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Surely there's a better source for the first PM than yourdictionary.com.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 N Removed -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

Ok thank you, I've tried to solve some of these problems. -- Nick.mon (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Ping me when everything is sorted and I will re-visit :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: ok, I think everything is sorted! :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  Comment: What about the references column? I think it might be removed. Since all the 100+ references are just links to pages of the same archive website [1], it think it might be sufficient to add a link to the homepage of this website, e.g. in a last row in both tables. Furthermore, other featured list articles like List of chancellors of Germany do not show such references column in their tables. --Yakme (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Simply using the frontpage of storia.camera.it as a single "source" would absolutely not be acceptable in a FL as the frontpage by itself does not reference any of the info in the tables. List of chancellors of Germany was promoted more than three years ago and I don't think would pass FLC in its current form -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: For the Republican period, I found this link which contains all the governments, and also links to each specific government where one can find more details. --Yakme (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Why not just leave the references as they currently are? There's nothing wrong with them...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Hi! So, what do you think, doest the list fit with the FL criteria? :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

List of perissodactylsEdit

Nominator(s): PresN 22:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's another animal list! Having made lists for the order Carnivora (carnivorans/felids/canids/mustelids/procyonids/ursids/mephitids/viverrids/herpestids/pinnipeds), aka "meat-eaters", and Artiodactyla (artiodactyls/cervids/suines/bovids), aka "hooved animals that aren't horses", we now move on to the order Perissodactyla, aka "hooved animals that are horses (and tapirs, and rhinos)". Which... is a much smaller order: Artiodactyla has ~350 extant animals, and Carnivora ~300, but Perissodactyla only has 18. As a result, instead of having lists for each of the three Families (horses, tapirs, and rhinos) plus a capstone list of genera like for the previous two orders, here we just have one list of species, which follows the pattern of prior "species" FLs. It also means that, even combined, it's still shorter than most of the Family lists. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  • My only comment is on the lead, only the last sentence of which has a specific citation. Is the rest sourced to the sources listed at the bottom? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Yes, the rest is a summary of the (cited) stuff in the tables; that last sentence is the only thing unique to the lead so it got a cite. --PresN 13:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Older nominationsEdit

Michael Jackson albums discographyEdit

Nominator(s): TheWikiholic (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating Michael Jackson albums discography for the featured list because it is sourced, well-organized, and easy to navigate through. I have spent quite some time expanding and cleaning up the article, which I now believe meets the featured list criteria. This is my second featured list nomination, and I look forward to the comments. Regards.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment: Most album details appear to be unsourced (the chart histories may contain this info, but that is not clear at the moment), and the chart positions for the video albums are completely unsourced. Also, many sources have access dates from 2009 or 2010, so how can they cover albums released throughout the 2010s? Make sure access dates and archived pages reflect recent updates. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

RunningTiger123 I have reviewed and sampled many articles from Category:FL-Class Discography articles before nominating this article, and none of them were sourced as you say. They either use the sources part of chart history or the certifications. Here I've already added a source for the albums, even if it was not certified even though it has already charted. There were only seven releases since 2010 and that's why most of the sources have access dates prior to 2010.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I know that older nominations don't have the same level of sourcing, but the three most recent discography promotions – Regine Velasquez discography, MewithoutYou discography, and Amy Grant discography – all provide sources for album details. Also, access dates and archived pages still need to be updated even if most of the cited information predates those; we need to source all of the information, not most of it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Follow-up: I missed the part where you'd updated the sources – those generally look good now, though I haven't taken an in-depth look. Thanks for doing that! RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
;Initial comments
  • No reason for a capital on Extended
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No reason for a capital on Remix
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "According to Recording Industry Association of America" => "According to the Recording Industry Association of America"
  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "The album peaked at 14 on the Billboard 200 album chart" - the chart wasn't called that in 1972
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "It peaked at five on the Billboard 200 album chart" - same again
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No reason for capital on Silver
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Epic Records, then known as CBS Records" - that's not true
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "spawned two number-one singles on the billboard hot 100" - needs a capital B
  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Off The Wall made Jackson the first solo artist to have four singles from the same album to peak" => "Off The Wall made Jackson the first solo artist to have four singles from the same album peak"
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "At the 1980 Grammy Awards, it was nominated for two Grammy Awards" - any way to avoid repeating those two words in the same sentence?
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The source does not support the above claim
  Added.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Jackson winning Best R&B Vocal Performance, Male for "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough"" - not relevant, this article is about his albums, not his singles
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • That's what I got on the first two paragraphs of the lead, will look at more later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
More comments
  • "the Billboard Top LPs & Tapes chart, which spent a record 37 weeks at number one" - the chart did not spend 37 weeks at number one
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Seven singles were released. They all reached the top 10 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart." - these two very short sentences could be combined into one
  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "eight Grammy Awards at the 1984 Grammy Awards" - again, try to avoid repetitive language
  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "while "Beat It" won Record of the Year" - again, not really relevant in this article
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "eight American Music Awards at the 1984 American Music Awards" - as above
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "The single "You Are Not Alone" was the first song in history to debut at number one on the Billboard Hot 100" - again, not really relevant in this article
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "and is the best selling multiple-disc release, making it one of the best-selling albums of all time" - this badly formatted sentence fragment repeats the sentence before so should be removed
  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Title of Blood on the Dance Floor should be in italics
  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure "skyrocketed" is really an encyclopedic choice of word
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Essential Michael Jackson should be in italics
  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • And so should the two albums in the last sentence of the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
More comments
  • The table heading "Compilation" should be "Compilations", as there is more than one
  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "albums at least 18 months old, have fallen below" => "albums at least 18 months old which have fallen below"
  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Here, a list of his albums reached a major position in this chart while not eligible for the Billboard 200:" - this is very mangled English. I would suggest "The following albums appeared on this chart while not eligible for the Billboard 200:"
  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I would also join that list to the one in the next sentence. It makes no sense at all to separate out those which reached a "major" position and those which reached a "minor" position, especially when some of the minor positions are higher than one of the major positions!!
  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "List of officially released compilations and other albums not charted in the table" is a terrible title and I can't even tell what it's trying to say. Is it just "albums which don't appear in any of the tables above"? If so, why not? Albums which did not chart should still be listed in the same table as equivalent albums which did, so for example all the Remix Suites should be in the same table as all the other remix albums...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Comments on refs
  • Ref 2 lists no publisher/work
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 9 is some random guy's self-published/print-on-demand book. There must be dozens of better refs for that statement.
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 10 does not list the author of the book
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 13 - what's "George"?
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 15 shows the name of the RIAA in full, whereas an earlier ref shows the initials
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The title of ref 28 is not "archived copy", it also lists no publisher/work
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 42 lists nothing but the title
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 43 lists no publisher for the book
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 44 is also self-published, so not an acceptable source
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The chart history portion of ref 55 does not exist
  Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 65 lists nothing but the title
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 72 has the same issue as ref 9
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 82 uses different date format to the rest (as do some others)
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 83 has two different date formats within the same ref!
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 101 - Nielsen Business Media Inc. is not the author's name
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 102 - author's names are the wrong way round
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 109 - why is Parool.nl wikilinked, when it doesn't have an article?
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Refs 120, 121, 129, 144 are just bare URLs
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 122 has "via allmusic.com", different to all the other AllMusic refs
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 125 is missing almost all fields
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 138 lists no publisher/work
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 143 is another self-published book
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Refs 146 and 148 (and some others) show the author's name with forename first, unlike the rest
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Quite a lot of formatting work to do on the refs, I fear...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
ChrisTheDude take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Quick comment - ref 11: Condé Nast is a company, not a person, so shouldn't be listed as the author -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)


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.
  Done. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes (which you have) lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! rowspan="2" style="width:13em;"| Title becomes ! rowspan="2" style="width:13em;" scope=col| Title. Note that where you have double headers (e.g. Peak chart positions and also the individual countries) both column headers need the scope.
  Done. TheWikiholic (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 21:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
PresN take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@TheWikiholic: Ah, not quite- see my edit to the page. Both the "Peak chart positions" and all of the "US", etc. column headers need it too. I've done it for the first table as an example. --PresN 15:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
PresN Please see my latest edits and let me know if I missed anything. TheWikiholic (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

List of accolades received by MohabbateinEdit

Nominator(s): —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating it because I believe this list is comprehensive enough. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment: While the list looks well-done, as your lists consistently are, it seems fairly short – 43 awards is definitely on the low end for stand-alone award lists. Additionally, the main article, Mohabbatein, is fairly short; the readable prose size is only 13 kB (that doesn't count the cast list or the soundtrack table, but even those would only take the list to ~16 kB, by my estimate). Since page length doesn't seem to be an issue for the main article, is there any reason this was split from the main article, especially since it passed GAN with the awards list included? Per WP:FLCR #3C, FLs "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article"; we shouldn't be splitting content to create lists without a good reason for doing so. I'd also be curious to get comments from other users – if it turns out they're fine with the list's size, I won't worry about this. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

This movie was nominated for nearly 50 award categories, so I think it maybe appropriate to split it into its own article. Actually, the film also won five trophies from Sansui but this award function doesn't have an article on Wikipedia and, like what the reviewers said when they reviewed my first featured list, I can't include it unless its article had been created. Yes, the main article itself is short but the award table has been big enough. The awards on the table may also be adding if I could find more awards the film won; moreover, I find 43 a big number (how about you?) so why not? If I add the Sansuis too, the number will increase to 48. I will split the award table if the film wins more than 10 awards and was nominated for more than 40 categories; the FL policy also does not require a list article (especially an award list one) to have a specific size, does it? —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I brought this up simply because I've seen the minimum length of awards lists come up before (i.e., this discussion from last year at WT:TV) and 43 was right around some suggested cut-offs. In regard to FL policy, there is no requirement for a list to have a minimum size, but FLs are required to meet the guidelines for stand-alone lists and cannot be reasonably included elsewhere, so shorter lists need to have a good reason for existing. I think this quote from the linked discussion summarizes my view well: "We really need to get away from the idea of 'splitting just because we can'. There really needs to be a compelling reason to split out content." Again, to be clear, this is just something I wanted to note since I've seen it mentioned elsewhere; if other users don't have an issue with it, I'd be happy to support the nomination. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Comments
  • This is probably very pedantic, but this article says the title translates to "The Love Stories" whereas the film's main article just says "Love Stories". I don't know if this actually really matters, but just "Love Stories" sounds more natural IMO.......
  • "The film's rest focuses" - don't know what this means. What do you mean by "the film's rest"?
  • "changes his views of it" => "changes his views"
  • "at the sets designed by Sharmishta Roy" => "on sets designed by Sharmishta Roy"
  • "while the editing was finished by V. Karnik" => "while the editor was V. Karnik" (unless you specifically mean that someone else started the editing (if so, who?) and Karnik just finished it off......?)
  • "the film—a commercial success—had a total gross" - I think the bit between the dashes is redundant. It doesn't read very naturally as written and I suspect that readers can probably work out that a film which grossed more than 6 times what it cost was a success
  • In the third paragraph of the lead, you restate Aditya Chopra's name multiple names but only refer to the others by their surnames. Be consistent.
It is because there are three Chopras in the lead: Aditya Chopra, Uday Chopra, and Yash Chopra. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "and won four of which that include" => "and won four, including"
  • "one Screen Awards" => "one Screen Award"
  • Don't stack the refs vertically within the cell. If you re-sort the table it results in lots of massively tall rows.
  • There seems to be a random mix of people's names sorting by surname and forename in the recipients column, eg Anupam Kher sorts under K, but Manmohan Singh sorts under M.
  • Note a is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Done —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

