Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tone (talk | contribs) at 07:36, 19 July 2024 (→‎Nominations). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Purge the cache to refresh this page – Table of contents – Closing instructions

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

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

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

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

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

Source reviews needed

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

Nominations

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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Argentina

Nominator(s): Tone 07:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina has 12 WHS, including the Inca roads, Iguazú falls, and old Jesuit missions. Standard style. As the list for Sudan is already seeing support, I am adding a new nomination. Tone 07:36, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

MPGuy2824
  • wikilink "calves".
  • "The missions have different layouts and are in different states of conservation," End the sentence here.
  • "around the spectacular Iguazu Falls" - Use a number (length/height/other) instead of "spectacular".
  • "On the Brazilian side".
  • "created by the hunter-gatherer communities." Remove "the".
  • "In additional to" -> "In addition to"
  • "The oldest art in the cave dates to the 10th millennium BP, while the youngest traces of inhabitants at the site were dated to around 700 CE." Since you are using an actual date in the end, I would suggest that the "10th millenium BP" be converted to "8th millenium BCE".
  • "It is a breeding ground for the southern right whale and the conservation efforts have helped the recovery of the once widely-hunted species"
  • "valley by the hunter-gatherer communities and early farmers," - Remove "the"
  • "as movements of messengers,"
  • "Clandestine Centre of Detention, Torture, and Extermination." - no need to capitalize any of those since it isn't part of the name.
  • "and then by communities that engaged in agriculture"
  • "of a 100 million years old"
  • That's all that i got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed all, thanks! Tone 12:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "served as the clandestine" to "served as a clandestine" - unless you are sure that there was only one.
    Support in advance, since the above is a minor point which I'm sure you'll fix. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed that as well. Thanks! Tone 14:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

AK

  • "Argentina accepted" I'd use ratified.
  • "Argentina, and a further" Comma unnecessary.
  • "ESMA Museum, in 2023" Comma unnecessary.
  • "missions are listed as this World Heritage Site" to "missions are included in this World Heritage Site"
  • "Iguazu Falls, spanning over" to "Iguazu Falls, which span over"
  • "and the...widely-hunted species" to "; conservation efforts in the peninsula have helped the recovery of the once widely-hunted species"
  • "245-208" en-dash.
  • "include the early dinosaurs, such as the Eoraptor" to "include early dinosaurs such as Eoraptor"
  • "plant species were identified" to "plant species have been identified"
  • "unique insight into the life in the Triassic" to "unique insight into the life of the Triassic"
  • "South America, that can" Comma unnecessary.
  • "show only little erosion." either "show little erosion" or "show only a little erosion."
  • "Ground sloths are a particular group represented." to "Ground sloths, in particular, are a well-represented group."
  • "by the Russian Jews" "the" is unnecessary.
  • 'literally "river of paintings"' Should be right after Pinturas River.
  • That's what I got. AryKun (talk) 12:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I fixed those that I agree with, I think the others are fine ;) I've had ratified in some previous lists but reviewers preferred accepted, so I'm using that one now. Tone 09:49, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. AryKun (talk) 11:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EN-Jungwon
  • Archive ref 18
  • Ref 17 is showing a blank page for me. If that's the case then change the url status to dead.

That's all. -- EN-Jungwon 02:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, 17 was the tentative site which is now obsolete. I left it on the list back then because the new page has not been updated yet. Thanks for checking! Tone 09:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Good stuff. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

National symbols of Nigeria

Nominator(s): Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The national symbols of Nigeria represent the country's identity, heritage, and values, reflecting its cultural diversity and historical journey. These symbols include the national flag, coat of arms, anthem, and pledge, as well as the national flower, animal, currency, etc. This list is intended to be part of the Developing Countries Wiki Contest, which I am participating in. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

MPGuy2824
  • 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.
  • Do you need to put the previous National Bird at all?
  • The scope for "National days" needs to be "rowgroup".
  • The images in the table need alts.
  • Most of the refs are missing archive links.
  • Unless you can find some official source for this, you should remove the row about the National Dish. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 Thank you so much for your feedback. Please can you make bullet 1 clearer for me, I couldn't quite understand that one. Heh, you literally read my mind for the national dish, I, for one, wanted to remove it initially, but I just thought I should hear from others. I'm taking that off and doing the other fixes you pointed out. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Edit the section which has the table. Right at the top of the code for the table you'll see a line "|+". Add the table caption after the two symbols. Hope that explains it. If my explanation isn't clear then try looking at a recent FL promotion with a table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 Thanks for explaining, I've fixed that and every other thing you pointed out at this time. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't checked the rest, but some archive links are still missing. Consider installing User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck-sb.js, at least temporarily. It shows that and other problems with references. (Once you install it, there will be a "Show ref check" in the tools section of any wikipage. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 Thanks for suggesting that tool, it helped me figure out the missing ones. I have fixed them now. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "calls upon Nigerians to stand".
    • "where the country is considered a public matter with officials being elected." - needs a rewrite.
    • "was re-adopted on 29 May 2024,"
    • "colloquially called October First, " - can be eliminated from the sentence.
    • "subsequent detention and death became symbols of the struggle for democracy" - according to the source's headline, Abiola became the symbol, not his detention or death.
    • "military parades, religious services, and public speeches are common on this day." - Make this a separate sentence.
    • wikilink "decimalisation".
    • The scope for the National bird should be "row", not "rowgroup".
    • The notes section of the Naira should be reduced IMO.
    • "found abundantly in Nigeria's forests and on its riverbanks."
    • That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:45, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @MPGuy2824 Thank you so much, I fixed all now except for I don't think the notes section of the Naira is too extensive. I hope you'd be okay with that. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @MPGuy2824 Any updates on this one? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      To clarify my objection in the section below (SafariScribe's comments), I think you need to define the scope of this list somehow. It should be clear to a future editor whether a new symbol (whatever it is) should be a part of this particular list or not. Based on that definition, it will be clear whether to remove or keep the National Theatre. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @MPGuy2824 Commenting on the completeness of this list, I'd say that let's take, for example, the National dish which I removed already, while not an officially declared national symbol, a President might just come tomorrow and declare it to be so, maybe not now. This also applies to any of those other symbols that some sources listed (which are not official national symbols yet). So, maybe indicating that the list might be expanded in the future would help?
      For the national theatre, like I said earlier, I am inclined to removing it because of several research I have done. I found two sources, this one at page 179, section "Official symbols", and this one at page 295, section 3.0. These two sources mention two more symbols which I will add to this list now, but none of them mentioned either the Seal of the President or the National Theatre as a national or official symbol. I, as a matter of fact, consider these sources more reliable than Legit.ng's list, because Legit.ng actually mentions the arm forces flag as a national symbol (while also mentioning the seal and the theatre), which is not exactly so, based on my current compilation and research. Legit is the only one that mentions the National Theatre as a symbol, while I found a source from a predatory journal which mentions the Seal of the President, but well, like I said, "predatory", I can't cite that in the first place. I'd be pinging @SafariScribe: in this regard because there is a clearer ground on removing the seal and the national theatre and adding the Constitution of Nigeria, National Identity Card, and the Nigerian Passport as national/official symbols. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Vanderwaalforces, if there is a consensus to remove them, then proceed. However, I have supported this list because it looks good to me and meets FL guidelines. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 17:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @MPGuy2824 Just to note that I am done with this, you might want to look? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Support promotion for prose and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments

  • Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't see how Ref 1 is verifying this sentence- "The national symbols of Nigeria represent the country's identity, heritage, and values, reflecting its cultural diversity and historical journey."
  • Author name is missing for Refs 11, 24, 26, 36, 40.
  • Ref 2 has two authors. Adrianna Simwa is not mentioned in the citation.
  • Author names for Ref 25 might need some change. There are 2 authors- Shehnaz Khan and Trish Adudu.
  • Central Bank of Nigeria is wikilinked in Ref 38, but not in Refs 10 and 14. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nitro Absynthe Thank you so much for the comments. I have fixed all these as of this time. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SafariScribe

  • Interesting!
  • The Naira symbol, ₦, is derived from the initial letter of Nigeria with a double stroke. needs a source
  • Are you certain the symbols are complete? You seemed to be missing "The National Theatre"
  • Also the "Seal of the Nigerian President": It was first used in 1979 during the regime of Shehu Shagari, and was not used from 1983 to 1999. The seal was then reinitiated in 1999. (Cited to this source)
Thank you for your comments. The sky is blue for example, does not need a source, right? I'm not sure The Naira symbol, ₦, is derived from the initial letter of Nigeria with a double stroke. is something that needs a source because it is obvious, but I have a source I can cite for that. The National Theatre and the seal of the President are not "national symbol" per se. The source you mentioned is the only that claims that. For example, the seal of the Nigerian President is more or less a child of the coat of arms, so I'd rather call the coat of arms the national symbol, than the seal. I was actually going to mention the seal in the coat of arms notes BTW, but I think I later changed my mind. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces, when you want to respond to a comment like his, you may want to reply each review, that the reviewer mayn't have to check them. Sometimes general review like the one above doesn't necessarily give the reviewer reply to a certain comment. One of the best markup is "*:". Cheers. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Seal and the theatre are national symbols, and I will like to see them in the list before concluding. Aside that, the rest of the article looks good.
@SafariScribe: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all these by now. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. I am happy to support.Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Safari Scribe: I don't see why the seal of the president and the national arts theatre are there in this list at all. We wouldn't put the Taj Mahal in a similar list for India, or the Saint Basil's Cathedral for Russia, even though they are popular cultural symbols. In addition, the seal of the president is essentially the national Coat of arms. What stops us from adding the flag of the Nigerian Navy to this list? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 I literally disputed SS, because I thought exactly the same thing you just said. But I later saw a source that claimed the Seal was a national symbol, but it was from a predatory journal I couldn’t cite. I definitely would not consider the Nigerian Navy’s flag as a national symbol.
Correctly pinging @SafariScribe. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824, of course the Nigerian Navy flag cannot be considered a national symbol. According to this source, a national or official symbol is something that makes a country unique and identifies it among others. While I am certain that the National Theatre is a national symbol, I have some doubts about the Sea of the President. However, since it identifies the President who is the supreme authority in the country, it can be considered a symbol as well (official). For example, many bishops have their own coat of arms, which helps identify them, just as the Pope does. I have no objections if anyone disputes the Seal of the Nigerian President as a national symbol. @Vanderwaalforces, the source I cited herein contains comprehensive information about these national symbols, so I recommend it during source reviewing. Cheers! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SafariScribe perhaps you’re not careful. The source you mentioned is one of the publications I cited already, while that source not only said “Here are some”, it also does not even mention the Seal of the Nigerian President nor the National Theatre as a symbol, at least, based on page 295. Like I said earlier, I found a source (which is not the one you mentioned) that mentioned the seal (not the national theatre) as a national symbol, but it is from a predatory journal and I couldn’t cite it. I am very inclined to revert back to my original version (without the seal and theatre), but let me hear from others. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanderwaalforces, provided that the Seal and National Theatre are properly sourced to a reliable source, I am good to go. If there is any argument about the Seal and Theatre, it should go to the talk page. Reverting to the original version may be disruptive as it was from a reviewer. Objections therefore should be a matter of whether the article meets the FL guidelines or not. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 10:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering - source check

  • not source-check related, but are there really no other categories this could be in?
  • I checked Special:Diff/1242228212.
  • Martins 2019: absolutely not. The very first sentence is The name Nigeria is a combination of two words – Niger and Area. - a real howler! Then there's an obvious grammar error in the first paragraph ("haven" for "having"), not to mention that most of this is word soup. If there's any fact-checking or editorial oversight here they were all asleep at the wheel.
  • Legit.ng: what makes this a reliable source? Isn't there a government source that would be better for this info?
  • Flagmakers UK: not a great source for this info, just remove this one
  • Tel Aviv Embassy, "Who designed the Nigerian flag?": I don't doubt that they're correct, but surely there's a better source for this, like a historian or a newspaper article?
  • Odesola: er, this is someone complaining about how the coat of arms doesn't represent any of the things it's supposed to. It's an opinion piece. Not sure it belongs here?
  • Tel Aviv Embassy, "The National Pledge": as before, surely correct, but also there's surely a better source?
  • the eagle, reflects the country's strength and resilience source says "strength and vision". But I don't think this is a great source, anyway.