List of A24 filmsEdit

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

In 2013, A Glimpse Inside the Mind of Charles Swan III became the first film distributed by A24. The first film they produced, Moonlight, won the Academy Award for Best Picture. I rewrote the Wikipedia List of A24 films to add every film they distributed and/or produced. One reference says when they acquired the rights to the film, another says when it was released. I went with a style similar to the one found in List of Dharma Productions films, which also features a brief summary of every film once it is released. I have expanded the list to FL standards and I hope it can become an FL. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment
  • The note "also produced by" looks weird on its own, like there are words missing at the end i.e. also produced by whom? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
More comments
  • "The company also made a multi-year agreement that November with Amazon Prime where" - I would say "whereby" personally
  • The synopsis column looks a bit odd to me being centre-aligned. I think left alignment would work better, personally
  • Wikilink Kalgoorlie? Not a very well-known place IMO
  • "a young woman and her 5-year-old son Jack" - seems a bit odd to name the son but not the woman.......
  • Think that's it from me - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude:   Done I didn't shift the plot column due to the table's formatting. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned by this list, namely that it's a list of films by a distributor, rather than a production company- I'm not as familiar with the film world as other forms of media, but is that really such a notable quality that it needs a list rather than a category? Do we have other examples of "films by distributor" lists, as opposed to "films by producer"? This leads to the second concern, that pre-pandemic A24 was pushing 20 films a year. With 2-3 lines per film, within a few years this list is going to be very, very long, even if A24 doesn't start distributing more films per year. Maybe that's okay, but it's a concern. --PresN 21:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: A24 is a production company. They also release films (see Category:Lists of films by studio). However, if you want the list to look shorter, we can remove the "Synopsis" column which is by itself already uncommon. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I get that it's also a production company, but it's only produced 17 dated films and 9 undated, out of about 110 and 17, so less than a quarter of the list is about its produced films. If being a distributor is considered a major-enough part of film production that they should get lists on par with "regular" production companies then that's fine; I was just surprised to see it as for books or video games a "distributor" is just a non-notable middleman that doesn't even get a category. --PresN 16:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

PamzeisEdit

Not gonna screw this up hopefully

  • Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works should be italicised in citations
  • TBA should sort after 2022 in #Undated films

Pamzeis (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

List of chancellors of AustriaEdit

Nominator(s): Colonestarrice (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

(Re-submission) the reason didn't really change, I just thought I would give it another shot (after more than 2 years). Colonestarrice (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Drive by comment
  • The {{subst:FLC}} template doesn't seem to be placed on the talk page. And shouldn't this be "archive2"? Even if the first nomination had 'C' capital in 'chancellors'. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I forgot to save the {{subst:FLC}} template, thanks for reminding me. Regarding the page name, I don't know if there are any guidelines or precedents that explain what do to in this case, so I'm just going to leave the decision to the FLC pundits. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)Edit

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! rowspan=1 | Party becomes !scope=col rowspan=1 | Party. (Also, you don't need rowspans if it's a single cell, only if the number would be bigger than 1)
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | style="background-color: {{Social Democratic Party of Austria/meta/color}}; color:white;" | 1 becomes !scope=row style="background-color: {{Social Democratic Party of Austria/meta/color}}; color:white;" | 1.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 15:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Comments
  • The images at the top are not captioned clockwise.
  • "up until" doesn't need up
  • assassination should be lowercase
  • No comma after original
  • "People's and the Social Democratic Party" missing a "Party"
  • The next sentence is a comma splice
  • "Five parties" instead of "The following"
  • Should be an "and" after the final comma of that sentence
  • The First Republic section is lacking the key the Second has...
  • And the key should include what the abbreviations are short for...(give both the German and English there)
  • Since the color signifies party, it should background the party cells, not the number cells
  • Columns should be sortable
  • The party column should be between the election and coalition columns; this isn't the most important content that should be on the far left: that's who the person is!
  • The notes for Renner and Mayr would be more relevant in the Tenure cell
  • The lead says "Arthur Seyss-Inquart was the shortest serving chancellor with 2 days in office." but Walter Breisky's term is a single day.
  • Similar to List of chancellors of Germany, perhaps link the governments like Second Schober government and First Kurz government with the coalitions. Those without articles link to the respective section on the chancellor's article.
  • Refs: Site name is Republic of Austria Parliament not the url.
  • Is there a source for the numbers? E.g. that Karl Renner didn't get one in 1945, making Figl #1? That Kurz's second term is (13) again, so Schallenberg gets #15? That they were restarted for the Second Republic? All reasonable but I don't want this to be OR
  • With that, if Renner isn't numbered, is his photo caption in the lead as being the first correct? (and being a provisional chancellor isn't mentioned in the lead)
  • The "living former chancellors" section should be removed. Both the main table and the statistics table denote the living chancellors, and this is redundant.
  • "Oldest living chancellors" is mere trivia and I don't see the purpose of this, which can also be deduced from the stats table.

Reywas92Talk 17:45, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

 Y Partly done.
"The First Republic section is lacking the key the Second has..."
"And the key should include what the abbreviations are short for...(give both the German and English there)"
I've removed the keys completely (except for the "denotes acting" part), as the parties are already included and linked in the table, and their full names are mentioned in the lead.
No, you can't have unexplained abbreviations even if they're linked; these need to be written out somewhere because their full names are not mentioned in the lead because they're German abbreviations but the lead gives English names.
"Is there a source for the numbers? E.g. that Karl Renner didn't get one in 1945, making Figl #1? That Kurz's second term is (13) again, so Schallenberg gets #15? That they were restarted for the Second Republic? All reasonable but I don't want this to be OR"
I'm glad that you addressed that, because someone re-added succession numbers to the table; succession numbers are not used in Austria, this has been discussed multiple times.
"Since the color signifies party, it should background the party cells, not the number cells"
I've restored the original table design without succession numbers; now there is just a plain, colored line, which exists to complement the party cells. I believe adding colored backgrounds to the party cells would be a bit "visually intense", and some readers might not be able spot blue links with a turquoise background.
Agree that that colored line looks nicer and is becoming more standard
"The party column should be between the election and coalition columns; this isn't the most important content that should be on the far left: that's who the person is!"
The color and party columns are very small; I think having them on the left makes orientation easier for readers. But if you insist, I will change it.
Looking through the other leader FLs and more in Europe, while many keep the narrow color column on the left for orientation, the party is consistently to the right, which makes sense because as a list of chancellors, the chancellors themselves should go first. It's seems pretty redundant though, since except for Schober the chancellor's party is always listed first in the government parties. Maybe remove the party column altogether but then bold their party in the government column?
"Similar to List of chancellors of Germany, perhaps link the governments like Second Schober government and First Kurz government with the coalitions. Those without articles link to the respective section on the chancellor's article."
I would like to, but the vast majority of cabinets neither have any articles of their own, nor associated sections on the articles of their leaders (i.e. the chancellors).
"Refs: Site name is Republic of Austria Parliament not the url."
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
The references have "website=www.parlament.gv.at" but you should give the actual name, not url. Better to use "publisher=Republic of Austria Parliament" instead.
Colonestarrice (talk) 20:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
"The lead says "Arthur Seyss-Inquart was the shortest serving chancellor with 2 days in office." but Walter Breisky's term is a single day."
I'm sorry, for some reason the list didn't mention that: Breisky was acting chancellor and thus excluded from the calculation. But if necessary, I can still mention him in the lead.
The background added is good. Though User:Kramler/Kurz is not the 25th chancellor make me wonder if Seyss-Inquart should even count either since the Parliament doesn't include him, maybe skip that stat? Reywas92Talk 15:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Colonestarrice (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 Y Partly done. (I also found a parliament source for Seyss-Inquart.) The colored line supplements the party column, if the column was to be moved somewhere else it would kind of lose its purpose. Pages like list of presidents of the United States also do not put the person on the far-left. I think having the chancellors centre-left, highlights them more than having them on the far-left. Colonestarrice (talk) 08:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Drive-by comment
  • Per MOS:COLORCODING, you can't use just colour to indicate the acting chancellors. You either need to also use a symbol, or maybe in this case actually put (acting) after the dates of office -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 07:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
More comments
  • "Kreisky is known as one of the world's perhaps most successful socialist leaders" => "Kreisky is known as perhaps one of the world's most successful socialist leaders". Also such a bold claim needs a source
  • "Following Dollfuss's Assassination" - assassination is not a proper noun so it should not have a capital A
  • "Arthur Seyss-Inquart was the shortest serving chancellor with only 2 days in office." - Breisky also appears to have served for two days. He may have only been acting, but he still served
  • Actually, didn't Seyss-Inquart serve for three days (11-13 March)......?
  • The name column should sort based on surname, not forename (this applies to both tables)
  • The tenure column does not sort correctly
  • Any reason why the assumed/left office columns in the second table are not sortable whereas all the others are?
  • Ref 57 is a footnote and should be formatted like the other footnotes
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I see that you have removed the sortability function from the tenure column altogether. That now means that if you sort the table on a different column it's literally impossible to get back to the original order. Not really ideal....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree, but the thing is that the main table was created with the intention of being unsortable; more than half of all columns weren't designed for sorting, and the cells that span more than one row, mess up the whole table once you start sorting anyways. If readers want to sort chancellors by name, birth date, term of office and so on, they can use the statistics table which was made for that exact purpose. Colonestarrice (talk) 09:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Well in that case you should make the main table completely unsortable. It doesn't really work to have a table which is essentially a timeline but then if you re-sort in any way you can't get back to showing the timeline in chronological order...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 11:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The statistics table is not sortable either...while the date of birth properly uses {dts}, assumed office uses {start date}, which sorts numerically by day. Left office does the same. If you just use dts in the main table, it will be properly sortable as well. The numbering in the stats table should also be removed just as above. Reywas92Talk 15:40, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  Done. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Black (2005 film)Edit

Nominator(s): —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating it because I believe this list is comprehensive enough. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments
  • "at the sets built by Omung Kumar" => "on sets built by Omung Kumar"
  • "The film was opened on 4 February 2005" => "The film opened on 4 February 2005"
  • "with the total grossing" => "with a total gross"
  • "The film received eleven awards that include those" => "The film received eleven awards, including those"
  • Ravi K. Chandran should sort under C not K - the K is not part of his surname
  • Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

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. --PresN 18:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123Edit

Overall, much of the language in the lead is unnecessarily wordy:

  • "Bhansali, who wrote the story, co-produced Black under SLB Films with Anshuman Swami of Applause Entertainment, as well as writing the screenplay with Bhavani Iyer and Prakash Kapadia." → "Bhansali co-produced Black under SLB Films with Anshuman Swami of Applause Entertainment and co-wrote the screenplay with Bhavani Iyer and Prakash Kapadia." (allows verb tenses to agree and removes redundant information)
    • Correction: Just realized that the story and screenplay credits are different, so try: "Bhansali, who wrote the story, co-produced Black under SLB Films with Anshuman Swami of Applause Entertainment and co-wrote the screenplay with Bhavani Iyer and Prakash Kapadia." RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "the editing was finished by Bela Sehgal" is a weird phrase (she didn't just finish the editing, she did all of the editing). Consider something like "Bela Sehgal edited the film" or "the editing was done by Bela Sehgal".
  • "production cost of" → "production budget"
  • "In the International Indian Film Academy Awards' seventh iteration" → "At the 7th International Indian Film Academy Awards" (corrects preposition and removes poor synonym ["iteration"])

Other notes:

  • External link should use www.imdb.com, not m.imdb.com
  • When you use multiple sources (especially 3 or more), I would consider either combining them into a single ref tag or placing some of them next to each other horizontally. This is because when the table is sorted, cells spanning multiple rows are split, resulting in individual rows that are unnecessarily tall due to excessive footnotes, limiting the amount of text that can be displayed on screen at one time. (For example, when the table is sorted, the cells for the International Indian Film Academy Awards each become 5 lines of text tall solely because of the footnotes.) Let me know if I need to clarify this more or if you have questions.
  • Footnote a should be converted to a complete sentence (by writing "The date..." instead of "Date..."), or its period needs to be removed.

RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

SupportRunningTiger123 (talk) 17:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Municipalities of QuerétaroEdit

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC) and Coyatoc (talk)

One more list to add to the collection. I'm happy to keep working on the project of bringing all list of municipalities in Mexico to a high standard (12 states already have their municipality lists featured using this standardized format, along with dozens of other list of municipalities in North America). We have updated the information to reflect the most recent census and tried to incorporate changes from previous nominations. The page should be pretty standardized but there can always be improvements. Thanks to everyone who regularly reviews these lists! Mattximus (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments
  • Caption of the middle image is a sentence fragment so doesn't need a full stop   Done
  • Shouldn't La Cañada sort under C, in the same way that song titles/film titles/etc that start with "The" sort on the next word?
    • Hi! I can help Mattximus with these, let me know if the feedback format needs to be improved, first time :) Spanish supports both, it's correct for La Cañada to show either under L or under C.[1] Articles are included in the default sorting of these tables. Coyatoc (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • El Marqués seems to have almost exactly doubled in population in 10 years. Do we know why this is? It seems so striking that I don't know whether it's worth mentioning in the lead.....?
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - apologies for forgetting to check back until now...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Support – I have no major issues with this list and am happy to support right away. One small adjustment you could consider: you refer to the capital city as "Querétaro City" in the lead, "Querétaro" in an image caption, and "Santiago de Querétaro" in the table. Picking one name and sticking with it would probably be better. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)   Done

  • The name of the municipality is Querétaro, I standardised it in the article. Coyatoc (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Don't duplicate the caption in ALT text.   Done
  • An image is missing ALT text.  Done
  • Don't use fixed size for images (250 px in this case) Better use "|upright=" parameter.  Done
  • Image licencing is fine.

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

    • Thanks for the image review! I believe I've addressed all concerns. Mattximus (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Pass for image review. Any comments here would be appreciated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

List of Colorado statistical areasEdit

Nominator(s):  Buaidh  talk e-mail 02:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel this is a well designed list article which is easy to interpret despite the rather complicated topic.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 02:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments + Image review from Kavyansh.SinghEdit

  • Was this nomination/the article moved after the nomination was created? Because the talk page template was asking to initiate the nomination even after being purged. I now fixed it, but the current title of this list "List of Colorado statistical areas" seems to be breaking the precedent set in other similar list titles. (See)
  • With just 635 characters, the lead is incredibly short. I know it is difficult to add when there is less context, but try to keep the lead at least 1200 characters long. It currently reads like an official record of the government, and maybe we can merge those footnotes in the prose. Try to add more facts about statistical areas particularly in Colorado.
  • 1114 statistical areas – missing a comma.
  • in the State of Colorado – remove "State of" from the link.
  • What is the source for File:Colorado CBSAs 2020.png? Do we have a link?
  • MOS:FONTSIZE discourages editors from using small or big fonts. Do we require it here?
  • Can we make the table sortable?
  • Column header cells need to be marked with "scope=col"
  • The list of counties with the population is a major part of this list, if not the most important part. But, particularly the two columns dealing with County name and population completely duplicates data from List of counties in Colorado. Doesn't it violate content forking guidelines? The three sources here are official primary sources, which are fine to use, but, are there any secondary reliable source particularly discussing about "Colorado statistical areas"? This might be the biggest issue with this nomination. I'll wait to hear what others think. If its just me, I'll retract this concern.
  • Why is "Colorado" added after name of every county. I guess it is quite clear, and we don't need to add the state's name every-time.
  • The See also section here has a lot of links. Keep only those which are really necessary/helpful. I also note that most of the links here are duplicated in the Colorado template at the end of this page.
  • Suggesting to archive links.
  • Quite a lot to do here. Ping me whenever you have addressed all of these comments.

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Buaidh – Just a courtesy ping for you to address the comments by reviewers. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

  • I've read and edited other lists on US statistical areas, and they can certainly be complicated so these lists can be helpful! I see you created them all many years ago with consistent formatting, and with this one you're making some changes.
  • The hatnote at the top is not helpful, the first redirects to Colorado#Demographics that's better in the prose perhaps, and the other duplicates the link at the start of the first sentence!
  • I think footnotes a, b, and c should be explained in the lead, not buried as footnotes.
  • The image caption uses "core-based statistical areas" (or "core based" without the hyphen in the table) which is also not defined in the lead.
  • Agree that the table caption doesn't need to be in large font.
  • This uses "United States statistical areas" but that's not really the name, e.g. United States statistical area has since been moved.
  • You moved the information of what's in the table from above it to footnotes, but I don't think they're really needed in either place. Like why do we need footnote [d] to tell us a column called "Combined Statistical Area" lists the name of the combined statistical area? Why does "2020 Census" need a footnote to tell us it's from the 2020 census? That could be renamed "Population (2020)" or similar though.
  • How is everything in the table sorted? Should it be sortable?
  • I don't think it's a problem to have the populations duplicate the main county list here.
  • Concur on the use of Colorado with every county name and the bloated see also.

Reywas92Talk 18:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I am confused why you added "Main articles: Colorado and Statistical area (United States)" back to the top of the page. The very first line begins with "The U.S. State of Colorado includes 21 statistical areas" so this hatnote is redundant and serves no purpose: Template:Main says not to use it in lead sections. Reywas92Talk 15:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Reywas92: You are correct. I've removed Template:Main from the header. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 16:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)Edit

  • Table caption should not be biggened.
  • 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. !Combined Statistical Area becomes !scope=col | Combined Statistical Area.
  • 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. I'm...not sure what the primary cell here would be? Things are in a weird order; each row seems to be defined by the county, but that's way over on the right side. If that's the defining cell of each row, it should be the left-most column, in which case e.g. |[[Arapahoe County, Colorado]] becomes !scope=row|[[Arapahoe County, Colorado]]
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 19:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

ImprovementsEdit

@Kavyansh.Singh, Reywas92, and PresN: Thank you for your very helpful suggestions. I have implemented almost all of them. This list was originally named Colorado statistical areas but was moved to List of Colorado statistical areas. I have revised the main table to comply with W3C and made it sortable. I have also added a second sortable table to show the primary statistical areas. Please give me any additional comments you may have. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments
  • Articles should not start off with "This list comprises...." Find a more engaging opening sentence
  • Nothing in the lead is sourced
  • No need to re-state the full name of the OMB every time in the lead. After the first usage the initials are fine.
  • "Most recently on March 6, 2020" - I think just "On March 6, 2020" would be fine
  • Column headers should start with capital letters eg County not county
  • What is the ordering in the table based on? It seems completely random..........
  • Some of the footnotes seem unnecessary. Do we really need a footnote on the County column to say that it's the name of the county?
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

ImprovementsEdit

@ChrisTheDude: Thank you for your comments. See if these enhancements satisfy your concerns. I've added an explanation of the initial order of the first table. This table is rather complicated. The table notes include the sources of the column data. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 22:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

You can put the reference in the column header itself, that's really weird to have a footnote for the ref note, and merely duplicating the wikilink. Reywas92Talk 05:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
It may be unconventional, but I think this provides a clearer explanation of the column data. Your aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 08:29, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
There's no reason to have a column called "County" and a footnote against it which says "The name of the county". It looks ridiculous -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Reywas92 and ChrisTheDude: You're right. These column headings are pretty self-explanatory. I've removed the footnotes from the headings. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 17:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

List of ImprovementsEdit

Lots of issues with this list. I will try to list a few:

  • Should not start with "this is a list of", that's old terminology no longer used for feature lists. Same with "this sortable table".
  • Paragraphs generally shouldn't just be a single sentence.
  • Weird positioning of notes within the lead. I've never seen this before.
  • I don't think you need a note Under county indicating that it's a Colorado county. Several of these notes are just tautological.
  • Instead of saying next statistical areas update, is there a scheduled date when this will occur? Or a known frequency they occur?
  • Images missing alt-text so are not accessible.
  • OMB should be spelled out or linked in the second subheading (linked only once per section is appropriate)
  • Subheading Primary statistical areas could use an opening sentence quickly defining what a Primary statistical areas is.
I think that's a good place to start, I hope I didn't mention the same ones as above. Mattximus (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Mattximus: Thanks for your suggestions. I've tried to address your concerns.
  1. I've changed the opening sentence to "The U.S. State of Colorado includes 21 statistical areas delineated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)."
Much better, but I wonder if we can use a better word than delineate, which means to describe, but did they not in fact create these areas? Mattximus (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  1. Can you suggest alternative language for "This sortable table"?
Easiest and best solution would be to take that whole sentence and make it a note (where you had the county note before). That would make the most sense. Mattximus (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  1. I've eliminated the one-sentence paragraph.
  2. I've removed footnotes from the headings.
These seem to still be there... It's probably the most logical to have 1 note category at the end of the article (above references), under a heading called "notes" instead of 3 separate identically named headings. Mattximus (talk) 03:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  1. I've added alt text to the map.
Do you have any additional suggestions? Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 18:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

QuestionEdit

What should this list be named?

  1. Colorado statistical areas - title used by all other states (see Category:United States statistical areas)
  2. List of Colorado statistical areas - current title
  3. List of statistical areas in Colorado - consistent with the List of counties in Colorado, the List of municipalities in Colorado, the List of census-designated places in Colorado, the List of places in Colorado, etc.

I created and added the navigation bar Template:U.S. statistical areas.

Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 01:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Per the current established convention in similar articles, I think "Colorado statistical areas" would be the best option, but if you want to go ahead with any other name, and want to change the titles of all 50 or so lists, a larger level discussion would be more appropriate. But, none would majorly affect this FLC. Will try to take another look at the list soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh: Thanks,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I think option 3 makes the most sense per usual naming conventions. Reywas92Talk 14:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm inclined to favor option #3 also. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 16:20, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

FormatEdit

@Kavyansh.Singh, Mattximus, Reywas92, ChrisTheDude, and PresN: The format of this list when it was originally nominated for Featured list (see oldid=1051364405) closely resembled the other 51 state lists of statistical areas. The enhancements that have been made, and may yet be made, to this list should probably be reflected in the other 51 lists, so we should carefully examine this list. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 22:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh.Singh (part II)Edit

Let me know if I accidentally duplicate any comment already made.