Ok, that's just the lead, but I'll stop here - I think it would be a good idea to revisit the sources used in this article and ensure it's only using the best possible ones. -- asilvering (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering Thanks for getting to this :)
  • I have seen similar lists that are in one or two categories only.
  • See a clearly defined editorial process for this journal here, so I consider it generally reliable, even though I agree with you on the grammar error.
  • Legit.ng is generally reliable because it falls under the umbrella of WP:RS especially that they exhibit values of a WP:NEWSORG, so they are generally reliable.
  • I removed this one, thank you.
  • I replaced with better ones.
  • Removed.
  • This source is reliable but this piece is clearly labelled as an opinion, even though it states some facts about the Pledge. Would it not be reason to cite this for just that claim which it clearly and correctly verifies, no?
  • I modified this one to better represent Legit.ng as it is a generally reliable source.
Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Averageuntitleduser

I had written this up, and it's different enough that I might as well post it. And a prose comment to begin.

  • These symbols include the national flag, coat of arms, anthem, and pledge, as well as the national flower, animal, currency, etc. — suggest replacing "etc." with a more formal expression like "among others".
  • Supporting the shield are two white horses, symbolising dignity and strength. — remove “dignity”.
  • reflecting the country's aspiration for harmony among its diverse ethnic groups. — unverified, and I think it's too detailed to infer. Suggest re-citing or removing.
  • This emblem is displayed prominently on official documents, government buildings, and currency, serving as a powerful symbol of national identity, unity, and pride for Nigerians. and This anthem is performed at official events, national holidays, and significant ceremonies. — I feel uneasy with these two sentences being unsourced and encourage you to try to find citations. I might accept them if "prominently" and "serving as a powerful symbol of national identity, unity, and pride for Nigerians" were removed from the first, as these are less quantifiable, but I will have to think about it.
  • Re-cite Investopedia per the RSN (and it would be best to source 1 January and 1958). The sources given by Investopedia or a newspaper would probably suffice.
  • Grouping these together, as they should be fairly straightforward to re-cite to something like a news article. I can't find much evidence for the reliability of Financial Source, Symbols.com, Symbol Hunt, and CRW Flags, and their sites do little to convince me.

I will have another look through tonight. Otherwise, thanks for this well-written, accessible resource about Nigeria! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Averageuntitleduser Thanks for looking and the comments, I have actioned the above as of this time. For the point 4, I added appropriate sources that back the statements up. I replaced CRW Flags and Financial Source, removed Symbols.com and Symbol Hunt. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late response! I'm returning from vacation and will be able to post more thorough comments soon. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Averageuntitleduser Hi there, finding out if you got a chance? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:29, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, yes! Here goes, based on this revision.
  • I'm very skeptical of Martins 2019, and I don't think I can look past its isssues. The prose is confusing and riddled with grammatical errors, and the analysis doesn't convince me: "It is, therefore, imperative to exhibit the value of producing what we need, and consume what we produce, which is falling in love with made in Nigerian products, which logically implies fall in love with Nigeria which will drastically save the nation's foreign exchange, and thereby enhance the nation's foreign reserve." I'm just not sure it's very usable.
  • I'm having trouble finding information about IMUNA, and "Najeriya" appears to be a more popular spelling in Hausa. Does a more authoritative reference work exist that could replace this source?
  • The embassy sources, on their own merits, seem perfectly true and proportional. Still, I'd prefer news articles or governmental sources. Source 49, The Guardian article, can at least replace the last two instances of source 8. I suggest replacing the third instance of source 5 with the government source quoted by The Punch, reverifying the paragraph, and finding a source for the 1960 adoption. Source 7 and the first two instances of source 5 could then be replaced by others in the article.
  • Fold sources 18 and 21, the two from Google Arts & Culture, into source 3.
  • Source 20 fails verification.
  • The third instance of source 21 fails verification.
  • Suggest replacing source 33 with this article from The Guardian and revising as necessary. Garko seems to have written for The Guardian, but Applied Worldwide isn't convincing me as much.
  • Sorry to hassle you about this, but I suggest replacing sources 40 and 41 with an article or two, perhaps profiling the Naira, from a WP:NGRS newspaper. That way, they may be more straightforward and up-to-date.
  • Suggest removing source 43 and moving source 42 a sentence forward to replace it. This government source seems a bit more apt.
Perhaps all of my remaining suggestions are related to source formatting. Some authors are missing or generic, some titles are mismatched or contain extra metadata, some dates of publishing are missing or innacurate, websites or publishers are inconsistently linked or contain extra metadata or are missing, language parameters are missing, and some works could be placed in the "Bibliography" section; I think you get the gist. Of course, on their own, these are fairly simple fixes! Just be sure to carefully look over the citation parameters. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC) [2].[reply]

List of Zambian parliamentary constituencies

Nominator(s): -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 4th nomination in the constituency series. I've improved the lead, added a history section, and converted the list into a table with more information than was present before. I've modelled it on similar FLs like Tripura and Mizoram. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • How are the constituencies formed? Why is there an enormous difference in size among them? Does Zambia have governance and representation issues because of this severe malapportionment?
  • Would it make sense to list the Districts of Zambia covered in addition to the Province they're in?
  • Why does Template:Zambian constituencies have a Sinjembela listed?
  • I know this is a straightforward topic that might not have a ton of information, but the lead is still quite short and the table is just from a single source. Is there anything else that can be added to make this the best of Wikipedia? Reywas92Talk 15:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Reywas92, question: I am slightly new, but would that make it fail WP:CFORK? sorry if this is stupid 48JCL public (talk) 19:04, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure it's a cfork, but List of members of the National Assembly of Zambia (2021–2026) already has the names of constituencies, along with the incumbents, so there's some duplication there. This should have enough info to justify a separate page and a gold star. Reywas92Talk 14:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Formation of constituencies: Added info to the lead.
    • I've added a district column to the table.
    • Sinjembela is a former constituency. Since it would pass NGEO, I didn't remove it from the template, but moved it to its own section.
    • I have an explanation for the disparity in constituencies, but it would be WP:OR, so I'm not adding it to the article. I'll provide my explanation here for folks who might be interested: The rule is that a constituency cannot cover more than a district. This wouldn't be a problem if there were 4 or 5 times the number of constituencies as districts, but Zambia has 116 districts and 156 constituencies. The highly populated districts cannot be divided into a lot of constituencies because of this. This was interesting to find out, so thanks for asking the question. I tried to look for studies about the disparity in constituency size, but came up with nothing, unfortunately.
    • If there is any other information that you or someone else can think of that is relevant to the list, I'm happy to do the research and add to the lead. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Reywas92: Forgot to ping. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments

Thanks for checking. Fixed all of these. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nitro Absynthe: Forgot to ping. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lapadite

@Lapadite: Done both. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Staraction's comments

  • "The seat of the assembly is at the capital of the country, Lusaka and" -> "The seat of the assembly is at the capital of the country, Lusaka, and"
  • "the Vice President, the Speaker and one of the deputy speakers" -> "the Vice President, the Speaker, and one of the deputy speakers" (this one is optional considering MOS:OXFORD
  • Perhaps add alt text to the seal of Zambia within the Politics of Zambia template?
  • Add caption to infobox image - what is that building?
  • Link first-past-the-post, President in body

That's it from me. Nice work, @MPGuy2824 Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Staraction: Fixed all. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well done. Staraction (talk | contribs) 12:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo_fan2007 comments

  • I know this is a pain, but the information in the "Name" column being centered while the "Province" and "District" columns are left-align isn't consistent. Choose one or the other.
  • I feel like the image order is weird. I would recommend the Infobox and {{Politics of Zambia}} be place d consecutively in the lead, and then move the Location of Zambia and the Constituencies image to the "List" section
  • On that topic, "List" seems like a weird section title. Why not just "Constituencies"?
  • The National Assembly of Zambia is the unicameral legislature of Zambia., the duplication of "Zambia" sounds bad. I think this is fine: The National Assembly is the unicameral legislature of Zambia.
  • On that note, it would be nice to have some context for the country. Something like: The National Assembly is the unicameral legislature of Zambia, a landlocked country at the crossroads of Central, Southern and East Africa. (note, that text is from Zambia).
  • Of them, 156 are elected I think Of those is the appropriate term here.
  • every census, by the comma isn't needed.

That's what I got, nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Fixed all. The country's locator map was added to give some geographical context to the reader, but I think duplication in the text is useful. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Excellent work.

  • Zambia National Assembly Building.jpg has an appropriate CC tag and review.
  • Coat of arms of Zambia.svg has an appropriate PD tag.
  • Location Zambia AU Africa.svg has an appropriate PD tag. Following the comments above from Gonzo_fan2007, would be it be possible to locate this near the mention of Zambia's location?
  • Zambian National Assembly constituencies.svg has an appropriate PD tag. The image lacks any key to show which constituency is which. If that would be too complicated, would be separate maps for each province showing the locations of the constituencies be an alternative?
  • All images have ALT text (as noted by Nitro Absynthe above).
  • Are there appropriate thumbnail images that could be used in the table as it is quite stark? simongraham (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the Zambia locator map to just below the Infobox. Also moved the "Politics of Zambia" sidebar template to a much lower section of the page.
  • The image lacks any key to show which constituency is which. I'll see if there is enough information to correctly add numbering to the image. Might take a few days.
  • Are there appropriate thumbnail images that could be used in the table as it is quite stark? I did a cursory search for a few constituencies and there aren't images that would represent the constituency well. Assuming that the above numbering works out, I could use that to create a new image that would just show only the constituencies of a particular state and add that to the table. Doing the same thing for each state would reduce the starkness of the table. I'll ping you when these are done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simongraham: I've added numbers to the constituency map and the table. This should work as a key. See if you approve of my other idea of using state-wise subsets of this map to show in the table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824: That sounds reasonable to me. It would be interesting to see if this also resolves another issue. Currently, I feel that the map may be too small for many screens, so it may be helpful, given the constraints of MOS:IMGSIZE, to make it larger. simongraham (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "The National Assembly is the unicameral legislature of Zambia, a landlocked country at the crossroads of Central, Southern and East Africa. The seat of the assembly is at the capital of the country, Lusaka, and it is presided over by a Speaker and two deputy Speakers. The term of the assembly is five years, unless it is dissolved earlier." - none of this is sourced
  • First three columns of the table are unsourced i.e. what's the source that the 156 constituency names listed here are the 156 constituencies that exist and what's the source that each is in the province and district listed?
  • Ordering the table by district seems a bit odd, would it not make more sense to order by constituency? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude:
    • First paragraph of lead was unsourced - I've added a ref and reused refs from elsewhere. I've also tweaked the prose a bit. Please point out any issues that you notice.
    • First three columns of the table are unsourced I've moved refs to the table caption to make it clear that they cover the whole table, and not just the number of electors column.
    • Ordering the table by district seems a bit odd - This is how the election commission orders them. Per simongraham's comment above, I've added the numbering to the map and the table. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Descendants of Christian IX of Denmark

Nominator(s): AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 02:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional background context for those unfamiliar with subject matter

Imagine traveling back 200 years in time. If you had done so to tell a young northern German prince that he would become the father-in-law of Europe, he probably would have said you were being nonsensical. After all, this German prince, whose parents were only distantly related to European royalty, came from a simple background.

However, life had its surprises for this German prince. An extremely polemic debate arose over who would eventually rule his homeland and nearby Denmark. This German prince happened to have a wife with close family connections to Danish royalty. Consequently, with the support of multiple European nations, this prince was chosen to be the next king of Denmark. And when the time came in 1863, he and his wife became King Christian IX and Queen Louise.

Nevertheless, it was not enough for Christian and his eldest son to secure their place on the Danish throne (especially in the eyes of Louise). First, Christian’s eldest daughter married the most eligible bachelor in all of Britain. Second, Greece needed a new king because they had shown the door to their last one. As a result, the Greeks victoriously voted to install Christian’s second son on their throne. Third, Christian’s second daughter married the most eligible bachelor in all of Russia. Fourth, Christian’s youngest daughter married the throneless heir of the German Kingdom of Hanover. Their shared bond was that both of their families had lost territory at the hands of an even stronger German kingdom. And finally, Christian’s youngest son spent his life sailing the seas with a French princess by his side.

More than a century after Christian’s death, the story continues. Like an exponential function in mathematics, his grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and further progeny have increased the number of his descendants more quickly with each passing generation. These descendants have wed into royalty all around Europe. Because of this, six of the ten current heirs to European thrones can claim Christian IX as their ancestor! Can you guess which ones?