  • "The U.S. State of Colorado includes 21 statistical areas" — See MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID
    •   Done
  • "United States" v. "U.S." — be consistent
  • "These statistical areas are used extensively by the United States Census Bureau" — can remove 'extensively', seems extraneous
    •   Done
  • "The OMB defines a core-based statistical area (CBSA)" — '(CBSA)' is not used anywhere else in the lead, do we need to mention the abbreviation?
    •   Not done CBSA is not used in this article but it is used in many other articles so I left in in.
      • I wonder is there any use of introducing the reader of the abbreviation, when it isn't used anywhere else in the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
        •   Fixed
  • "with the core as measured through commuting ties with the counties containing the core." — repetition of 'core'
    •   Not done This is a grammatically correct direct quote.
  • Reading through the lead, I still don't it specifically discussing about "List of Colorado statistical areas" (emphasis mine). Can anything more specific be included?
  • Notes section should be at the end of the article, above the References section. See MOS:FNNR
    •   Done
  • "On March 6, 2020, the OMB defined 1114 statistical areas" — '1114' needs a comma.
    •   Done
  • "This sortable table" — I don't think we still use this format (which was used in few older lists)
    •   Done
  • The MOS:SEEALSO section is still looking odd, which duplicates most of the links present in the Colorado template.
    •   Done
      • Sorry if I keep persisting this issue, but still, each and every links used in the See also section is still duplicated in the Colorado template at the end of the page. The "See also" section is not compulsory. Its upto you to keep or remove it, however, I won't oppose if you disagree. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I've fixed most of your issues.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 03:19, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Few replies above. Any update on the source of the sole image? Do we have a link? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh:   Done
Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 04:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Significant changes have been made in this list after it was brought to FLC. There are few things I might have done a bit differently, but all-in-all, I support this list for promotion as a featured list. Also, Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Name ChangeEdit

I would like to change the name of the List of Colorado statistical areas to the List of statistical areas in Colorado. How will this impact a featured list designation? Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 17:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

List of international goals scored by Ian RushEdit

Nominator(s): REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because... Rush was one of the greatest goal scorers of his generation and has held records of that nature both for Wales and Liverpool, where he is still all-time leading goalscorer. I have expanded the lead to comply with the FL criteria and I hope it will pass inspection. Any criticism is welcome as always! REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments
  • The prose is extremely short at less than 1300 characters. Is there really not any more to say?
Normally I would add more about any tournaments that they qualified for but that's not the case with this one. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:38, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Get rid of the {{clear}} which (on my screen at least) causes a massive unnecessary whitespace   Done
  • "Rush's goal tally included famous goal" => "Rush's goal tally included a famous goal"   Done
  • Also, famous according to whom?
I have added another reference referring to the famous circumstances of his goal. If you feel that doesn't suffice then I would be happy to take it out. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:36, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Next sentence starts with "And", which is a non-no   Done
    • You can't start a sentence with "As well as" either. It clearly follows on from the previous sentence, so just combine both sentences into one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
      •   Done
  • "against during a friendly against China." - huh?   Done
  • "one of only 15 ever scored by the nation" - the nation of Wales had never scored a hat-trick, needs rewording   Done
  • Opponents are linked every time in the table but venues and competitions only once each - why is this?   Done
  • Why is the first digit in the score column in bold?   Done
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)Edit

  • Tables need captions to allow screen reader software to 'jump' straight to them without reading out all of the text above them each time; add as the first line in the table `|+ caption_text`, or if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header you can make it only visible to screen reader software like `|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}`   Done
  • The column header cells need to be marked with `scope=col`, e.g. `! No.` becomes `! scope=col | No.`, etc. - each on their own line --PresN 14:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @PresN:,   Done. Sorry it took so long. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 13:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
      • @PresN:, are there any other issues that you would like me to address? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Pass for image review. Though, still suggesting to add ALT text, but I doubt whether its a part of FL, or even FA criteria. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

List of accolades received by The Shape of WaterEdit

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 08:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The Shape of Water 2017 American romantic fantasy film directed by Guillermo del Toro and written by del Toro and Vanessa Taylor. It stars Sally Hawkins, Michael Shannon, Richard Jenkins, Doug Jones, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Octavia Spencer. Set in Baltimore, Maryland in 1962, the story follows a mute cleaner at a high-security government laboratory who falls in love with a captured humanoid amphibian creature. The film won four Academy Awards including Best Picture at the 2018 ceremony. This is my fifth film accolades list to be nominated for featured list status, and I largely based the format off of the accolades lists for The Artist, The Big Short, 1917, and Slumdog Millionaire which were promoted in October 2015, January 2021, November 2020, and June 2021, respectively. I will gladly accept your comments to improve this list. Birdienest81talk 08:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

  • "romantic dark fantasy film" sea of blue. And not sure that "dark" is appropriately linked in any case.
  • Fixed: Removed the word "dark" to now read "Romantic fantasy film" with romantic fantasy wikilinked per the film's main article.
  • "...featured roles.[2]" referenced yet "... the production design." not?
  • Fixed: Used TV Guide listing of film's cast and crew for reference.
  • "195 million" non breaking space.
  • Fixed: Added   template between "195" and "million".
  • "The film garnered" garnered is repetitive here.
  • Fixed: Changed second "garnered" to "earned".
  • "winningfor" space.
  • In fact no need for "for".
  • Fixed: Removed the word "for".
  • Ref 2 and ref 49 have spaced hyphens, should be en-dashes.
  • Fixed: Replaced spaced hyphens with en-dashes.

That's a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: - Done: I have made corrections based on your comments from up above.
--Birdienest81talk 09:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

  • "Alexandre Desplat composed the film's musical score, while Paul Denham Austerberry, Jeff Melvin, and Shane Vieau were responsible for the production design." - source? Seems odd to source the starring actors but not this arguably more obscure information.
  • Fixed: Used TV Guide Cast and Crew listing for film as the reference.
  • Paul Denham Austerberry should sort under A - Denham is his middle name, not the first part of his surname
  • Fixed: Paul Denham Austerberry now sorts under A rather than D.
  • Doug Jones should sort under J, not D
  • Fixed: Doug Jones now sorts under J rather than D.
  • Mike Hill should sort under H not M
  • Fixed: Mike Hill now sorts under H rather than M.
  • Note a should not have a full stop
  • Fixed: Removed period on note a.
  • That's it from me (in addition to TRM's comments) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: - Done: I have addressed all the comments from up above and made the appropriate adjustments or corrections.
--Birdienest81talk 09:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

PamzeisEdit

  • Doug Jones, Michael Stuhlbarg and Octavia Spencer in — add a MOS:SERIAL comma after "Stuhlbarg"
  • acting of its cast — ... what else does the cast do?
  • including Best Picture, Best Director → including Best Picture and Best Director
  • Best Director (Del Toro) — as he is the only director, I think "(Del Toro)" can be removed
  • It was the second fantasy film → It is the second fantasy film (MOS:TENSE)
  • Director and Golden Globe Award for Best Original Score → Director and Best Original Score (the reader will already know it's the Golden Globes)

Not much, close enough to support. BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Best of luck with this list! Pamzeis (talk) 01:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I'd appreciate any comments here. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: - Done: I made all the corrections based on the comments you posted. I was studying for a test and had a toothache. Therefore, my response was delayed a bit.
--Birdienest81talk 08:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review — PassEdit

List of artiodactylsEdit

Nominator(s): PresN 00:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Back again with another animal list! This time we're covering all genera in the order Artiodactyla, meaning most animals with hooves that aren't horses, and also whales/dolphins because evolution is weird sometimes. Just like I capped the 9 family lists of the order Carnivora (felids/canids/mustelids/procyonids/ursids/mephitids/viverrids/herpestids/pinnipeds) with list of carnivorans, this one caps off the 3 lists I've done for Artiodactyla (cervids/suines/bovids) with one for the entire order (as well as one FL, list of cetaceans, that wasn't me and predates my entire project). This follows the format of the carnivorans list, including all genera in the entire order (the same way as the narrower lists are "species in a family", just pulled back one level) whether their family is big enough to get their own species list or not. At 132 genera it's around the size as the carnivorans list (though with 50 more species), and reflects all of the comments at the carnivorans FLC. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:Antilocapra americana.jpg – Commons licencing claims that the copyright owner has allowed it for for any purpose, but direct source link is not provided. The correct source link appears to be this (image 41 of 169) (direct download). The available image is, same but in a better quality. Though the source page states "Copyright © 2006, Alan D. Wilson", the copyright policy of naturespicsonline.com state that any of the image from the gallery can be used under "Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" licence. Please correct the licence, and if possible, update the image with the better version.
  • License fixed; left the version as it was cropped.
  • Swapped out the image for one with a correct license
  • Updated.
  • Rest, Flickr images are fine. Good faith assumed on "own works" images. Maps not checked, as I believe all of them are own works.

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments
  • Second use of "forbs" is linked rather than the first
  • Neritic and intertidal marine are both linked on the second use
  • Under rangifer, forbs is randomly linked again and sedges is randomly linked for the first time having already been used loads of times
  • Forbs linked again under catagonus
  • Mesopelagic fish linked twice in quick succession under the dolphins
  • Intertidal linked again under sousa
  • That's all I got. So basically a few items linked in the wrong place and a few items randomly linked more than once. Fantastic work overall!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
  • That's a long one!
  • The listing of extinct species in Classification seems duplicative having just be listed at the end of the lead
  • Mammal Species of the World should have a footnote ref too
  • "are bovids, and" no comma
  • When there's only one species in a genus, Size range could just be Size and the habitat and diet singular
  • Beautiful list as usual. Reywas92Talk 18:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

List of Houston Texans first-round draft picksEdit

Nominator(s): --Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This list was previously nominated for FLC in 2008, but was declined for being too short.(And rightfully so.) I believe the article is now ready to be recognized as a Featured List, as it has all the necessary info, and similar articles for other teams are Featured like the Ravens, Rams and many more.. I look forward to the comments to know the reviews.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123Edit

Drive-by comment: While older FLs may use references placed at the end to source the list, the current standard is that citations should be placed in the body of the article. If a source is used for the entire list, it can be placed in the table caption or in a column heading instead of in each row. Also, the sources in the References section need to be updated; if the access dates are from 2007 and 2008, how can they be used as sources for the entire table through 2021? RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

With my drive-by comment resolved, here's a more thorough review.