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

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

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

Comments by Borsoka

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

I agree, its DYK was held for a very long time, and I wasn't entirely sure it passed WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. — 48JCL 12:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very similar concerns were raised at the Did you know nomination. I responded to this inquiry by noting that Aronson 2000 and Lerche and Mandal 2003 established notability. The objector then conceded the point (in my eyes). Both of the aforementioned sources (albeit the 2020 version of Aronson's text) are also listed in the "Further reading" section of this article.
That being said, I will not object if the consensus of this discussion is to merge or delete this stand-alone list. If so, I ask that the tables be merged into the "Issue" (or corresponding) sections of the articles on Christian IX and his children. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank your for the links. I am not sure that works written by Theo Aronson are reliable sources. Miranda Carter did not write of Christian's descendants, but of three cousins who ruled three great powers during WWI. Lerche and Mandal do not seem to be historians. Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

With these sources, surely these should replace the "Royal Family Tree" sources (which appear to be SPS) could be replaced, right? I am still not going to warrant an oppose, but I would suggest withdrawal, there is a lot of work that could be done. 48JCL public (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all of the self-published sources in the article that I could find, and I have replaced the citations with references to more reliable sources. If I missed a source and/or I should still use the Further reading texts more exhaustively in the article, please let me know. Also, with respect to WP:NOTDATABASE, the only criterion I could realistically see being used against this nomination is #3, as creative works, song lyrics, and software updates are not listed in this article. To make all of the lifespan information encyclopedically relevant, I have written prose that accompanies each table elaborating on the family life of Christian/Louise and the families of their children. Please let me know if that prose should be more comprehensive. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 00:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

48JCL

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

I don't think a list should have "This article describes the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of Christian and Louise." at the end of the list

@48JCL: Could you please suggest how this sentence should be replaced? Per WP:SALLEAD, the inclusion criteria of a stand-alone list should make a direct statement about the inclusion criteria. This is the purpose of the text you quoted. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten that sentence to attempt to make the inclusion criteria as explicit as possible without actively self-referencing the article. Please let me know if I should further modify the text. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 23:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issue with sources

I am noticing Blogspot and Wordpress being cited. What makes them reliable? More to come. 48JCL 12:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the Blogspot and WordPress sources. That being said, my rationale for including them was that the specific authors appeared to have professional credentials in their field. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 16:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that does not exactly make it reliable, still being a SPS. I'm still not sure whether or not this article should be supported, but thanks for addressing my concerns. 48JCL 17:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dylan620

Hi Andrew – I've just started working on a review that will focus primarily on prose and images, and should be done by the end of the day Monday at the latest. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A quick update: while I have been making quite a bit of progress with this review, I've unfortunately been slowed down by real-life stuff, so I'm running a bit behind schedule. I get out of work fairly early tomorrow, so knock on wood, I should be able to finish in the next 24 hours or so. I do have a few preliminary comments:
Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp, I thought I was nearly finished, and then I realized I would have to look through a 119-page PDF to verify sourcing for one of the images, which is missing its page number on the Commons upload page. I recall seeing at least a couple other similar cases elsewhere in the listicle. Unfortunately, that means this review is going to take quite a bit longer than I had anticipated. I'm going to try to complete it within the next five to seven days – please accept my apologies. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work so far in reviewing the images, Dylan. Please let me know when you have completed your review. In the meantime, I have made the following changes:
  • I have replaced the portrait of Dagmar with an image of the coat of arms of Denmark at the time she died (to be consistent with the entries on other royals with no available portrait).
  • I have replaced the portrait of Louise with the one used in her article's lede infobox.
  • I have removed the portrait of George I's family altogether. In any case, his youngest son, Christopher, was not yet born when the image was taken.
  • I have likewise replaced the portrait of Gustav with an image of the coat of arms of Denmark at the time he died. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 03:03, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Andrew – I've finally finished the review, and I'm sorry it took so long. This was probably the most challenging image review I've done since I started tackling them earlier this year, since I'm not super familiar with European public domain laws and needed to give myself something of a crash course. The majority of images check out for licensing and sourcing. I took it upon myself to add missing US public domain tags on Commons in cases where I felt comfortable doing so (see my edits there). A few images are sourced to offline refs, which I'm choosing to accept in good faith. However, there are some issues:
  • I am pleased that every image has alt text. However, in the slot where Gustav's portrait was replaced with the coat of arms of Denmark, the old alt text describing Gustav is still being used.
    • On that note, is a "portrait of a coat of arms" really a portrait? This is super nitpicky, but the portrait article states that a portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face is always predominant. Every coat of arms usage here has alt text that describes the coat as a portrait.
  • File:Christian IX of Denmark and family 1862.jpg – uploader partially blocked on ENWP from article and draft spaces. (Coincidentally, this is the same user who uploaded the now-removed photo of George I's family.) This image seems to be an alternate version of File:Christian IX Denmark and family 1862.jpg, which, per that file's description page, was apparently part of a legal dispute between the NPG and the WMF. Maybe I'm worrying too much, but I would be wary of including either image here.
  • File:Family Photo.jpg – The source URL is dead. There is an archived link available, but it's not loading the images on my end.
  • File:Alexander russia.jpg – The source URL is dead.
  • File:Ernstaugusthannover.jpg – Uploader indefinitely site-blocked from ENWP for copyright violations. (This is the same user who uploaded the now-removed photo of Gustav.)
  • File:Xenia, russian grand duchess.jpg – The source URL does not contain this image.
The prose is good overall, but I do have a few queries/suggested adjustments:
  • Moreover, he nearly abdicated... – I don't think the "moreover" is needed here; indeed, this could probably be merged with the previous sentence by using a semicolon.
  • Moreover, through her charity work... – I don't think the "moreover" is needed here.
  • Is there anything about Valdemar that could be added to the second paragraph of §Children?
  • They then married in October 1866 – "Then" feels extraneous here.
  • Moreover, both Nicholas and Michael, along with Nicholas's five children, were killed during the Russian Revolution. – I think this would read more smoothly as "Nicholas, Michael, and the former's five children were killed during the Russian Revolution."
Quite impressive work overall, Andrew. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 03:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dylan620: Thank you very much for your extensive review. Here is how I have addressed your feedback. Please let me know if anything else should be done.
For the images:
  • I have changed the alt text for Gustav's image to better describe the coat of arms. Moreover, I have rewritten the alt text descriptors for all of the coat of arms images to avoid mention of portraits.
  • I have removed the family portrait for Christian IX, given the concerns you have described.
  • I have likewise removed the family portrait for Frederick VIII.
  • I have replaced the image of Alexander with one of the pertinent Russian coat of arms, given the lack of other appropriate free-use images that I could locate.
  • I have likewise replaced the image of Ernest Augustus with one of the pertinent Hanoverian coat of arms.
  • I have likewise replaced the image of Xenia with one of the pertinent Russian coat of arms.
For the prose:
  • I have removed "Moreover" from that sentence on Christian IX's background.
  • I have likewise removed "Moreover" from that sentence on Louise's background.
  • I have added some information on Valdemar in the second paragraph of the Children section, namely on how family ties influenced him to reject the Bulgarian throne.
  • I have removed "then" from that sentence on Dagmar and Alexander III's marriage.
  • I have rewritten that sentence on the deaths of Nicholas II, his children, and Michael as you have suggested.
AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 01:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good to me now, Andrew, and I'm happy to support on prose and images. For what it's worth, I believe this would be the first geneology FL if promoted. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 22:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2024 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Timeline of the 2014 Pacific hurricane season

Nominator(s): Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a break to focus on other projects, I'm back with the sixth timeline nomination in an ongoing series. This particular timeline documents the 2014 Pacific hurricane season, one of the most active ever recorded in the basin. It included a Category 5 behemoth, the basin's strongest known May hurricane, a rare landfalling system on the Big Island of Hawaii, an infamous hurricane that devastated large swathes of the Baja California peninsula, and twelve other hurricanes for a total that tied an all-time record set over 20 years prior. Until this past week, portions of this listicle (especially from §September onward) were nearly a decade out of date, and a Scary Orange BoxTM was placed eight years ago alluding to this issue, which has now been resolved. I look forward to the community's feedback and will address any concerns as promptly as possible. (Nerdy mathematical aside... 2+0+1+4=7, and if this nomination passes, it will be my seventh featured list.) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

MPGuy2824
  • "and an atypically strong upper-level divergence" - Is there a good wikilink for "divergence"?
  • The distances for Genevieve seem very large. Wouldn't it be better to show distances from some point in Hawaii, instead of Baja California? -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you MPGuy2824 for your feedback. Replies below:
  • Adding "an" in front of "upper-level divergence" wouldn't really work because "divergence" is an uncountable noun, at least in this context. Surprisingly, divergence (meteorology) is a redlink; the closest existing article I can think of would probably be convergence zone. Ultimately, I decided to condense the sentence in question to remove mention of divergence, as part of me worried that it was a little too in-depth for casual readers.
  • Regarding Genevieve, I thought about how long some of those distances are. I had originally decided to stick with Baja California as a reference point because it is explicitly mentioned by the Tropical Cyclone Report for Genevieve. By contrast, no specific location in Hawaii is mentioned; it only refers to the Hawaiian Islands as a group. I've adjusted the location references beginning with Genevieve's second dissipation—where Hawaii is first mentioned in the TCR—with distances inferred from 21°30′N 158°00′W / 21.5°N 158.0°W / 21.5; -158.0, which is the location point in the upper-right corner of the Hawaii article itself. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 12:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion based on prose. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

At first glance nothing seems to be unreliable. So Ill take the source review. Everything is archived Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only issue I see is that Ref 28 should be marked as being in Japanese.

Ill get on with the spot checks soon.

The only issue I see is that Ref 28 should be marked as being in Japanese. – Thank you for pointing this out; taken care of! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 10:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all of the odd numbered sources for a total of 20. Everythng checks out.

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC) [4].[reply]

List of municipalities in Albacete

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC) and Alavense (talk)[reply]

We are trying to bring up the list of municipalities of Spanish provinces up to the standard seen in the other featured lists of municipalities. Alavense has made some excellent changes to this article and together we would like to create a template that can be used on the other Spanish provinces, eventually bringing them up to featured list status. This one may require some significant peer editing as it is the first one for Spain, but it will pay off as it can be replicated in the other Spanish provinces. Thanks for all your comments in advance! Mattximus (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • There seems to be a mish-mash of US and UK English used, given that I can see both "The organisation of the municipalities" and "Municipalities are categorized". As the subject matter relates to a non-English speaking country it probably doesn't matter which type of English is used, but whichever one it is should be consistent throughout.
  • Found this one instance and fixed, but are there others? Should be consistent now.
  • "A further concejal is added for every additional 100,000 inhabitants, although the figure can never be an odd one" - does this not contradict the previous sentence, which sets out the different levels of concejales based on population and every figure is an odd one?
  • I assume it means you can never add an odd number as that would make the total even? I will try to reword.
That was my fault. I meant actually the contrary, that the final figure can never be an even one because that would allow for draws when voting any matter. But I don't think it's correct now either. I'll try to explain. We have 25 at 100,000. At 200,000, we add one and we should have 26, but, given that it's an even number, we get an additional one (27) to solve the issue. When the population reaches 300,000, a further concejal is added, so we get 27 again. I think the current wording would mean that we get 27 at 200,000 and 29 at 300,000, which is not the case. Can we maybe twitch it, Mattximus? Alavense (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you guys to figure this out between you :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes my wording is incorrect. I reworded it. Does this new wording make sense? Mattximus (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I meant, Mattximus. Now it's fine. We are happy now, ChrisTheDude. Thanks. Alavense (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Staraction

  • All images relevant to the article; consider replacing the gallery with images to the side of the table? If so, just adding the four most populous municipalities might be a little too bland. Maybe have images of other municipalities that are interesting in other ways featured as images. Although - this comment is mostly just from personal taste.
I'm not sure about this one. I think being the most populated municipalities in the province also makes them the most relevant and the ones that should be highlighted with the images.
Placing images on the side does cause some accessibility issues on small screens like phones I believe. Mattximus (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captions relevant to the images (maybe for the second, black-and-white map, "Map of municipalities in the province of Albacete"?
Done.
  • All images have alt text except for the second, black-and-white map, captioned "Municipalities in the province of Albacete"
Done.
  • All images under appropriate license. AGF on self-published works.

Thanks for your good work @Mattximus & @Alavense! Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Staraction. I've made the changes you suggested, except for the first one, because I'm not sure about that. Kind regards. Alavense (talk) 05:25, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine! Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 06:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley

  • "Municipalities enjoy a large degree of autonomy in their local affairs." "in their local affairs" is to vague, Maybe "in local administration".
  • Agreed, made change.
  • "elected by universal suffrage on a list system". You need to give details of the list system used.
  • "junta de gobierno local". A translation would be helpful.
  • did a translation but not sure if 100% correct, will defer to Alavense's Spanish.
  • I'm happy with that - Alavense.
  • It would make the article more attractive to have more photos.
  • Added two more, any more required?
I suggest putting a selection of images on the right of the table. It is a narrow table compared with many, so should cause less problems on phones provided a fixed width such as px is not used. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see how this can be an improvement, Dudley Miles. How many images should we add? Amongst the most recently promoted lists, I see some with fewer (or even no) images than this one. Anyway, we already had a map highlighting the province inside Spain, another map with every single municipality located and a selection of images for the most populous municipalities in a tidy row. Now, we have more images, but it's still an arbitrary selection. However, they are not in a tidy row anymore. Besides, I think it's less comfortable for those readers using the mobile app, because they have to scroll to find a table (which is, after all, the most important thing in the list) which has sunk further down. Alavense (talk) 06:35, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three items in 'Works cited' have error messages.
  • I tried these and they all work for me, but maybe Alavense knows?
  • I won't be able to use a computer until at least tomorrow, but I tried to fix it. Is it okay now? - Alavense.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC) [5].[reply]

2018 Winter Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of the upcoming Olympics, I started to working on this and it's actually my second non-American football related list nomination ever. It's based on 2022 Winter Olympics medal table, which was promoted May 14, 2023. As always, I will do my best to quickly respond to and address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images review by Staraction

  • Two images (the ones not in the infobox) require alt text
  • All images are relevant to the article
  • All images are appropriately licensed (AGF on self-published works)
  • All images are captioned appropriately

Thanks for your work as always! Staraction (talk | contribs) 21:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rookie move josh, rookie move. Thanks for catching @Staraction! I've made the changes. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 18:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Four new disciplines in existing sports were introduced to the Winter Olympic Games program in Pyeongchang, including" - the use of "including" implies that the examples listed are going to be a subset of the total but in fact all four are listed, so I would replace "including" with a simple colon
  • "Athletes from Germany and Norway tied [...] tying the record" - maybe change the second one to "equalling" to avoid repetition?
  • Freestyle skiing guys image caption doesn't need a full stop
  • Maybe a footnote to explain "Olympic Athletes from Russia"?
  • "After the testing of the B sample that was also positive, the Court of Arbitration for Sport confirmed that they were instituting the formal proceedings" => "After testing of the B sample that was also positive, the Court of Arbitration for Sport confirmed that they were instituting formal proceedings"
  • That's all I got - nice work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Thank you very much for the helpful review! I've implemented all of your suggestions, except that I tweaked your last suggestion to remove "that" from "that was also positive". Oh, I did also remove the period from Marit Bjørgen's photo, which I'm sure she would appreciate =) Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • I assume that DSQ means disqualified. It might be worth creating a template for that, with a link to Ejection (sports). If not a template, then at least the link can be considered.
    • Just chipping in to say that IMO I don't think that would be the best link to use in such a template. That article covers the concept of players (in various sports) being required to leave the match/event while it is going on because of an offence. What the "Changes in medal standings" table covers in this and similar articles is competitors who completed the event but then had their results revoked days, weeks, or even months after the event had finished. It's not really the same concept..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, it doesn't look like there is a good wikilink for that concept. Given that, Josh can use the {{Abbr}} template. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could merge the last two shortish paragraphs of the lead. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added the abbreviation template, that's a good call on that. I don't loooove merging those last two paragraphs, as they do feel a bit disconnected, but I also think it's a bit off to have those two sentences as their own paragraph, so I've combined them. Thank you for the review @MPGuy2824. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:24, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and citation check from Arconning

  • Caption in image: Marit Bjørgen (pictured) won five medals at the 2018 Winter Olympics.
  • The caption in the image of the world map doesn't need a full stop.
  • Ties are usually mentioned in the medal table section of the article, based on other FLs of medal tables (to retain consistency).
  • Could mention the sport where Hungary won their first gold.
  • Will get to the source review tomorrow, just claiming it in advance. Arconning (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey @Arconning. I've made the changes to the image captions. I also expanded the sentence to call out the event for Hungary. As for the ties, I actually believe the mention that countries are sorted alphabetically if they're tied to be redundant. I don't believe there's really any other method we'd use to sort them in a tie, is there? In regards to Hungary's competition, Hey man im josh (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. COC - Reliable, though just wondering why the date's August 10, 2011?
  2. IOC - Reliable
  3. Reuters - Reliable
  4. CNN - Reliable
  5. BBC Sport - Reliable
  6. IOC - Reliable
  7. NBC Olympics - Reliable
  8. The Guardian - Reliable
  9. NYT - Reliable
  10. Yahoo! - Reliable
  11. AP - Reliable
  12. BBC - Reliable
  13. IOC - Reliable
  14. ESPN - Reliable
  15. New Zealand Herald - Reliable
  16. POCOG - Reliable
  17. IOC - Reliable, but I'm just wondering what is this used for? If it's to be kept, change the hyphen in the title to an endash.
  18. The Guardian - Reliable
  19. Daily Mirror - A bit dodgy per WP:RSPSS, but the topic isn't contentious so I'm doing a conditional pass on this one.
  20. ESPN - Reliable
  21. IOC - Reliable
  22. CBC AP - Reliable
  23. Telegraph - Reliable
  24. Inside the Games - Reliable
  25. CAS - Reliable
  26. BBC - Reliable
  27. IOC - Reliable
  • @Hey man im josh If it's part of the criteria, mentions in sources citing the International Olympic Committee, Canadian Olympic Committee, and POCOG, should be non-italicized. Also refs 8, 18, 21, and 22 could use archive links. If not, then I think it's good for me. Arconning (talk) 07:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ref 1 – Absolutely a mistake. I just tested it in my sandbox to see how I made this mistake and it turns out the autofill from RefToolbar filled in the date as August 10, 2011. I didn't expect there to be a date, so I didn't click the "Show/hide extra fields" button. I missed that and now been removed, good catch!
    • Ref 17 – I did so to reinforce that the sorting method wasn't just a one time thing. In hindsight, this is definitely overkill and unnecessary. Ref 16 is literally perfect for verifying that. I've removed this ref.
    • Archive links – All have been archived. I had to wait a little bit after triggering the archiving on them, but they're all there now.
    • Italics – Why? My understanding is it doesn't particularly matter so long as it's consistent. As far as I'm aware, and I'd absolutely appreciate being corrected if I've misunderstood, it has nothing to do with the titles of the articles themselves, it's just the style of the type of citation.
    @Arconning: Thank you so much for the source review! I hope I've addressed all of your concerns and, if not, I do intend to iron the rest out after your response. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, nice work!! Arconning (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Birdienest81

  • As the editor who promoted the 2022 Winter Olympics medal table to featured list status, I think you should also add a table of official changes in medal standings by country similar to the ones in 1984 Summer, 2012, and 2020 ones.
  • Since the parent article 2018 Winter Olympics uses a day-month-year format, all dates indicated in the list should use the DD-MM-YYYY format.
--Birdienest81talk 19:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I think the table in this context is useless and adds nothing of value (it was 1 medal taken and 1 given to another), I've added it anyways. I also don't see an issue with the date formatting, as it's consistent. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:19, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdienest81: Following up to see if the dates are a deal breaker for you. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On rethink, the dates don't actually matter to me. I've made the change and I hope you'll support this nomination @Birdienest81. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Darn, they haven't been online in five days. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, about the slow response. I'm busy preparing for a camping trip, but yes, it's all good. So, I'll give it a support. Birdienest81talk 08:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 13:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC) [6].[reply]

List of Eureka Stockade defenders

Nominator(s): Robbiegibbons (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a fairly comprehensive list of the best-documented Eureka Stockade rebels Robbiegibbons (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this nomination was not transcluded to WP:FLC until now. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Ross is a link to a disambiguation page Dajasj (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

Comments from Steelkamp

Oppose. This list is heavily reliant on www.eurekapedia.org. That website is written by just two people, with no indication of fact checking or quality control by someone else like what would happen in a newspaper or a non self-published book. As a list relating to history, I would expect to see more scholarly sources. Steelkamp (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Using a user-submitted wiki as a source is a deal-breaker, yeah, and if there isn't some movement on this soon I'm going to close the nomination. @Robbiegibbons: do you intend on addressing this concern? --PresN 13:42, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @PresN and @Steelkamp, I would like to disagree on this issue. Eurekapedia seems to be written by two domain experts, works by both of them have been cited in this article. Also, while looking through some of the pages there, they seem to be reliable and have proper citations. I'm a little busy at this time, so I can't check the h-indices or peer reviews of the two writers' works, but I think academia would also have found them reliable sources. Also, just because a site uses MediaWiki, that doesn't mean it is unreliable and user generated. See the discussion at the FAC for Sher Shah Suri, where Banglapedia is considered a reliable source as it has been compiled by scholars. I think we can allow this here, though I could be wrong as well. Please let me know what you think. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You could convince me to rescind my oppose by showing that the authors of that source meet the requirements at WP:EXPERTSPS, i.e.: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Steelkamp (talk) 09:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, looking closer, it does appear to basically be a selfpub source by Clare Gervasoni & Dorothy Wickham, and not publicly editable, which clears that up, but a) the references should then have the author's name(s), and b) they need to be shown to meet EXPERTSPS, like Steelkamp said - right now the only used source that has them as authors is The Eureka Encyclopedia, which appears to also be a self-published work. It's possible they are, I'd just like to see some proof. --PresN 15:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @PresN and @Steelkamp, Gervasoni & Wickham seem to run the Ballarat Heritage Service and its associated publishing arm, the latter is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. The authors seem to have okish h-indices for a subject this niche, I'll have to check academic reviews of their books or papers published in notable journals to further confirm this. What further proof would be required for establishing reliability? Matarisvan (talk) 14:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about this. The Eurekapedia source has marginal reliability at best. It's still a self published source, even if written by experts. I would find that ok if it is used to source minor parts of the whole list, but it is being used to source large parts of this list. For that reason, my oppose still stands. Steelkamp (talk) 08:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo_fan2007

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

National symbols of India

Nominator(s): Magentic Manifestations (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC) and The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first featured list nomination and I am nominating this post improving the article. This is a list of the national symbols of India. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 16:23, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dajasj

Thanks for working on the list and nominating it! Some first thoughts:

  • Have a look at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial. Let me know if you have any questions!
  • "Adopted" column is not really sortable (while other columns have the option to sort but are not really meant to be sorted)
  • Random Capital letter in "The first two verses of the song were adopted as the National Song of India On 24 January 1950 by the Constituent Assembly of India."
  • Try to minimise the text in the Notes column. Focus on what is relevant for it as national symbol. I think it is also good for accessibility if you don't change font size.
  • I'm missing context for what is up with Hockey. Dajasj (talk) 16:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and comments. I have addressed the comments (MOS, sorting, caps and font size) except the notes part, which I will work on trimming it to keep it relevant.
For the last point, Hockey is listed as a national game in government websites, text books etc. but as per an official note, there is no declared national game. Not sure whether to omit this altogether or keep it with mentioning the same in comments. Magentic Manifestations (talk) 18:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kavyansh