  • Image needs alt text
  • "Houston Texans" should not be bolded in lead
  • "2002 NFL draft" → "2002 NFL Draft"
  • Footnotes explaining draft pick trades need to be sourced
  • Footnotes c–f and g–h use two different styles to explain draft trades – pick one and stick with it
  • References column should be unsortable
  • Rename "Special References" section to "External links"
    • Also, website name should be "Houston Texans", not "Houston Texas"

RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments
  • Lead should probably specify that the Texans are an American football team. I know it says "joined the National Football League", but given how many different sports are called "football" by someone in the world, it would be best to be completely clear
  • Paid is spelt incorrectly (unless "payed" is valid in American English?)
  • Quarterback is wikilinked in the lead but offensive tackle not - any reason?
  • Italics on always seem unnecessary to me
  • "No player selected by the Texans has been enshrined in the Pro Football Hall Of Fame"- no player selected in the first round specifically, or no player ever selected?
  • Row 2 of the key refers to the Ravens, presumably this is a copy/paste error.....?
  • Sentence fragments like "Youngest player ever taken in modern draft era." should not have full stops. This applies to pretty much everything in the Notes column.
  • As above, every row needs a specific reference. These would probably work best in a separate column.
  • The key suggests that a dagger will appear against Pro Bowl players, but it doesn't
  • Footnotes (eg "The franchise was established in 1999, but played its first season in 2002.") should be separated from actual references
  • Footnotes which are not complete sentences should also not have full stops (think this only applies to one note)
  • Ref 11 shows no accessdate
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
Comments
  • @ChrisTheDude: All the problems have been solved now. you may please have a look.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    • The fourth and fifth comments above have not been addressed. Also, you have removed the full stops from all footnotes, including the ones which are complete sentences -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Also, you have addressed the ninth by removing the dagger from the key. Apologies for being unclear, but what you should have done is left the dagger in the key and added it to the relevant players. For accessibility reasons, colour alone cannot be used as an identifier -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: I have added the daggers and have got the hof problem solved. I didn't spot any italics this time. I removed some seeing your first comment. Please inform me where they are. Also - I rechecked all the footnotes and found that all of them are free of full-stops. I hope we are allowed to keep other punctuations like comma's to give the sentence meaning. If I am wrong please inform me.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Re: the footnotes, my comment was "Footnotes which are not complete sentences should also not have full stops". I never said to remove them from all notes. Notes a, c, d, e and f are complete sentences and therefore need full stops. Re: italics, my comment was "Italics on always seem unnecessary to me". I accept this is maybe ambiguous, so apologies. What I meant is that the word "always" is italicised twice in the lead and (IMO) there is no reason for this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

TRMEdit

  • Note [a] is unreferenced.
  • "cost of $700 million " inflate to 2020 $
  • Isn't there a link for 2002 NFL draft?
  • "team's most recent" put a year in there in case this doesn't get updated for a year or more...
  • "with the worst record picking first" the record doesn't make the pick, the team with the worst record does...
  • "the Super Bowl champion always picks 32nd, and the Super Bowl loser always picks " you don't need to repeat Super Bowl in either case here.
  • Ref col doesn't need to be sortable.
  • Row scope can be applied to the player name each time.
  • For the 7x, 2x etc, are you using an x or a ×, the latter should be what's being used.
  • The footnotes need references.
  • NO SHOUTING in ref titles please.
  • New York Times requires a subscription.
  • Ref 7 doesn't need the publisher in the ref title.
  • WaPo refs needs subs too.
  • Why only WaPo linked in the refs, not NYT, Bleacher Report etc?
  • What are "Special References"? do you mean "External links"?
  • Put a bullet point in front of that "Special Reference".

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:44, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I have solved most of the problems. I didn't get the row scope and the 7x, 2x thing. It would be nice if you could explain it once more. I have added citations to the footnotes. But the draft trade footnotes don't have refs. They are not even present in the draft-page. I also hope that the NYT and WaPo additions aren't a huge problem. I only used them as they are considered reliable. Wish you the best.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

So for the 7x (7 times) are you using the x character (ecks) or the × symbol (multiplication symbol)? It should be the latter. Row scopes, read MOS:DTT to see how to add code into the table for compliance with MOS:ACCESS. Reliable sources such as WaPo are fine but use the url-access=subscription parameter if they need people to pay for them. And the footnotes need referencing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I've solved all the other problems except the 'col method'. I couldn't get a hang of it and program started showing errors. And the links are no longer working. I'm kind of stuck. You can view my edits in the history to tell me where I was wrong.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a look later and try to fix the issues I've raised! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I've done the row scopes. It's made the colour go away which isn't necessarily a bad thing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thank you so much.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 03:37, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

List of 24 Hours of Le Mans winnersEdit

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This is the list is about all those drivers who have won the 24 Hours of Le Mans sports car race overall. Such famous names in the world of motor racing to have won the race include Tom Kristensen, Jacky Ickx, Derek Bell, Emanuele Pirro, Frank Biela, Graham Hill, Alexander Wurz, José Froilán González, A. J. Foyt, Henri Pescarolo and more recently Fernando Alonso. Should the list pass, it will be the first featured list related specially to sports car racing on Wikipedia. I look forward to all comments MWright96 (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments
  • "close by the city" => "close to the city"
  • "The race along with the Indianapolis 500 and the Monaco Grand Prix forms part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport" => "The race forms part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport along with the Indianapolis 500 and the Monaco Grand Prix" seems more natural to me
  • "winning driver's feet and hands and signature" => "winning driver's feet, hands and signature"
  • "placement in the pavement at Le Mans' Saint Nicholas district" => "placement in the pavement in Le Mans' Saint Nicholas district"
  • "There have been four countries who have" => "There have been four countries which have"
  • "Porsche hold the record [.....] 19 since its" - plural/singular disagreement
  • "Joest Racing have achieved more wins than every entered racing team on 13 occasions" - I don't understand this. Is it meant to be "Joest Racing have achieved more wins than any other racing team, having won on 13 occasions"?
  • "three victorious participants per car became the norm" - just "three participants per car became the norm", surely?
  • "Overall and no lower class winners are included" - apologies, but I don't understand what this means, can you reword/elaborate?
  • Image captions are all complete sentences so need full stops
  • Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Support from TRMEdit

  • Is there a ref for the French-language title of the race?
  • "industrialist Emile Coquile to " comma after Coquile.
  • "a cast ... are cast" repetitive.
  • "won the 1996 race.[10] " overlinked.
  • "the 1923 edition" ditto.
  • Consider converting the distance to miles for those who don't "get" the metric system.
  • And I would put (km) explicitly in the header as well as in the hover-over {{abbr}} text.
  • As distance is in the table, is it worth noting shortest and longest race distances in the lead? I personally find it interesting that the average race winning distance has gone up by a factor of around 2.5 since the 1920s.

That's it. It's a good piece of work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

  • @The Rambling Man: All of the above points have been addressed 15:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, nice work. Happy to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

List of accolades received by The MandalorianEdit

Nominator(s): Brojam (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because The Mandalorian is a critically acclaimed series that has garnered numerous accolades and it meets the criteria for a featured list. This list is thoroughly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements for a featured list similar to recent FLC of television series. Look forward to your comments. Brojam (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment
  • Currently, because of the quote mark at the start, "Luke Skywalker appears" sorts at the top when that column is re-sorted. It should sort under L (I guess - people's names sort based on the surname but in this case it's more than just his name that forms the cell value........) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Fixed. - Brojam (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Comments
  • For the Maxwell Weinberg Publicist Showmanship Television Award, it might seem obvious but I would specify that Disney+ won it for this series, not just for existing generally
  • Hugo Award entry for Jon Fav sorts in the wrong place
  • Note a isn't a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your feedback. I have addressed all your comments. - 15:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123Edit

  • From experience, most TV awards lists are titled "List of awards and nominations received by X", not "List of accolades received by X". I've started a discussion at WT:TV to see if this standard should continue with lists such as this.
    • Thanks for starting the discussion at WT:TV. There definitely should be consistency between films and tv lists. Since Star Wars is both a film and tv franchise, I was following the reasoning of the discussion for WandaVision's list title. - Brojam (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The lead is boring – the second paragraph is just a long list of recognitions it's received and needs to be reworked. One thing that might help is adding notable facts about the show's awards. (One example: the show received 24 Emmy nominations this year, which tied for the most nominations. You don't have to use this – it's just one I found pretty quickly – but it shows there is more interesting info that could be included.)
    • Alright, I'll work on improving the lead. - Brojam (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  • 2021 Nebula Awards have been presented, so the table should be updated accordingly
    • Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Emmy nominations for lead/supporting acting don't specify episodes, so Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series should not specify an episode
    • Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Category titles for Art Directors Guild Awards and Nebula Awards should be consistent
    • Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  • "while the second season" should be "and the second season"
  • "most accolades recognizing the series itself, acting, directing, writing, production values, score, and visual effects" this is broad and basically every area you can win in, what's the exception that makes it "most" instead of just all? I guess it's good to say it's been comprehensively recognized, but this could also emphasize what it's best at.
  • Agree with comment above about the lead, superlatives should be highlighted. Reywas92Talk 18:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Articles by John NealEdit

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

John Neal (writer) wrote so many articles for magazines and newspapers that I WP:SPLIT that part of the John Neal bibliography into a separate list that includes some of the earliest American art criticism, the first article by an American ever published in a British literary magazine, the first history of American literature, and the first encouragements of Edgar Allan Poe and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. All the relevant comments brought up in the larger bibliography's recent successful FLC I used to improve this list as well, so I'm feeling pretty good about this. I hope you decide to look through this one and leave some comments! Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments on the leadEdit

  • "This list of articles by American writer John Neal (1793–1876) is part of the larger John Neal bibliography" - articles should not start with meta statements along the lines of "This article...." Try "The bibliography of American writer John Neal included many articles"
Thank you for bringing this up. I was wondering about this when I wrote it. I just rewrote those first couple of sentences. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • No need to repeat his full name in para 2, just use his surname
Agreed! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I would merge the last two paragraphs as they are both very short
Agreed! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I will look at the list itself later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Wonderful. I'll address your later comments soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments on the list (as far as 1825)Edit

  • Some of the values in the date column don't sort correctly. December 1816 sorts before October 1816, December 1817 before September 1817, 1819 is just all over the place, etc.
  • "A criticism Lord Byron's Manfred" - missing the word "of"
  • "Alleges that John Taylor's identification of Junius as Sir Philip Francis to be false" - bit of a grammar issue here
  • "An exploration of what is an isn't original" - missing the d on "and"
  • "An exploration of how women are unlike, but not inferior, to men" => "An exploration of how women are unlike, but not inferior to, men"
  • More to come :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I just fixed all the issues raised in the above 6 comments. The date column used to use only Template:Sort, but during Wikipedia:Peer review/John Neal bibliography/archive1, a reviewer convinced me to introduce Template:Date table sorting here and there in that list to simplify the code. I then applied those changes to this list. I see that the consequence was the sorting issue you raised, which I believe is fully fixed now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I think there might be one you missed - September 19, 1818 still sorts before all the other dates in that year...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for finding that! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

More comments on the listEdit

  • "early impressions of England over late 1823 through early 1824" => "early impressions of England from late 1823 through early 1824"
  • "High praise for Edgar Allan Poe's work for the Southern Literary Messenger, his short story "Bon-Bon," and his poem "The Coliseum;" - missing closing quote mark on The Coliseum
  • "A call for better construction and operation practices for Steamships " - steamships is not a proper noun so shouldn't have a capital S
  • "Asks why Brother Jonathan isn't" => "Asks why Brother Jonathan is not"
  • "ships seized by the Napoleonic France" => "ships seized by Napoleonic France"
  • "written to accompany an accompanying engraving" - any way to avoid that repetition?
  • "Support's the claims in his June 9, 1855 submission" - supports should not have an apostrophe
  • Same on the next row
  • ""which was nothing more nor less than a clever piece of advertising" - no closing quote mark anywhere
  • "based on notes from his stay in London over forty years earlier;[338] published in 2 installments" => "two installments"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I just fixed all the comments raised in this section. Thank you for reading through this list and finding all these issues! Would you say that you now support this nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments Support from SdkbEdit