I appreciate you nominating the list and I respect the efforts that must have been made to improve the list to this extent. That being said, I have a few fundamental issues with this nomination. The official Nation Portal of India lists only these 8 national symbols. Our list has 21 official symbols. Even if me make an exception for the "official name", the other alleged national symbols are being cited by an archived version of this site. It is a site hosted by "International Institute of Health and Hygiene,New Delhi" and sponsored by "Ministry of Environment, Forest & Climate Change Govt of India". Does that make it an official site of the Government of India (as claimed in the citation)? For the other alleged national symbols, our article cites various news articles like TOI or HT. While these news articles do confirm the claim, wouldn't it be much better to cite an official source? For example, rather than this news article, why not directly cite this official declaration. But that leads me to the next question: if there are actual official symbols not specified in the Nation Portal of India website, what steps have we taken to ensure that the list is comprehensive? It is claimed by a HT article that Ganga is the national river of India. I am not able to find an official reliable source for it! The closest I can find is this audit report from the CAG, which again isn't an official declaration. So what criteria are we exactly using to determine which symbol gets to be in this list and which doesn't? How exactly are we justifying keeping Hockey as the National game? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh Thanks for the comments. I understand that your question broadly focuses on the comprehensiveness of the symbols and the verifiability of the same.
As there is no clear definition of what constitutes a official/national symbol (either officially or as an agreed consensus in WP), I am afraid that the list can neither be comprehensive nor be exhaustive. The article covers symbols that are generally regarded as official/national symbols as per various given sources. For the question of whether these 21 symbols are verifiable as official, let us classify into three categories for the discussion at hand.
a. Fifteen symbols with official sources:
  1. Eleven symbols, which are quoted as such directly in the official source: Official name and the nine symbols (motto is part of the emblem, described in detail in the same site) listed here officially are clear. National days are mentioned in the same official site here. These are fairly straightforward.
  2. Four symbols, where official press releases available. These have official sources, so verifiability should not be a concern. (Aquatic Animal: Official source by the Ministry of Environment here, Heritage animal: Official press release by the Ministry of Environment here, River: Apart from news sources, official press release from PMO here and official website of NMCG, Ministry of Jal Shakti also states so here, Microbe: Official press release by the Ministry of Environment here)
b. Four symbols, where Government affiliated sources and other citations are available. As there are multiple government affiliated sources and independent sources backing the same information, they are verifiable plus there are no sources stating anything to the contrary.
  1. Pledge: Apart from the general news sources, it is mentioned as such in Government sources (From Ministry of Education here, other here) and in a discussion in Parliament as a pledge (here).
  2. Tree and Fruit: These are quoted here in a site maintained by ENVIS, a government organization functioning under the Ministry of Environment. While not officially the Government website, it is affiliated to the Government. There are multiple other government affiliated sources/court mentions (For fruit: here, here, here and for tree: here, here, here, here) + independent news sources.
  3. Reptile: Apart from the general news sources, it is mentioned as such in Government exams(here), question papers (here), text books (here) and third party sources (here)
c. Two symbols, with contradictory sources.
  1. Flower: ENVIS source here and other government affiliated source here + was part of the official symbols here. It was not mentioned as a national flower in an RTI query in 2017 and in Parliament in 2019 (here), but was part of the official website till 2021, referenced as such in official statements in 2019 (here) and by ministers in 2022 (here, here)
  2. Game: As I had mentioned in the previous revert, I am not sure whether to keep hockey or not. An RTI reply in 2012 said that officially there is no national game here and it was reiterated in 2020 here. While the ENVIS source still lists it here.
For both the above cases, can remove/keep with a note based on consensus here.
I have tried to address the points raised in your queries. Please do let me know if you have further comments/clarification on the same. Thanks again! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 10:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delayed response. I understand that it is wrong to hold our editors accountable for information that is simply not available or unclear, but I am still not entirely convinced. In the lead of the list (which I believe needs to be more elaborate), we claim, "The Government of India has designated official national symbols that represent the Republic of India." However, the instances here unfortunately show that there are symbols that are not officially designated. As things stand, if the list can neither be comprehensive nor exhaustive, then we need to set clear criteria for what is to be included and what is not. In my opinion, that criteria should be based on what reliable official sources say. Alternatively, given the lack of available information, we can set the criteria based on the opinions of the major contributors to this list or through a talk page discussion (RfC if required). I won't oppose the nomination merely for this reason, but in my opinion, government exam question papers, privately published grade 6 textbooks, and even sites affiliated with the government aren't entirely reliable for such extraordinary claims. As a side note, I have filled a RTI application regarding this awaiting response from the Ministry of Home Affairs. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kavyansh.Singh I do agree with your point on the criteria and I am open to take it to a discussion as there seems to be no precedent or agreement on what is consisted as a national symbol (apart from these, there are symbols which are termed as national announced by private organizations as well!). If your RTI gets a revert, nothing like it as it will probably help clarify things from the official perspective. Then the question is whether we split into two sections or keep only the official symbols recognised. Thanks! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. This is not a full review, and does not result in a support vote. --PresN 13:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PresN Thanks for the comment. Have addressed the same! Magentic Manifestations (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC) [7].[reply]

List of Mercedes-EQ vehicles

Nominator(s): 750h+ 17:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first featured list nomination. This is a list of all the Mercedes-EQ models, including the production and concept models. If this gets promoted, it will be the first automobile featured list. Thanks, and enjoy the read! 750h+ 17:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

I'll do a larger review later on, but for now I want to point out some accessibility issues.

  • You used ! rowspan="1" when you should have used ! scope="row". For instances where a row span would only be 1, do not use the rowspan parameter. For instances where you do need to specify a rowspan, you would do ! scope="rowgroup" rowspan="2".
  • Add column scopes
  • Tables needs a title

Again, I'll be back to a larger review later on. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

those should be addressed now 750h+ 17:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

  • Consider adding the {{Use dmy dates|July 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been
done
  • Why is there no body style listed for the concept vehicles?
i couldn’t find any references
  • Ref columns should be unsortable
done
  • Article needs a short description, even if set to none
done
done
  • Ref 16 – Add author and USA Today as the agency
done
  • Ref 20 – Add author
done
  • Ref 38 – Add author
done
done
  • Ref 46 – Add author
done

That's what I've got, good stuff! Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! All addressed, @Hey man im josh:. 750h+ 15:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much thanks for the review! 750h+ 15:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commentd

Comments from Steelkamp

  • Should the last sentence of the lead have a reference?
added
  • Is it necessary to include "where various other electric cars—including the Opel Ampera-e and a redesigned Renault Zoe—debuted"? This article should really be focusing on Mercedes-EQ, and not feature unrelated cars prominently in the lead.
removed
  • Why does the concept vehicles table not have a body style row?
I couldn't find any good references for some of the classes, so I just didn't add them
  • Some websites in the citations aren't wikilinked. E.g. two instances of CNET and three instances of The Verge. There might be some others I haven't noticed.
added
  • Specifying a px size for images should generally not be done as per MOS:IMGSIZE. It's fine for the images in the table (which is given as an exception in MOS:IMGSIZE), but for the lead image, the fixed px size (340px) should be replaced with upright=1.5.
done

That's all. Steelkamp (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All have been addressed. Thanks for the review, @Steelkamp:. 750h+ 10:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Steelkamp (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! 750h+ 15:01, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FLC director and delegates: hope this isn't bugging but will there be an image review? 750h+ 05:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Featured list candidates don't strictly need an image review, unlike FAC, although someone can do an image review if they so choose. (not a FLC director or delegate) Steelkamp (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok. 750h+ 12:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That said, this is pretty image-heavy in an area that I'm not well familiar with, so I'd prefer one. The reason it's not "required" is due to a lack of people actually doing them. I'd give this a pass on the image review though- all commons, all self-uploads by... 3 people? Looks like a whole world of car photography I didn't know we had people doing. --PresN 22:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pass! 750h+ 23:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2024 (UTC) [8].[reply]

1924 Summer Olympics medal table

Nominator(s): Arconning (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying this out! This is a list about the medals earned by nations that competed at the 1924 Summer Olympics (and medals that aren't official anymore)! Waiting for some comments, and hope I can address them :P Arconning (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. The template that you are using for the table has a parameter to add the caption. If that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting {{sronly|caption_text}} instead. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824

...continuing

  • "17 sports across 23 different disciplines" - For my own knowledge, what's an example of a sport that spans multiple disciplines?
  • " 27 nations received at least one medal," - countries don't get the medal, their citizens do. See 1936 Summer Olympics medal table for how to rephrase this.
  • Art competitions section: A bit weird to start a new section with "Additionally,". Try "The 1924 Olympics also included art competitions...".
  • "Though medals in art competitions are no longer recognized by the IOC as part of the total medal count" - Don't start the sentence with "Though". Also, if you could give information on which other Games had these art competitions, it would be nice.
  • "In architecture, no gold medal was awarded while the silver was awarded to pair Alfréd Hajós, who became one of only two Olympians ever to have won medals in both sport (swimming) and art Olympic competitions, and Dezső Lauber of Hungary." - This is quite a complex sentence. Maybe you can mover the additional clause about Hajos' two medals to a new sentence.
  • "The medal count on the IOC website also includes medals from art competitions. The tables have been separated here."
  • footnote b isn't a full sentence and doesn't need a full stop."
  • footnote c: "This event is no longer recognized by the IOC as part of the total medal count."
  • "winning the men's 1500 metres event at the 1952 Summer Olympics" -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 Done for most of the comments. For the first comment, an example of a sport that spans multiple disciplines is aquatics which spans over diving, swimming, and water polo at these Games. For the second comment, I've replaced most of the instances besides the nations that earned their first gold/any medal, which I'm basing off 2020 Summer Olympics medal table, let me know if you have a problem with this one. Let me know if you have more comments. Arconning (talk) 10:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info about this definition of disciplines. The definitions of "sport" and "discipline" were vice-versa in my mind. Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Czechoslovakia won their nation's" - this doesn't really work grammatically, as it reads like Czechoslovakia owned itself. "The team from Czechoslovakia won their nation's" would work, though. Same for the following sentence.
  • "Is there any need to show the key as "Host nation (France)", given that the only entry in the table with this colour/symbol is France? I would think just showing the key as "Host nation" would be fine (relates to both tables)
  • Image caption: the word "pictured" in "Paavo Nurmi of Finland (pictured) won" is pretty redundant, as he's the only person in the photo so obviously he is the one pictured.
  • "World map showing the medal achievements of each country during the 1924 Summer Olympics." - this doesn't need a full stop
  • "Image caption: "Hajós at the 1896 Summer Olympics, where he" - show his full name
  • "painting, and sculpturing" - "sculpturing" is a pretty obscure word (indeed I had to double check that it was definitely a real word). I think "sculpture" would be better (here and further on in the section)
  • "architecture, literature, music, painting, and sculpturing [...] was a medal eligible event" - as the subject of the sentence is five distinct things, the verb should be plural. Also there should be a hyphen in "medal-eligible"
  • "a medal eligible event to competitors " - the words "to competitors" are redundant as obviously only competitors were eligible for medals
  • "was awarded to pair Alfréd Hajós and Dezső Lauber of Hungary" => "was awarded to the pair of Alfréd Hajós and Dezső Lauber of Hungary"
  • "the jury could not make a consensus to award medals for any of the competitors" => "the jury could not reach a consensus to award medals for any of the competitors"
  • Why does Greece have "(GRE)" in brackets in the second table? No other country has this.
  • Note c: "though is credited as a French competitor" => "but is credited as a French competitor"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude For the first comment, I reworded the first sentence with "Czechoslovakia's team won their nation's..." if that's okay with you, I've worded accordingly for the other sentences. For the second comment, FLs of medal tables include that so I included it to retain consistency. For the rest of the comments, I believe I'm done :) Arconning (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - personally I can't see the point of "Host nation (France)" in the key but I won't quibble over it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

  • Ref 4 – Can we do better than olympicgameswinners.com?
  • Ref 7 – Downcase to "Inside the Games"
  • Ref 9 – Add Associated Press as the agency
  • Ref 13 – When I visit the link it shows a publish date of February 26, 2024. Does it list the 27th for you, or was this a typo?
  • Ref 27 – I was hesitant, but they seem reliable enough for the information being verified.
  • Ref 26 – Well this confuses me. It looks like this has a date of 1896 to it, but that's clearly not correct given it speaks about 1924 in there.
  • Ref 22 – Is that a date of 22 October 2021 there? It's hard to tell with the date stuff on the Olympics website.
  • Ref 30 – There's a date of 26 July 1952, but I don't know if that's meant to be the publish date, but I feel like it's not. The date listed matches up with the final of Athletics at the 1952 Summer Olympics – Men's 1500 metres.

Great stuff. Please ping me when the issues above have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh For ref 4, most of the sources list down art competitions as part of the medal count for France and Finland, so this was the best source I could find that's reliable enough, and for the medalists I've replaced the source. For ref 13, it shows as 27 for me, probably moves to the users timezone (let me know if I have to replace this). For ref 26, it probably shows when Hajos' swimming event was held. For ref 30, same with the last comment, when event was held. For the rest, I'm done! Hope this works. Arconning (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arconning: I won't ask you to change the date if it adjusts based on timezone, I just wanted to verify that that was the case. What makes Olympic Games Winners a reliable source? It doesn't appear widely used a source. Perhaps you can cobble together a couple of different sources to replace the Olympic Games Winners source? If you can't you can't, but I think some would challenge the reliability of the site. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh I amazingly found another source, it has now been replaced. Though the site places France second per the total medal count, hope this isn't a problem regarding this article uses golds first. Arconning (talk) 02:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:18, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 29 July 2024 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Detroit Lions draft picks (1936–1969)

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely excited about this nomination, probably more so than any other nomination I've made, because this is the final part of a 4-part featured topic (my first!) that I've been working on based on the Detroit Lions draft history. If and when this list is promoted, I'll be receiving my first Triple Crown (provided they let me use a FT as my GT submission, someone pointed out I should probably follow up to see if this a thing) and making my first featured topic nomination!

This list is based on Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969), which was promoted on June 3rd, and should meet all featured list criteria. As always, I will do my best to quickly respond to and address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • A handful of players have no college listed and Lou Creekmur has no team in the AAFC dispersal draft - is this intentional or an oversight? If intentional, maybe add footnotes explaining how they came to be drafted without a college/AAFC team......
  • "Hall of Fame linebacker Joe Schmidt was selected in the seventh-round" => "Hall of Fame linebacker Joe Schmidt was selected in the seventh round" (you only need to hyphenate it when it's being used as an adjective)
  • Similrly "Hall of Fame defensive tackle Alex Karras was selected by the Lions' in the first-round of the 1958 draft." => "Hall of Fame defensive tackle Alex Karras was selected by the Lions' in the first round of the 1958 draft."
  • That's all I got. Great work as ever!-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Creekmur was a very weird case... I added some notes, but, in short, he was drafted by an AAFC (and NFL) team but returned to school anyways. As a result, when the leagues merged, he was put into the player pool that was eligible for being drafted, despite never having played or signed for the LA Dons. I've added a note for clarity.
    • Fixed the text for Schmidt and Karras
    As for the colleges, I'll work on figuring out why they aren't listed. Perhaps that was a little bit lazy of me, instead of just going with what was available. Newspapers.com here I come! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Surprisingly, I was able to find all the college information, which I've added with references now. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

Gonzo_fan2007

Sorry, I missed this nom while on Wiki-break! Source review: Passed

  • Reliable for what is being cited
  • Consistent date formatting
  • Consistent and proper reference formatting
  • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
  • Spot checks all looked good.
  • Support nice work! I can't find anything to improve. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the format and the source review @Gonzo fan2007! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Staraction

  • All images relevant to the article
  • All images properly captioned
  • All images have alt text
  • All images either under PD or an appropriate license (AGF on self-published sources).

Support on images. Thanks for your work as always, and congratulations on completing (upon promotion of this list) a Triple Crown and a featured topic @Hey man im josh! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review and the congratulations @Staraction! Unfortunately I fear that a featured topic may not count in place of a good topic, so my hopes of a Triple Crown may be gone! Unless someone gets back to me on my inquiry. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC) [10].[reply]

List of Chivas USA seasons

Nominator(s): Brindille1 (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following up my previous MLS featured lists (List of New England Revolution seasons, List of New England Revolution managers) with a list about the defunct club Chivas USA. This poorly-run team existed for ten unsuccessful seasons. I've created and improved this list, and believe it now meets the Featured List criteria. Brindille1 (talk) 03:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MrLinkinPark333

  • Verification check (Table):
    • As Chivas competed from 2005-2014, the page range for the conference & overall positions should be 41-50, not 32-59.
    • For 2009, they were overall 5th not 6th. As they were tied with Chicago in points, they'd be ranked higher as they had more wins per MLS.
  • Chivas's USOC appearances is on page 179, not 178.
    • I see instances of both R3 (2006) and Round of 16 for the USOC. Only one of these should be used for consistency. MLS uses third round instead of Round of 16. Looking at links like 2006 U.S. Open Cup, third round is used. I think all of Ro16 should be switched to R3.
    • 2005 USOC was R4.
    • 2013 USOC was also R4.
  • 2005 would need a source to show Chivas did not enter any Continental competitions, instead of not qualifying.
  • The attendance is blank at FBRef. It used to be there per Google search. However, there is no archived copy of the Chivas Stats page at FBref. I also checked individual seasons at FBref and the attendance is blank, such as 2005.
  • 2008 top goalscorer needs the 2008 FBRef source to show Razov was tied for first. The overall Chivas source at FBRef only shows Eskandarian and Kljestan due to lack of space.
  • Needs a source for the nationalities of the top goalscorers. Otherwise, the flags can be removed.
  • Verification check (Prose):
    • "Chivas USA participated in the annual U.S. Open Cup tournament organized by the United States Soccer Federation" - ESPN doesn't specifically mention Chivas but verifies the rest of the sentence. MLS 2024 could be reused here to show Chivas's participation while keeping the ESPN source for the rest of the sentence.
    • "MLS regular season typically runs from February to October" - MLS doesn't say the regular season doesn't alway ends in October. Don't think typically is needed here.
    • " which was a postseason tournament that culminates in the MLS Cup" - is a postseason tournament (as it's still being held per the 2023 MLS + Washington Post sources)
    • "annual international competition between league and cup champions in North America, Central America, and the Caribbean." - not seeing the bolded part in Los Angeles Daily News for Champions League. Maybe rephrase to between teams.
    • "a new expansion team in Los Angeles was announced, which eventually became Los Angeles FC." - needs a bit of trimming to avoid copying/close paraphrasing as the sentence looks similar to The Athletic.
  • Citations comments:
    @MrLinkinPark333 Thank you for the very thorough review. I've updated the article to fix the issues you've raised, with a couple notes:
    - "For 2009, they were overall 5th not 6th". The tie-breakers were different in 09, I've added a better citation for overall standings which should clarify any ambiguities
    - For R3 vs R16, I refer to these rounds the way they're referred to in the source. Renaming R16 to R3 would be incorrect, as the R16 isn't always the third round (see 2013 where the fourth round is the round of 16).
    - For the 2005 continental competition, I switched this to a "DNQ". I've not found a source indicating that the team could've entered the tournament but chose not to. Brindille1 (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The above points have been resolved apart from the following:
    • In regards to Round 3, MLS page 179 only uses Round 3. Therefore, any usages of Round of 16 for the USOC need extra sources.
    • 2012 attendance is linking to the wrong source. Should be this one.
    • I just noticed that Soccerway doesn't verify that Ante Razov was the top overall goalscorer across all seasons with 31 goals. The link only provides details for the individual season.
    • "announced a new expansion team that would play in Los Angeles, which would eventually become Los Angeles FC" - still needs reworking to pass WP:LIMITED.
    MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrLinkinPark333 I've addressed these issues. For the Soccerway source, it contains a list of all league goals by player for each Chivas season- concluding the total number of goals falls under WP:CALC. Brindille1 (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The expansion sentence still resembles The Athletic source. Here's a suggestion on rewriting: Chivas was replaced by Los Angeles FC that year as an expansion team.
    • FBRef and Soccerway disagree with the number of goals for Razov. However, I found that MLS states he was the top goalscorer with 30.
    MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MrLinkinPark333 Reworded that sentence. Re: Razov's goals, good find. Soccerway seems to be wrong here. I've cited MLS's pages instead which (a) show he's the all-time leading scorer for the club and (b) show that he has 30 regular-season goals. Brindille1 (talk) 03:39, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Thank you for the fixes, especially with the rewording of that one sentence. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Tiny lead image could be made much larger. I suggest upright=1.4
  • "from 2005 until folding after the 2014 season" => "from 2005 until it folded after the 2014 season"
  • "which was a postseason tournament that culminates in the MLS Cup" => "a postseason tournament that culminates in the MLS Cup"
  • "which is an annual international competition between league and cup champions in North America" => "an annual international competition between league and cup champions in North America"
  • "The club's 2014 season set a record-low attendance for the league" => "The club's 2014 season set a record-low attendance level for the league"
  • "It was named the Champions' Cup until 2008" - this needs a full stop.
  • Looks a but odd to have Razov centred in the total row when all the other goalscorers are left-aligned
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Thanks for the review. I've updated the article accordingly. Brindille1 (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo_fan2007

  • USOC should use {{abbrlink}}.
  • I have some concerns about the key:
    • First off, "MLS", "CCL" and "SL" don't appear in the table at all. They should be removed from the key, as not relevant (specifically, instead of using the acronyms you spelt them out in the table).
    • Consider using the horizontal key found in NFL seasons lists for position placing (e.g. List of Green Bay Packers seasons)
    • In the key to cup record, most of those aren't found in the table (I know they could possibly be in the future), but why not just use {{abbr}} and {{abbrlink}} for all these? You already use these templates in the table for some abbreviations, why not these?
  • All of these accomplish something super beneficial to the reader: they get rid of a bunch superfluous info that is (on my screen) almost the same length as the table (the key info the reader wants).
  • You use {{sfnp}} but then have these citations grouped in the same section as other direct citations. Recommend splitting "References" into sub-sections. An example of this can be found at List of Green Bay Packers team records.

Brindille1, please ping me when you have responded. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, looks like @Brindille1 last edited on July 30th. Hopefully they'll be back to address the feedback provided here soon. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I plan on responding to feedback, but my laptop has died and I am waiting on my replacement which will arrive in a few days. Apologies for the delay. Brindille1 (talk) 02:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gonzo fan2007, I've updated the list according to your feedback. The only item I did not address directly was the suggestion of the horizontal key. However, I reformatted the columns in the "Key" section, and I think this makes better use of the space. Thanks for the feedback and apologies for the delay in my response! Brindille1 (talk) 02:09, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good to me! Nice work. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:15, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC) [11].[reply]

List of presidents of Burundi

Nominator(s): MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something from a different continent this time. I’ve modelled it on similar heads of state FLs. I’ve improved the lead and table accessibility. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This is for the Developing Countries WikiContest. I encourage reviewers to join soon, if it seems interesting (since July 15 is the last date that they are accepting new signups). -MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Staraction

  • "The first constitution to specify the powers and duties of the president was the constitution of 1974 adopted in 1976." --> "The first constitution to specify the powers and duties of the president was the constitution of 1974, which was adopted in 1976."
  • "The constitution, written by Micombero, affirmed his position as the first president of Burundi." --> "Written by Micombero, the consistution affirmed his position as the first president of Burundi"; also include some more details on what this affirmation meant, perhaps? What powers did it grant him (back then)?
  • "The powers of the president derive from the 2005 constitution implemented as a result of the 2000 Arusha Accords after the Burundian Civil War." --> "Currently, the powers of the president derive from the [...]"
  • Include more Wikilinks for clarity - ie. Supreme Court, provincial governors, etc.
  • See also section has an indented bullet - is this intentional?
  • I might be mistaken but I believe source [1] (the Xinhua article) does not verify the claim in the article that "Nkurunziza was elected for a third term, as the Constitutional Court considered that first, indirectly elected term, did not count towards the limit". This Al-Jazeera article for the footnote might be a better source, while the Xinhua article can still be used for the infobox. (Personally I wouldn't use Xinhua but I suppose it isn't deprecated)

Thanks for this list @MPGuy2824, it's quite important and I'm excited to see it become featured! Staraction (talk | contribs) 19:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment

Hey man im josh

What verifies the information in the table? I went to verify the info, such as the assassinations, and I'm not sure how I'm supposed to do so in this case (please ping when you respond). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: I've now moved the references that were already there in the table to a new column and added a bunch more. Please take another look when you can. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Coat of arms of Burundi.svg and No image.png are public domain images with relevant tags.
  • Evariste Ndayishimiye (cropped).jpg is GODL and has an appropriate CC tag.
  • Prime Minister Micombero in 1966.png (via Crowning of Ntare V in Burundi.webm), Jean Baptiste Bagaza - 1978.tiff, Melchior Ndadaye.png, Sylvie Kinigi at Bujumbura airport, 1993.jpg, Pierre Buyoya at Chatham House 2013 crop.jpg, Pierre Buyoya at Chatham House 2013 crop.jpg (via Pierre Buyoya at Chatham House 2013.jpg), Domitien Ndayizeye, President of Burundi (2) (cropped).jpg and President Nkurunziza of Burundi (6920275109) (cropped).jpg, have appropriate license tags.
  • Pierre Buyoya 1990 cropped.jpg has appropriate CC tags but states that it has not yet been reviewed to confirm that the license is valid. Visit of Sylvestre Ntibantunganya, President of Burundi, to the EC (cropped).jpg and Cyprien Ntaryamira at a FRODEBU rally (cropped).jpg, also have not been reviewed.
  • None of the CC licensed images have US tags.