  • As an art critic Neal was the first in the US is a little awkward phrasing. Maybe just Neal was the first art critic in the US? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Rephrased! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Compared to Neal's comparative lesser success in creative works, "his critical judgments have held. Where he condemned, time has almost without exception condemned also." The quotes in the lead, particularly this one, are not attributed, which seems to go against WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this up. I removed a few quotes and attributed the remaining ones, so I think this issue is resolved. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks good now! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there any reason that the first three external links have wikilinks to relevant pages but that University of Pennsylvania is not similarly linked? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Nope! Wikilink added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Lastly, I don't personally have any notability objections, but given that this is a subtopic page of the bibliography article, which itself is a subtopic page of Neal's main article, I think it might be helpful to hear your argument for why this topic meets WP:LISTN. Having the case for notability discussed on record here can be a bit of a bulwark or at least a point of reference for anyone considering proposing an upmerge in the future. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this up. Certainly this list and the John Neal bibliography from which it is split off are both notable because John Neal's written works have "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" (quoting WP:LISTN) that have published their own John Neal bibliographies, separating out his articles in magazines and newspapers from his poems, pamphlets, novels, etc, as you typically see in a prolific author's bibliography. In the bibliography, I chose "to limit [the] large [list of articles by John Neal] by only including entries for independently notable items" (quoting WP:LISTN again) and splitting off the rest into this list. The bibliography list is about 123k bytes and this list is about 173k, so per WP:SIZESPLIT, it seemed well justified to split out the articles section. Even though those guidelines "apply less strongly to list articles", it seems to me that the large size of the two lists in question justifies a size split. Furthermore, the way this list is split out from the bibliography seemed like a "natural way" per WP:SPLITLIST, in that it provided an opportunity to limit the articles included in the bibliography to only the most notable ones to serve as "a short summary of the material that is removed" (quoting WP:SPINOUT) while keeping the larger list intact in this separate list. And I think that pretty well summarizes my thinking on this! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Overall, this looks very solid; best of luck with the rest of the review! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sdkb: Thank you for looking this over and bringing up these issues. With all of them addressed, do you support this nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I haven't reviewed the list body, but I just did a source formatting review as well, and your command there is really impeccable! The only thing at all I was able to find was that there's a little bit of inconsistency in whether you link works/publishers: e.g. Harvard University is linked but Bucknell University Press is not. I personally really like to link works/publishers, as it allows readers to go check out what we have to say about them and verify their reliability, but for the purposes of FLC, all that matters is that you choose either linking or unlinking and be consistent. Once that's resolved, I'll be happy to support on the lead, the source formatting, and the overall article formatting. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I like that idea. I just added Wikilinks for all publishers with Wiki articles. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support on the lead, the source formatting, and the overall article formatting, as I have reviewed those areas and all of my comments have been addressed. I'll leave it to others to review the notes column and other portions of the body (as Chris is doing above) and to do spot checks on sources. Overall, this is another great entry in Dugan's excellent work to make our coverage of Neal among the most comprehensive of any biography on Wikipedia. For transparency, I should note that Dugan and I know each other off-wiki. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review — PassEdit

Thanks for taking the time to do an image review! I just added a link to the image source info to where the original 1856 publication is hosted on Internet Archive. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Note about sourcesEdit

The majority of the citations in this list refer to sources that are not available on the web, but that I have in my home. Anybody willing to do a citation spot check is welcome to email me a request for scans of certain pages of certain books and I will most likely be able to provide them without having to go to the library. Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2020–2021 China–India skirmishesEdit

Nominator(s): DTM (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for a featured list because I think it is close to meeting the required quality criteria, if not having already met them. Further, it is part of a topic whose parent article 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes is also currently in the line for being reviewed under GA criteria. I hope to take both of the articles past the FL and GA quality standards respectively. This featured list has a good intro summary, and the list itself covers both relevant military and diplomatic events. This is my first featured list (FL) nomination. (I was part of a previous FL however another editor took it through the review process.) DTM (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123Edit

I have several major concerns with this list regarding the featured list criteria.

  • How is this list unique from the main article 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes? In other words, why do we need both the main article and this stand-alone timeline? Per FLCR #3C, a featured list "does not largely duplicate material from another article", but I scanned the items in the timeline and would estimate that at least 60–70% of them are covered in some way in the main article already.
While there is clearly an overlap, the difference is visible in the amount of summarization present. The timeline summarizes the main article even more, compressing into it more events with less detail. Take for example the main skirmish during this period, the Galwan Valley skirmish on 15/16 June 2020. While the main article has an entire 900 plus words on it, the timeline has two short sentences. And this is exactly what the article title denotes— timeline. The timeline gives significance to when an event happened and not why. DTM (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • What are the criteria for including items in this list? Per FLCR #3A, a featured list should provide "at least all of the major items", yet there are many dates in the main article that are not mentioned here. For instance, the following is a quote from the main article: "On 21 May, the Indian Express reported that Chinese troops had entered the Indian territory in the Galwan River valley and objected to the road construction by India within the (undisputed) Indian territory." This seems like a major event, so why does the timeline make no mention of it?
In response to the example you raised, what I had in mind here was that only Indian sources recorded this. In the timeline I have tried reducing this. So take for example the Galwan clash. Both India and Chinese sources talk about it, irrespective of the what or why of it. When I have only used a Chinese source or only an Indian source, it is for less important events.
Notable and un-notable entry into anothers territory has to be differentiated between. I have placed a chart in Sino-Indian border dispute which displays hundreds of transgressions "Major sites of Chinese transgressions on the LAC (2015–2019)".
Thank you for raising this point. I will go through the article and see the level of consistency once more. DTM (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Is this list stable? The situation is apparently ongoing (the infobox in the main article states that the dates are "5 May 2020 – present"), so it is quite possible that this list could continue to change. Per FLCR #6, a featured list "does not change significantly from day to day".
Yes, the skirmish is still going on. However, what has already been recorded in the list cannot change significantly. This is to say while the content is about a skirmish, the content itself is not too controversial. And here we must remember that the "when" matters more than the what or why. If new literature appears which causes significant changes... well isn't that the case with any topic? DTM (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not opposing the article right now, but I want to hear your thoughts on these issues first. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I would like to withdraw this nomination. Too many issues remaining to ask others to review it at this stage. Regards. DTM (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Don't feel compelled to remove the nomination based solely on my comments – I'm willing to work with you on that – but if you still want to withdraw the nomination, I suggest using Template:@FLC to ping the FLC directors. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi RunningTiger123, thank you for the concerns. After a breather, I can now focus on and address your comments. I will take up comments from any other editors as well. While I still think I nominated this prematurely (in a bout of enthusiasm) I also think the concerns can be addressed, improving the quality of the article in the direction of a FL, now or in the future. DTM (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
RunningTiger123, I have provided explanations for your three concerns above. DTM (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment by Fowler&fowlerEdit

I don't usually review featured lists, but did run into this submission accidentally, and figured it'd be worth my two cents. Clearly, a lot of hard work went into it; for this the author deserves praise. The list has much potential; however, in its current form, it roundly fails criterion 2 (i.e "has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.") The lead is a bit on the opaque side. An average WP reader, unfamiliar with the context, will learn very little as the burden of explanation is passed off to the reader or to Wikilinks. There is no map (neither local nor regional). The reader has no idea where the skirmishes took place, nor what a line of actual control is, which moreover is being described as "notional." Also "melee," has all sorts of meanings, not just hand-to-hand combat ... Anyway, long story short, I won't oppose or support, nor return to this article, but recommend that the author rewrite the lead with the average WP reader in mind. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)Edit

  • Please add alt text to images with the '|alt=' parameter; note that alt text should briefly describe what the image is of (in coordination with the caption), not try to describe what it looks like. --PresN 01:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

National preserveEdit

Nominator(s): Reywas92Talk 20:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Next in my series of US protected areas is the national preserve, which like the National recreation area was a designation created to accommodate protecting places that were already impacted by people and didn't meet the criteria of national park or national monument. Then it became a way to allow hunting in protected places, sometimes connected with parks or monuments where it's banned. Although they have those differences, they're still beautiful places I'd like to visit. It's a shorter list than my others and I appreciate your reviews! Reywas92Talk 20:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

  • I would merge the last two paragraphs of the lead as they are both very short
    • Done, though these sentences aren't actually related or parallel facts so I considered even splitting the last paragraph. Other thoughts are welcome.
  • "management of reserves can be delegated to the state in which they reside" - do reserves really "reside"? Maybe "are located"?
    • Done
  • "They are home to nine-banded armadillos, bobcat, river otter, alligators" - plural/singular/singular/plural?
    • Done
  • Under Glacier Bay, what's ATV?
    • Linked
  • "There are no roads but it is has access" - stray word in there
    • Done
  • "Summer visitors float down the rivers abd see remnants of gold mining" - typo in there
    • Done
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review – PassEdit

  • Version reviewed — 1
Formatting
  • Ref#3 – "Washington, D.C."; be consistent with including location. (Either all or none)
  • Ref#4 – Add URL access date and website name.
  • Ref#5 – Add July 14, 2020 as date.
  • Ref#6 – Inconsistent in usage of "National Park Service" and "www.nps.gov". Also, why is (U.S. National Park Service) there in the title?
    • That's how the citation tool autogenerated it.
  • Ref#7 – Check the date. Of-course Nixon gave the speech on "February 8, 1972", but I'm fairly confident that the web page given here wasn't published in 1972. Also, just a suggestion that we can replace the current url with a permanent url (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/255047)
    • Not sure what you mean, I'm citing the primary souce of his speech, not the fact that UCSB put it on their website, which doesn't have a date.
      • @Reywas92 – If it doesn't has any date, better remove the date parameter. 1972 looks odd for date in a {{citeweb}} template. However, its up-to you, and is a minor issue. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
        • Well I changed it to {citation} and it's the same formatting, I'll just leave that.
  • Ref#11 and 12 are probably fine.
  • Ref#13 – Title ""Do Things Right the First Time" Administrative – Quotes inside the title should be in under single quotation marks to avoid these 2 quote marks forced by the template.
  • Ref#15 – If the URL is of the chapter, it should use the "Chapter URL" parameter.
  • Ref#19 – Statesman Journal is linked, which is not consistent with rest of the article. And "Salem, Oregon" is included as location, which too is inconsistent.
  • Ref#31 – The title should have a endash (–) instead of a usual dash (-).
Reliability
  • All good. In previous such featured list nominations, using "National Park Service" as a source was determined to be OK.
Verifiability

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I ran the bot, but I'm confused why it chose to link to the 2010 version of the pages for many of them.
If my understanding is correct, the IA bot usually finds and adds the latest archived URL. It may be that, for various sources cited in this article, the last archived link was in 2010. Nobody since archived it... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Well these have been archived since then so idk, I may just remove them for the NPS homepages. Reywas92Talk 15:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

All done thanks. Reywas92Talk 13:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Pass for source review. Is this going to be a Featured topic sometime in future (which would be great to see). Would appreciate if you could review this nomination. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Eventually yes! National Historic Site (United States) will need a 145-item table though.... Will do yours soon. Reywas92Talk 16:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)Edit

  • Tables need captions to allow screen reader software to 'jump' straight to them without reading out all of the text above them each time; add as the first line in the table |+ caption_text, or if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header you can make it only visible to screen reader software like |+ {{sronly|caption_text}}. --PresN 01:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    Done, thanks. Reywas92Talk 03:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, all looks well. A fine list. --Tone 14:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Snooker world rankings 2019/2020Edit