The images all have CC or PD licenses that seem reasonable. Pierre Buyoya 1990 cropped.jpg, Visit of Sylvestre Ntibantunganya, President of Burundi, to the EC (cropped).jpg and Cyprien Ntaryamira at a FRODEBU rally (cropped).jpg need review. simongraham (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only Cyprien Ntaryamira at a FRODEBU rally (cropped).jpg or its source Cyprien Ntaryamira at a FRODEBU rally.jpg need review. simongraham (talk) 07:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Additionally, one president, Pierre Buyoya, served" - no reason for the word "additionally"
  • Sorting on the first column doesn't work correctly, you need to use hidden sort templates to make the dashes and the one in brackets sort in the correct place
  • "However, Nkurunziza was elected for a third term" - remove "however" and show his full name
  • If you are going to link Constitutional Court in the notes, it should be linked in note a, not note d -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: For the sorting, I'm not sure where to place "(3)". For now, I've placed it just under 6, like in the initial sort order of the table. I've fixed the other issues that you've pointed out. Thanks for the review. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You've not fixed the last one....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd: I was sure that I did it, but maybe I hadn't pressed "Publish". Anyway, looking over the list again, I notice that the phrase is wikilinked in the lead, so I've removed the link from the notes. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Fritzmann

Hello, this is my first foray into FLC; I usually hang around GAN. I will be doing the source review, and because it is my first one I will probably be more thorough than strictly required. Other reviewers and nominator, please feel free to correct any errors I may unknowingly stumble into.

  1. Xinhua is the state news source of China, but is considered reliable for non-China topics. However, I don't think this is the best source because it states that the draft constitution will allow for 7 years and up to 2 terms. Is there a more recent source that is based on the finalized constitution?
    You are the second reviewer to look askance at that xinhua ref. I've removed the source completely. The relevant prose is supported by the constitution ref. -MPGuy2824 (talk)
  2. NYT is considered a reliable source. It verifies the date of the establishment of the republic, but from what I can see only infers that Micombrero was President, not that he established the presidency. I don't think it's much of a stretch, but just wanted to point this out.
  3. Reference 3 (the 2005 constitution), needs page numbers. I believe the first instance is page 1, and the second is page 5. Further, this source does not support the claim "as of 2024" since it was published in 2005. It could support "as of 2005", but a more recent source would be needed to support "as of 2024".
    Another reviewer had a problem with a previous version of this sentence. I've now rewritten the sentence to incorporate both sets of feedback. -MPGuy2824 (talk)
  4. Cambridge University Press is considered reliable. From what I can tell, it adequately supports the article's claim without issues.
  5. NYT again. No issues.
  6. Africa Spectrum is a peer reviewed journal and I can find no issues with its reliability.
  7. Al Jazeera is considered generally reliable in this subject area. Support the note.
  8. Include page 20 where this claim is found for ease of verifiability
    Done. -MPGuy2824 (talk)
  9. I do not have access to ref 9 and will assume good faith.
  10. Does not support election year of 1984, took office date of 1 November, and does not mention UPRONA or Nzambimana.
    Common ref added.
  11. Mentions coup year, but not took office date of 3 September. Also does not mention UPRONA or military affiliation, or prime minister Sibomana.
    Common ref added.
  12. Supports chronology of events, but FRODEBU and prime minister Kinigi are not present.
    Common ref added.
  13. AGF on French foreign language source.
  14. I do not have access to reference 14.
    Try accessing via WP:TWL
  15. I am not able to find much info on IWACU. Their website also does not list their staff or editorial team, so I am a bit concerned on reliability here.
    I've replaced this ref. -MPGuy2824 (talk)
  16. Ref 16 supports year of 2003, but not date of 30 April. Also does not mention political party.
    Common ref added.
  17. Does mention party, but I don't see any mention of the chronology of his presidency.
    Added a ref to support years as president. -MPGuy2824 (talk)
  18. AGF on French foreign language source.

Citations for the last paragraph of the lead are likely warranted, despite the straightforwardness of the claims. Please respond above to concerns on sources, thanks in advance for your patience with me! Fritzmann (message me) 14:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed some of the issues. Will ping you after I take a stab at fixing the rest. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good so far. I will be travelling and not have access to the wiki starting on Friday, so for promotion purposes I support once all of the above issues have been addressed. Fritzmann (message me) 14:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fritzmann2002: It took me some time to find a ref with covered the entire timeline of independent Burundi. It is now linked to in the table caption. A few straggling pieces of information still don't have sources, but the only solution for that is to remove whole columns, and I'm sure to get pushback from list watchers about that. There are now references for a couple of the statements in the last paragraph of the lead. I don't think the remaining statements are as contestable as those two. Please have a look at the list when you can. There is no particular rush. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, thanks for your hard work. Fritzmann (message me) 14:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

To add to the source review above, which MPGuy looks to have largely implemented, I also have some feedback:

  • Ref 1 – This New York Times source requires a subscription, please specify that
  • Ref 2 – Could use a publisher
  • Ref 3 – Add [[United Press International|UPI]] as the agency
  • Ref 3 – Use |at=Section B., p. 5 to call out the section and page
  • Ref 4 – Perhaps it would make sense to add University of Ottawa
  • Ref 8 and 9 – These Washington Post sources requires a subscription, please specify that

Other than that, I'm happy. Good stuff MPGuy!! Please ping me when you reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, thanks for the review. I've made all the changes that you've suggested. Implementing some of Fritzmann's suggestions will probably involve replacing some of the refs, so I'd prefer if you indicate your Support/Oppose after those changes are in. I'll ping you here when that is done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: I've added refs in response to Fritzman's comments. Feel free to take another look when you can. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy. Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's comment: This now has 2 source reviews and a few good faith edits which unfortunately removed some table accessibility features. I'm in discussion with the editor, and will note (for my own reference) that Fritzmann's review was for revision 1234253945 and Josh's review was for revision 1234660604. I will ping both of you once the list meets the FL criteria again and your particular feedback is incorporated or commented on. Thanks. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of songs recorded by the Linda Lindas

Nominator: – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 17:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list, now that I've secured three Supports for my FLC of the Linda Lindas discography. Feel free to leave any comments if you don't think this is ready, but I believe it is. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 17:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

  • "The Linda Lindas have recorded 17 songs for album or EP releases, 7 songs as singles, and 5 songs outside albums, totaling 29 songs. Among the 29 songs, 7 of them are covers, and most were produced by Carlos de la Garza, the father of band members Lucia and Mila." - Exact counts like this require a secondary source; we're not allowed to just add a count from our in-wiki table since it could be incomplete. Either way, these numbers will keep on changing and would be a pain to maintain, so I suggest removing them.
  • "The band started out as a cover band, playing music from multiple bands such as Le Tigre and the Go-Go's, whose "Tonite" they later covered." - I am a bit confused by the structure of the lead currently. The first paragraph seems to go into a summary of their overall career, and in the second paragraph it is back to describing how they started out?
  • You should add some information about the musical genres and lyrical themes explored on the first album. Overall, the lead could deal with some restructuring.--NØ 12:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MaranoFan: what do you think now? I've restructured the lead and included info on genres and themes. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 00:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Looks superb now. Kudos on the quick improvements!--NØ 02:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead image could be made larger
  • "started out as a cover band, playing music from multiple bands such as Le Tigre and the Go-Go's, whose "Tonite" they later covered" - this reads a bit weirdly - they started out as a band covering the likes of the Go-Gos, whom they covered later? Might be worth adding a little more context to their covering the Go-Gos "later"
  • Also, the word "multiple" isn't needed
  • "the Linda Lindas' namesake" - I would change this to something like "for which the band was named"
  • "The album genre has been classified" => "The album's genre has been classified"
  • ""Racist, Sexist Boy" has commonly been compared to riot grrrl sound" => ""Racist, Sexist Boy" has often been compared to the riot grrrl sound"
  • "Their second album, No Obligation, is set to release in 2024" => "Their second album, No Obligation, is set to be released in 2024"
  • Songwriter(s) column sorts on forename. It should sort on surname
  • Song and album titles starting with "The" should sort based on the next word
  • Some of the image captions need sources that the song in question is a cover of the band named
  • "The Linda Lindas remixed "The News" by Paramore for a remix album entitled Re: This Is Why." - if they simply remixed the original song, this doesn't come under the usual definition of a song they "recorded" so I don't believe it belongs on this list -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Done; implemented all of your suggestions, thanks! Anything else? – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 17:12, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

I'll do a source review and add in any general comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Sharpest Lives: comments below. Feel free to challenge. I reserve the right to spot something later! Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Notes b and c should have citations.
  • They seem to have some currently.--NØ
  • The band's own Bandcamp site is cited few times, but only for straightforward facts, so that seems fine.
  • I don't think that Film Music Reporter is suitable as a source - see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_387#Film_Music_Reporter_-_Reliability
  • For consistency, Dork should be wikilinked to Dork (magazine)
  • For consistency, Bigmouth should be wikilinked (redlink)
  • For consistency, either remove the two ISSN's, or add ISSNs to other sources that have them.
  • I think "Gabba Gabba!, Yo" and "Linda Lindas, The" should be re-ordered to their "natural" form, e.g. using the author rather than first/last parameters.
  • Some of the sources, e.g. YouTube, Apple Music, aren't ideal, but they are OK for the info being supported here.
  • Spot check on "most were produced by Carlos de la Garza, the father of band members Lucia and Mila." - no issues.
  • Spot check on "In 2021, the band went viral with a performance of "Racist, Sexist Boy" and subsequently signed with the Los Angeles-based label Epitaph Records" - no issues
  • Spot checks on "Growing Up is centered on themes of growing up, discovering oneself,[16] and anxieties that arise in adolescence" - no issues
  • Spot check on "Their second album, No Obligation, is set to be released in 2024" - no issues

General comments

  • Is there any info available about unreleased recordings? (Out-takes, etc.)
  • I assume that information on unreleased recordings would not be available for artists this new, but these are generally not present on lists when they pass FLCs anyways and are usually put there by fans later.--NØ
  • " the Linda Lindas have appeared on cover, remix, and tribute albums, as well as soundtracks." - phrasing suggests to me there are multiple appearances on each type, which doesn't seem to be the case. (e.g. only one tribute album and one soundtrack)
  • Rephrased. I am counting three soundtracks between Harriet the Spy, Yo Gabba Gabbaland!, and Totally Killer, though.--NØ
  • "Their second album, No Obligation, is set to be released in 2024. It spawned three singles:" doesn't quite seem right to me, given that the album is not scheduled ti be released until October. Maybe soemthing like "Three tracks that will be on the album have been released as singles" (but more smoothly written)?
  • Feels like the heading for the main table should be something like "Songs released by the Linda Lindas" rather than "Name of song, songwriter(s), original release and year of release", but I might be wrong.
  • Current heading seems to be consistent with other lists.--NØ
  • Overall, great work!
Thanks. I'm pretty busy atm but have tried to do some of the suggestions. Yall feel free to implement them yourselves if you wish. {{The Sharpest Lives|💬|✏️|ℹ️}} 21:32, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @The Sharpest Lives, I'm just following up on some of our old noms. We do our best to give leeway but we also don't want to let nominations linger with unaddressed concerns for too long. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed these in the nominator's absence, BennyOnTheLoose.--NØ 14:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alavense

  • Shouldn't rock en español be italicized?
  • Their second album, No Obligation, is set to be released in 2024. It spawned three singles That reads a bit weirdly, doesn't it?
  • Being inside the "Songs" section, I would only expect to find links to each letter and not to "See also", "Notes" and "References".
  • There's a citation needed tag in the table.

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be all done I think, Alavense.--NØ 14:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Thank you for the edits, MaranoFan. Support. Alavense (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Intercontinental Cup winning managers

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After some hard work on this list, I now believe it meets the criteria. This will form part of the Lists of UEFA club competition winning managers topic if it passes here and would be a long overdue addition. My current list has four supports, so I'm assuming it's ok to nominate this one now. Thanks in advance for the comments. NapHit (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Image caption: "Carlos Bianchi, pictured playing for Vélez Sarsfield won the competition a record three times." => "Carlos Bianchi, pictured playing for Vélez Sarsfield, won the competition a record three times."
  • Link UEFA and CONMEBOL
  • Link "played over two legs" to two-legged tie
  • "renaming it Toyota Cup" - no reason for italics
  • Link FIFA
  • "Lula became the first manager to win successive titles leading Santos to victory in 1962 and 1963" => "Lula became the first manager to win successive titles, leading Santos to victory in 1962 and 1963"
  • "Argentine managers have won the competition the most times" => "Argentine managers won the competition the most times"
  • Footnote to explain why there is no winning manager recorded for two of the years should be a footnote, not mixed in with the references. Also don't use "wasn't" in the footnote, write it in full.
  • Per MOS:BOLD, bold should not be used to highlight something. Use colour + symbol -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the comments, @ChrisTheDude:, I've addressed all the comments. Regarding the bold, I've looked at Bianchi's profile and he's not managed for 10 years. So safe to assume he's no longer active as a manager. NapHit (talk) 20:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gonzo_fan2007 (including source review)

  • In the 1979 row, the managers should each have their own row so they can be properly sorted when using the table sort function.
  • In the managers with multiple titles table, recommend adding an emdash to the blank cells.
  • On the last two tables, I don't think you need to duplicate the section title and table title. You can use {{sronly}} to keep the descriptive titles for accessibility without showing them visually.
  • I think the abbreviated links in the Nationality and Country columns should use {{Abbrlink}}. Most people don't know country acronyms off the top of their heads.
  • Source review: Passed
    • In Ref 2, 5 and 6, why abbreviate "Rec. Sport. Soccer Statistics Foundation"?
    • For Ref 1, I would recommend changing "bibliography" to a sub-heading of the "References" section and then add an additional subheading titled "Citations". An example of this is at Packers sweep.
    • All other references appear appropriate for the information being cited. All references are formatted appropriately.
    • Spot checks on 10 refs did not bring up any issues.