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the ranking system used for the 2019-20 snooker season. I have split the main table into two as it was very long. Let me know what you think about this nomination. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by commentEdit

  • Players' names in tables should sort based on surname, not forename -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
    • This might take a while, as there is 128 people to update, unless there's an easier way? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
      • @Lee Vilenski: - any update on the above.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Sorry about that, should now be sortable by last name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
          • I think you may have missed a few, unfortunately. In the first table, Andy Lee still sorts under A and Jamie O'Neill under J...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

More commentsEdit

  • "contributing to a players world ranking" => "contributing to a player's world ranking"
  • "Originally, the world rankings were decided only based on" => "Originally, the world rankings were decided based only on"
  • "where he had over 500,000 point lead" => "where he had a lead of over 500,000 points"
  • "On these dates, ranking points from the 2017–18 snooker season are removed" => "On these dates, ranking points from the 2017–18 snooker season were removed"
  • "used to determine the seedings for preceding tournaments" - "preceding" means "previous/earlier", so that cannot be the right word here
  • One table has revisions 1-9 but then the next one suddenly also has 0 and 10.....?
    • Indeed, revision 0 is the one from the end of the prior season, and number 10 is the same, the one at the end of this season. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "The names are sorted by the scores at the end of the season" => "The names are initially sorted by the scores at the end of the season" (because the user can re-sort them) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments

  • Revision dates: "players" should be "player's" with the apostrophe.
  • Not the biggest deal in the world, but the sources for this table are out of numerical order. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from BennyOnTheLooseEdit

  • Consider opening the article with something like "The Snooker world rankings 2019/2020 were..."
    • I'm not the biggest fan of shoe-horning in the title of the article like this. I don't think it's an improvement. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Might be useful to include what a snooker season is in the lead.
  • Might be useful to include the start and end dates of the season in the lead.
    • I'm not sure this is neccesary, as we know it can change season on season. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I meant specifically for 2019/2020; or maybe something like "the season started with the x tourament in [month] and lasted until the end of the world championship in [month]. Not obligatory, as the dates are a click away at 2019–20 snooker season. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Consider adding a nav box to the previous and next years' rankings (in addition to the nav box at the end.)
    • I was thinking about creating an infobox for this, adding things like the season dates, number one player at the end of the season, and world champion etc. It's still something I'm playing with, but I don't think infoboxes are relevant for a FLC. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Consider adding something about relegations, and possibly about promotions, to the World Snooker Tour based on ranking positions. (I'm not sure exactly how it worked or works, especially with multi-year tour cards and wild cards.)
  • Weren't defending champions seeded first in tournaments?
    • They were, but finding an actual source that comments this is ridiculously difficult. Also, quite a few of the events didn't see the defending champion qualify (such as the German Masters, Players and Tour Championship). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
      • For German Masters, it looks like Zhao Xintong, who defeated defending champion Kyren Wilson, went to Wilson's place in the last 32, not that the draw was re-done after qualifying. But I take your point about sources for some of this stuff being unavailable. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • If defending champions were seeded first, amend "Seedings for each event were the world rankings" to say defending champions were top seeds and the rest were in list order.
    • Same deal as above, but also the world champion was also seeded at least second. It didn't show up much, as Trump was almost always number one. I have reworded to make it less definitive Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason the images are different sizes? If not, I suggest making them the same as each other.

Not much...BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  • "since the 1976" - either remove "the" or amend to which season it was.
  • Given that there aren't many independent sources cited specifically about the 2019/2020 rankings, I had a look at what Snooker Scene said when it published the end of season ranking list. There is a comment there that Trump's six ranking titles in a season was "unprecedented" and, amongst some other notes on individual players' ranking changes, that Mark Williams "experienced the sharpest decline among the elite, plummeting from third to tenth". Might be worth mentioning Trump's record-breaking season but I didn't see anything there or in a quick search of other news sources from August/September 2020 that was a significant omission from the article text. (No issues with offical WST/WPBSA sources for the stats details.)
    • I have added, with a different ranking. I'd be against talking about Williams, as they are just describing the top 16 players, and there were much bigger drops down the leaderboard than seven positions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

BennyOnTheLoose. All done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)Edit

  • The column header cells need to be marked with `scope=col`; currently you have `scope=column` in the first table and nothing in the second/third. Note that since you have subheader cells in the second table, those should get colscopes as well.
  • The "primary" cell in each row needs to be marked with `scope=row` (e.g. `| 1` becomes `!scope=row| 1`); this combined with the colscopes allows screen reader software to accurately read out the table as a data table. --PresN 01:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    • No worries PresN, I can do that. There's about 300 rows to do, so I'll get to work! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@WP:FLC director and delegates: - was there anything more I'd need to do on this nomination? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Image review — PassEdit

  • I see both the images licenced appropriately. I'll suggest adding ALT text. Rest, Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Chuck MosleyEdit

Nominator(s): 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 15:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Chuck was never the strongest singer, nor the most consummate navigator of the music industry, but he was truly one of a kind. I've modelled this list on the previous articles List of songs recorded by Faith No More, which it will have some overlap with, and List of songs recorded by Jason Newsted, both of which were successful at FLC before. Any comments or critiques on this one would be greatly welcome, and if you take the time out of your day to listen to some of his work, allow me to recommend "Chinese Arithmetic", "Shout", or "Tractor" as standouts. Thanks in advance for any contributions, and don't be afraid to Introduce Yourself. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 15:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRMEdit

  • "During his career, Mosley recorded" he recorded.
  • "joining Faith No More" in what year?
  • "1985's We Care a Lot," would oddly prefer "We Care a Lot (1985),"...
  • "being fired in 1988" why? And maybe try to avoid three different years in one sentence.
  • "début" I think by now we've adopted this into English without the need for a diacritic.
  • ""due to the disease of addiction" " as that's so esoteric, suggest it's attributed.
  • Quotes are unusual in this type of article but I kinda like them. " up?’." could use not having double punctuation nor curly punctuation.
  • "cover of Sinéad O'Connor's "Nothing Compares 2 U". is this referenced? And wasn't it Prince who wrote it?
  • Any chance of telling us when Mosley was pictured in each of those images?

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks. I think I've got most of these at present--I didn't know whether to include a caption in the lead image (it could be done using a table row), and the O'Connor image is now a multiple image template showing her and Prince, with an added cite to support who did what. Changes are here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 10:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review – PassEdit

  • All the images are freely licenced. 2 are from Flickr, and 2 are own work of an commons user. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by commentEdit

  • "One of Mosley's last releases included" - either "One of Mosley's last releases was" or "Mosley's last releases included" but not this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    I've reworded this one—the meaning was that the release was the Joe Haze Sessions recorded and the song was included on that, but I've rewritten it instead as "Mosley posthumously released a cover ...". 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 10:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)Edit

  • The table needs a caption: `|+ caption_text` as the first line of the table code, or if that caption would duplicate a nearby header, you can hide it from visual browsers like `|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}`. Captions allow screen reader software to scan straight to a named table without having to read out all of the text before it first each time. --PresN 18:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
    Added; just used the title of the article but can amended it if brevity is better. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 10:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

More commentsEdit

  • "both as a solo artist and as a member of Faith No More, Cement, and Primitive Race." - and Indoria, judging from the table?
  • Could do with mentioning /explaining Indoria in paragraph 3 as well. Where does it fit into his overall career?
  • In some cases there are up to four versions of the same song listed separately. Do these all need their own separate listing?
  • That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Honestly the Indoria release is something which wouldn't even pass GNG for its own article, there's so little coverage of them out there that this was all I was able to include, and I suspect without Mosley's appearance there would be less than nothing as unreliable fan blogs wouldn't even be picking it up due to his connection. I have nothing else I could source it to and that's why I wasn't really including them in the same breath as projects which at least have sourcing, if not always standalone articles, but I could add it to the sentence in your first point if you feel it merits inclusion there. As to multiple entries for songs, anything listed more than once is a separate recording, maybe a live version or a re-recording or a different demo version of a song; this can be seen at List of songs recorded by Faith No More too with some of the re-recordings or live versions. It's the sort of information that appeals to the kind of completionist fan--like me!--who wants to know all the different variations, I suppose. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 20:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - might be worth delinking Indoria and his/her/their album if you genuinely think they aren't notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
    I've taken the links out as you suggest. Thanks for your review. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 09:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

List of British divisions in World War IIEdit

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This list covers all British divisions that were active during the Second World War. This is a list of 85 formations (two airborne, 12 anti-aircraft, 11 armoured, one cavalry, ten County (coastal defence), and 49 infantry), although not all were active at the same time. The article also provides supplemental information for each division type, such as an overview all their role, equipment, and intended and actual strengths. A background section overviews the size of the British Army, how many divisions were intended to be raised, and the fluctuating number that were active. The list has previously been assessed and passed as an A-Class list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Procedural note
  • @EnigmaMcmxc – The instructions state "Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." I see that you have nominated this one and List of commanders of the British 2nd Division together, within span of minutes, and neither of the nomination has any comments at all......... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Right ... I've already started reading the first list and I'll probably support, and if so, I'm guessing you won't have long to wait for one additional support, and then you can nom this one (as long as there are no unresolved issues). - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    I am so sorry, I spaced over that! Should I just remove this from the list, and re-add it later when appropriate?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not sure ... pinging PresN. - Dank (push to talk) 16:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    That's fine with me, it doesn't appear that it will have to wait long, so no point deleting and recreating it, which is the other option. --PresN 12:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@EnigmaMcmxc – I see that your other nomination (List of commanders of the British 2nd Division) has two support without any oppose. Reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. So, this nomination can now proceed, and can be placed back with other nominations. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review – PassEdit

Version reviewed — 1Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Formatting

Citations

  • Ref#45 – add URL access dates
  • Ref#48 – add URL access dates
    • Regarding these two, the access-date= template does not work within the confines of the Gazette reference template. Any suggestions?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref#151 – I'll capitalize 'B' in 'badge'
  • Ref#190 – add URL access date, also it has 404 error.
    • Looks like I forgot to add in the "supp=y" part of the template, these both work now. Regarding the access date part, please see above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

References

  • All the books/journals in the 'References' section are well formatted. Most of them have OCLC or ISBN number, properly formatted. Publication details and location are provided in all.
  • Do check for links of authors.
    • 'Playfair, I. S. O.' is linking to a redirect page, which should be fixed.
    • 'Playfair, I. S. O.' should be linked in every citation where they are the author. Per MOS:REFLINK, repeating links in citations is not' considered overlinking.
  • Few other authors like George Forty, Lionel F. Ellis, William Jackson, etc. should be linked. Check for all the authors.
    • Links added to the above, several others, and all checkedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Reliability
  • No issues at all. The list has a wide range of sources, all seem reliable.
Verifiability
  • Page numbers are provided for all book/journal sources. I spot checked a few, and found no issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address all. The only one I have not, so far, is regarding the Gazette per the above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Not a major issue if the template doesn't support access date. Source review – Pass. Would appreciate your comments on this nomination. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRMEdit

  • World War II or Second World War? Be consistent.
    My standing policy is that the vast majority of British-related sources use "Second World War" as the correct terminology for British English. However, its apparently not sound to use that as the article title. The only time "World War II" is used is in the article title, book titles, and relevant links in the see also section; it is "Second World War" throughout the article, so about as consistent as one can get without having to have a fight about the article title. I am, however, more than happy to move the article; I just think it will end up getting reverted at some point.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "Here Major-General Charles Keightley,..." where was this picture taken, geographically I mean?
    I have added Italy to the end of the sentence, prior to the date.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Two sentences in the lead are referenced, just two. That material should be in the main text too and referenced there instead.
    I have removed the refs from the lede, and inserted that cited text into the background section and done some rewording. Do these changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • You can link British Army in the lead.
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • And again in the opening sentence of the main body.
    DittoEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "British paratroopers during training" on my screen, this just squashes the table a bit, could use the {{clear}} template to stop that happening.
    I have added the template in, I hope I have used it correctly?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Italian/Tunisian Campaign -> campaign according to our own articles.
    Capital droppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • No good reason to make a Notes column (free text) sortable.
    Sorting ability removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "during the Western Desert Campaign before" campaign issue again.
    capital letter also droppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Plenty of these in the "Armoured divisions" table.
    I think this was in reference to the campaign links, which have now been addressed. If not, please let me know.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "Cavalry divisions" seems silly to have a sortable table with one entry.
    Table updatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "The division was redesignated as the 77th..." complete sentence so needs a full stop, check all others (e.g. "The division ended the war in Germany").
    I think I got all related onesEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "[169][137][170]" ref order, check other multiple refs.
    References reorderedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick run through, looks like a decent list. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address them all aboveEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
@The Rambling Man:: Just wanted to follow-up on this, and establish if the changes made addressed your concerns.
  • Support I reviewed this article at A-class and support its promotion. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:52, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Comments
  • "the UK had two armoured, 24 infantry and seven anti-aircraft divisions" - these should either be all written as numbers or all as words
  • "Others, such as the 79th Armoured Division were never intended to act as a fighting formation" - comma needed after Division
  • "two airborne, 12 anti-aircraft, 11 armoured, one cavalry" etc - see above
  • "the regular army, which numbered 224,000 men with a reserve of 173,700 at the start of the war and the part-time" - comma needed after war
  • In the first paragraph of the background section you use both "Interwar period" (with a capital I and no hyphen) and "inter-war period" (with a lower case I and a hyphen)
  • "had shrunk to 26 divisions: five armoured and 21 infantry" - see above
  • "The recruitment[...] took through to 1943" read oddly. Maybe "The recruitment for the size of this force took until 1943"
  • Date column in the anti-aircraft table does not sort correctly (November sorts before October)
  • "In Italy, starting June 1944" => "In Italy, starting in June 1944"
  • Cavalry photo caption does not need a full stop
  • "These formations maintained their costal defence role" - coastal spent incorrectly
  • "The division was formed when "Brocforc" was redesignated." - can we get any more explanation of what "Brocforc" was.......?
  • Infantry photo caption does not need a full stop
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for your review and comments. I have made several edits to the article, and attempted to address all points raised.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

List of Billboard Latin Pop Airplay number ones of 1997Edit

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I may have been eliminated from WikiCup, but I am still determined to work on these lists no matter what. I can faintly remember several of these songs being played when I was child living in New Jersey in the 90s. But enough about me for now, I address any issues as always. Erick (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments
  • "Latin Pop Airplay is a chart that ranks the top-performing songs (regardless of genre or language) on Latin pop radio stations in the United States, published by Billboard magazine" => "Latin Pop Airplay is a chart published by Billboard magazine that ranks the top-performing songs (regardless of genre or language) on Latin pop radio stations in the United States," (current word order makes it sound like Billboard publishes the radio stations)
  • "longest-running number-one-song" => "longest-running number-one song" (in the Enrique caption)
  • "Estefan herself obtained her second number one in 1997 with "No Pretendo"." - that was her first number one of the year, not second
  • "which became her first number song on the chart" - the word "one" is missing
  • "Fey obtained her first and only chart-toppers" => "Fey obtained her first and only chart-topper"
  • Fey photo caption is missing the " at the end of the song title
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks, I resolved everything you brought up. For Estefan, I meant her second number one overall so I changed that to make it more clear. Erick (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from TRMEdit

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
*"year was "Lloviendo Flores" by" this redirects to an album, not a song.
  • "the issue dated January 4 and" split sentences.
  • " by "Las Cosas Que Vives" by Laura Pausini. "Las Cosas Que Vives" had" repetitive, but perhaps after you've split the sentence and reworded it won't be so bad.
  • "Sólo en Ti" no link in the lead?
  • "with "En el Jardín"," el ->El per our article.
  • "with 10 weeks" ten.
  • ""El Reloj" our article calls it "El reloj".

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks as always for your comments TRM. Aside from topping the Latin pop chart, I couldn't find any other useful for "Lloviendo Flores" that would satisfy WP:NSONG. No reviews, no accolades, nada. Since Solo en Ti is the Spanish version of "Only You", I linked the original song, but if it's desirable to link the Spanish language cover, that's fine, I can do that. Erick (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review — PassEdit

  • All the Flickr images are well licenced, and have appropriate ALT text. Pass from image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by FriendsEdit

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Friends is a classic TV show, and now this list can be an actually useful resource to those reading about the show. (Seriously, go read the old lead – it was basically incomprehensible.) It took a lot of work digging through Internet Archive and online databases to find sources, but I'm very satisfied with the result and confident it's ready for FL status. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - I got nothing at all, nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Source review – PassEdit

  • Version reviewed — 1
Formatting
  • For multiple combined referenced, can we have a semi colon separating them, or is it fine the way it is?
    • I agree that the current format can sometimes be unclear, but I haven't been able to find a better option. Semicolons would look like this: [2]. It works, but the semicolon isn't super obvious; the line break is clearer. I tried using Template:Multiref2 in response to your suggestion, but it seems to mess up the formatting – compare [3] to [4]. I could also try bullet points like [5], similar to a few of the notes in the lead, but the tradeoff there is that it makes the footnote taller by indenting and by adding a line to the top of every footnote (even if I didn't type anything there, it would still be a blank line). What do you think is best?
      • I personally like the bullet points, but it looks good only if used for limited citations; but in this case, when almost half citations are multiple sources, its better to leave it as it is. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • For Ref#78, could we have a link to "Factiva aprs000020010709dx1o02j9w"?
    • I don't know if there's an easy way to do it – since that ID template doesn't add the link automatically while other ID templates do, I don't think it's really possible.
      • If you have the link, you can probably pipe it. Rest, no issues... – 05:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
        • I've added a link. Because my account is through a university, I can't log in through that link to check that it works, but I'm fairly confident it does. At any rate, the ID is the same. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Rest, all the citations are consistent in formatting.
Reliability
  • Overall, no issues.
Verifiability
  • No issues.
  • This is an excellent list, and the issues are far too minor to prevent it from passing the source review. Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Footnotes
  1. ^ https://www.wikilengua.org/index.php/Ordenaci%C3%B3n_alfab%C3%A9tica
  2. ^ Davies, Jonathan (January 11, 1996). "Jokes on them: NBC, Fox top comedy noms". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 340 no. 30. pp. 1, 57. ProQuest 2467875116;
    Davies, Jonathan (February 12, 1996). "'Shorty' gets comedy honors". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 341 no. 2. pp. 3, 32. ProQuest 2467933942.
  3. ^ Davies, Jonathan (January 11, 1996). "Jokes on them: NBC, Fox top comedy noms". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 340 no. 30. pp. 1, 57. ProQuest 2467875116.
    Davies, Jonathan (February 12, 1996). "'Shorty' gets comedy honors". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 341 no. 2. pp. 3, 32. ProQuest 2467933942.
  4. ^ Davies, Jonathan (January 11, 1996). "Jokes on them: NBC, Fox top comedy noms". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 340 no. 30. pp. 1, 57. ProQuest 2467875116.

    Davies, Jonathan (February 12, 1996). "'Shorty' gets comedy honors". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 341 no. 2. pp. 3, 32. ProQuest 2467933942.




  5. ^ Multiple sources:

Support from PamzeisEdit

While I mostly support this list for promotion, I have a few comments. I've never watched the show so forgive me for any obvious mistakes.

  • The show follows the six main characters as they live and work in New York City — reads rather awkwardly to me. Perhaps replace "as they live and work" with "living and working"?
    • How about "the characters' personal and professional lives in New York City"?
  • Also, I think "main" is redundant as I would not expect a show to not follow the main characters.
    • Removed.
  • In 2002, Friends won [...]/in 1998 [...]MOS:EASTEREGG?
  • before receiving the group's Heritage Award — what group?
    • Clarified that it's the TCA Heritage Award.

That's it.   Best of luck with this list! Pamzeis (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Comments above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Pamzeis: I realized I never pinged you to let you know I'd made the changes you suggested; while you've already supported it, it would be great to know if the changes I've made were in line with what you were thinking. Thanks! RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
The list looks great! Again, best of luck with this list! Pamzeis (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

List of Yuri on Ice episodesEdit

Nominator(s): ISD (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this list meets all the requirements for FL status. It fits into the mould of similar anime episode list FLs as seen here. I am unsure what if anything needs to be added to improve the list but any suggestions to help promotion will be useful. ISD (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
;Comments
  • "It revolves around the relationships between Japanese figure skater Yuri Katsuki; his idol, Russian figure-skating champion Victor Nikiforov, and up-and-coming Russian skater Yuri Plisetsky; as the two Yuris..." => "It revolves around the relationships between Japanese figure skater Yuri Katsuki, his idol, Russian figure-skating champion Victor Nikiforov, and up-and-coming Russian skater Yuri Plisetsky, as the two Yuris..."
  • The words "for their customers" are redundant and should be removed, also there shouldn't be a full stop in the middle of that sentence
  • "On the end of the final episode" => "At the end of the final episode"
  • "it was announced Yuri on Ice would return" => "it was announced that Yuri on Ice would return"
  • "The ending theme was "You Only Live Once" by Wataru Hatano, and peaked" => "The ending theme was "You Only Live Once" by Wataru Hatano, which peaked"
  • The amount of detail about the DVDs in the lead is too much, in fact most of it isn't even mentioned in the "broadcast and distribution" section. Move most of it to there.
  • "5 years" => "five years"
  • "5th consecutive" => "fifth consecutive"
  • "prepares a training regiment" => "prepares a training regimen" (regiment is not the correct word here)
  • "though he isn't able" => "although he is not able"
  • "Though he doesn't land" => "Though he does not land"
  • "wanting to prove the world that he's worthy" => "wanting to prove to the world that he is worthy"
  • "Yuri remembers how he couldn't be there" => "Yuri remembers how he could not be there"
  • "after he'd mentioned" => "after he had mentioned"
  • "Yuri K. contemplates retiring after the GPF, and have Victor step down as coach" => "Yuri K. contemplates retiring after the GPF and having Victor step down as coach"
  • "since he's content with coaching" => "since he is content with coaching"
  • "though he isn't able to land it cleanly" => "though he is not able to land it cleanly"
  • "JJ for the first time gives a very sub-par performance" - this is literally the first mention of JJ. Who is he?
  • Note b is not a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop
  • Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I think I've made all the changes you suggested. Thanks. ISD (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you. ISD (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Link20XXEdit

  • Why is Crunchyroll italicized in the note "All English titles are taken from Crunchyroll"? It isn't a news website in this context, nor is it italici