Please ping me when you have had a chance to respond. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alavense

That's what I saw. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @Alavense:, I've addressed them all and left some comments above on specific points. NapHit (talk) 19:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I replied to some. Kind regards, Alavense (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replied to some of the points you made above @Alavense:. NapHit (talk) 17:13, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still not sure about the order in which the columns are arranged, but never mind. Support. Alavense (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC) [12].[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Sudan

Nominator(s): Tone 06:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan has three WHS and 15 sites on the tentative list. Standard style. The list for Tunisia has just been promoted, the list for Botswana (where I am the co-nominator) is seeing some support already so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 06:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

MPGuy2824
  • "which existed over a millennium" - Add some rough dates here.
  • "contains the Meidob volcanic field (satellite image pictured), the Jebel Rahib hills, "
  • "The park significant from the natural point of view because" to "The park is biologically significant because"
  • "The area is a desert and semi desert with sand dunes." Needs fixing depending on what you want to say.
  • " seat of medieval Christian bishops"
  • "rededicated to Aten under Akhenaten." to "rededicated to Aten, during the rule of Akhenaten."
  • "left by the pilgrims through the centuries."
  • Bit weird to have both "Wadi Hower National Park - Gala Abou Ahmed (mixed natural and cultural site)" and "Wadi Hower National Park". Would need an explanation. Also, the my second point applies here too since the text is quite similar. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed, thanks! As for the two Wadi Hower listings, it appears that they updated the nomination but did not remove the old one (which would be a reasonable thing to do). I've seen it before in some cases, but it is rare. Since technically these are two distinct nominations, although overlapping, I would leave it as it is. Maybe I'll add a note on the second one. Tone 08:06, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "The first site in Sudan was listed in 2003, this was Jebel Barkal and the associated sites." - I think "The first site to be listed in Sudan was Jebel Barkal and the associated sites in 2003." would work better
  • "which existed over a millennium" => "which existed for over a millennium""
  • "and Middle East" => "and the Middle East"
  • "in the 3rd and 2nd millennium BCE" => "in the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE"
  • "It was dedicated to archangel Raphael." => "It was dedicated to the archangel Raphael."
  • "between the 6th and 1st millennium BCE" => "between the 6th and 1st millennia BCE"
  • Plus what MPGuy said :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed all, thanks! Tone 08:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review by Fritzmann

  • File:Gebel Barkal.jpg is a credible own-work, properly licensed under GNU Free.
  • File:Sudan Meroe Pyramids 30sep2005 10.jpg is a valid Flickr import, checked by an admin as having the proper license.
  • File:Suakin,el-Geyf mosque.jpg is a credible own-work, properly licensed under CC 3.0.
  • File:Kerma city.JPG is a credible own-work, properly licensed under GNU Free.
  • File:Church of the Granite Columns 2007-10-03 01.jpg has a 404 link, but another image uploaded in the same batch was checked and confirmed to be properly licensed as CC2.0, and the author's other works are similarly licensed.
  • ☒N Strangely, File:Malha Wells, Sudan by Planet Labs.jpg appears to have been removed from its original gallery. However, all other images on the site are licensed as CC-BY-NC, which is not usable on Wikipedia. It looks like there are a lot of these images on Commons, so this may be a bigger problem than just this article. Will need a replacement for this image.
  • Question? File:نهر الدندر من الطائرة.JPG is properly licensed, but it is not a particularly good image. Are there any possible images of the park not on Commons that could be used instead?
  • File:Africa Mt Dair.jpg is a public domain NASA image
  • File:Sudan Jebel Marra Deriba Lakes edited.jpg has some minor license format issues but nothing that necessitates exclusion
  • File:Kerma-Deffufa.jpg is a credible own-work, properly licensed under GNU Free.
  • File:Soleb1.jpg is a credible own-work, properly licensed under CC 4.0.
  • File:Banganarti 2013 .jpg is a credible own-work, properly licensed under CC 4.0.

Just two images with an issue, please ping when you have seen and responded. Thanks! Fritzmann (message me) 15:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. As for the first one, I suppose it is better to remove it altogether since I cannot find a better image on Commons that does not have that issue. File:Nile Map Sudan.png is possible but I am trying to avoid maps. As for the second one, the other relevant image is File:الدندر.jpg, which is equally non-ideal. I don't mind removing them both since a FL would ideally have good images. What do you think? Tone 15:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would at least remove the first image; if there aren't any alternatives for the second I think it is OK to leave. Once the first is removed I am happy to support on images. Fritzmann (message me) 15:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks! Tone 16:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AK

  • "Sudan accepted the convention" I'd use "ratified" instead.
  • "Jebel Barkal and the associated sites" to "Jebel Barkal and its associated sites"?
  • "The sites of...in 2016." should be either "The sites of Meroë and Sanganeb Marine National Park and Dungonab Bay – Mukkawar Island Marine National Park were listed in 2011 and 2016, respectively." or "The site of Meroë was listed in 2011 and Sanganeb Marine National Park and Dungonab Bay – Mukkawar Island Marine National Park in 2016."
  • "The latter is a natural site" isn't "latter" just for lists of two objects?
  • "The archaeological area in" to "This archaeological area in"?
  • "Jebel Barkal...sacred mountain" to "Jebel Barkal, which has the Temple of Amun at its foot, was considered a sacred mountain."
  • "Monuments include temples" to "Monuments in the area include temples"?
  • "Some aspects of burial practices" You don't mention any funerary practices earlier, so this doesn't really fit well. I'd go with something like "The pyramids and burial chambers of the site are an 'outstanding example of funerary architecture'. Some aspects of this funerary tradition remained in use until the 6th century".
  • "ruled Egypt Egypt" typo.
  • "The park has...2004." to "The park was previously listed on the tentative list in 2004."? Also, if it was already on the tenative list, why did they have to relist it?
  • That's all I have. AryKun (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! I fixed the ones that I think fit, some of them I think are fine as they are. Funerary practices refer to tombs that are mentioned in the previous sentence. The two natural reserves are a single WH site, with two components, thus singular. The 2004 thing just means that they didn't do the cleanup of the list, but we cannot do much here, both are still on the list :) Tone 09:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

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

Source review passed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [13].[reply]

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1968

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With the 1966 list having just been promoted and the 1967 having multiple supports, here's the 1968 list. This year's chart-toppers included a Brazilian Beatles cover, a French cover of a Luxembourgish contest entry, and a cover of a 1941 big band song about a train. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Staraction

  • All images have alt text
  • All images are in public domain or appropriately licensed
  • All images are relevant to the article
  • All images are captioned appropriately

Support on images. Thanks again for your quality content :) Staraction (talk | contribs) 01:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

My only feedback is that ref 2 needs a publish date of November 14, 2011. Good job Chris, but you didn't stump me this time! Please ping me when that's been addressed I'll be happy to support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: - done! I hadn't noticed this before and I don't know if it's to do with my geographical settings or something, but when I open that source, it displays the date you mention for about half a second before it changes to "13 years ago", which I deemed too vague to put in the citation. Weird..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: I actually hovered over the "13 years ago" to see that date. I just happened to be curious if it would show me and it did! Anyways, support. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

NØ

The actual article is perfect this time and I had to dip into the sourcing to have comments, lol. Really good work. I have a very short article at FAC in case you would like to return a review.--NØ 12:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: - thanks for your review, responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 01:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Women's 100 metres hurdles world record progression

Nominator(s): Editør (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after cleaning up the tables and rewriting the lead, I believe it meets all featured list criteria. See also the current 400 metres candidate. Editør (talk) 22:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that at the top of the FLC page it says Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Your other nom has one support but I'm not sure that really counts as "substantial support"....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought nominating them alongside each other would make the process simpler. — Editør (talk) 07:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Editør, wouldn't that make the process harder? 48JCL 20:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@48JCL, if you think so, you could maybe comment on the 400 metres candidate first? And keep this one on hold as it were. – Editør (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Editør, placed my comments. 48JCL 21:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! – Editør (talk) 11:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I commented on the 400 hurdles progression discussion, there is a timeliness factor to consider. Currently, there has been no development on the subject of this article for two years. We can anticipate it will be relevant when this race is run in the Olympics in a few weeks. The semi-final is August 9, the final on August 10. Any number of athletes have the potential to improve upon the record then, or come close. I will note, the most recent improvement happened in a semi-final. Simply that this high level of competition will happen on those dates would make this an appropriate list to feature at that time. Trackinfo (talk) 08:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment that appears to be about featuring this list on Wikipedia's main page. Just like with your comment on the 400 metres candidate, you seem to be thinking ahead, because before this can happen, the article first needs to pass this featured list nomination to reach the featured list class. – Editør (talk) 10:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

Gonzo_fan2007

Closing this nomination- it was premature, but also per the closure of the 400m list, there does not seem to be a path forward for these lists to reach a consensus to promote. --PresN 12:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [15].[reply]

United States congressional delegations from Idaho

Nominator(s): Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the Gem State. Hopefully I've improved this article enough for it to be considered a gem here at Wikipedia!

Other FLs in the vein of this one include those for Indiana, Utah, Hawaii, and Connecticut. I've also nominated Arizona, currently another FLC that has gained support from the two reviewers who have reviewed it.

Thanks for taking a look, and I appreciate any feedback that y'all give! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments
  • You'll have to split the "1913–present" table into two since it is wrong (from an accessibility perspective) to have two rows of headers, one of which is in the middle of the table.
  • "last Democrat to have represented Connecticut" - Idaho, not Connecticut. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 Hi, thanks for the comments! I've fixed both - for the first one, is it weird to have both tables in the same section like I have it now? Or should I split it into two different sections? Thanks! Staraction (talk | contribs) 11:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    is it weird to have both tables in the same section like I have it now? Nah, looks fine to me. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Since Idaho became a U.S. state in 1890, it has sent congressional delegations to the United States Senate and United States House of Representatives, beginning with the 51st United States Congress in 1889" - 1889 is not since 1890
  • The sentence starting "The longest-serving senator from Idaho" is quite long, maybe split it into two?
  • "He was instrumental in the passage of the Sixteenth and the Seventeenth Amendments, but opposed the Nineteenth Amendment." - maybe add a few words on which each of these covered, as I doubt many people would know without looking them up......?
  • "Frank Church, who similarly served for 24 years on the Foreign Relations Committee" - similar to what? Nobody previously has been mentioned as serving on this committee
  • "such that each election, around one-third" => "such that at each election, around one-third" would be better I think
  • "who also had served as Idaho's first territorial governor" => "who had also served as Idaho's first territorial governor"
  • That's it I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Hi, thanks for your comments! I've resolved all of them except for the one about Frank Church - both Borah and Church served on the Foreign Relations Committee. Does that sentence need more clarity? Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - don't worry about the Church sentence, I misread it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EN-Jungwon
  • Archive all references
  • Same as the previous list, link the websites/publishers wherever possible
  • Add categories; [[Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Idaho| ]] and [[Category:United States senators from Arizona| ]]. This keeps it consistent with the other four featured lists of this series.
  • Ref 1 add date July 03, 2020
  • Ref 3 has the date "September 15, 2021" but I couldn't find the date in the source.
  • Ref 5 add date April 26, 2021
  • Ref 7 the date is May 24, 2023, not February 1, 2024. Is one of the authors Suzanne Bates. I am unable to confirm whether this Wikipedia article is talking about the same person or not. Please double check before linking the author.
  • Ref 17 change title to "Member Profiles"
  • Ref 18 add date July 12, 2022
  • Ref 20 add date January 27, 2019
  • Ref 21, 40 requires subscription
  • Ref 25, 38 add a retrieval date

-- EN-Jungwon 03:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @EN-Jungwon, thanks for the review, it is very appreciated! I believe I've fixed all the issues you've pointed out. I don't think Suzanne Bates is the same person as the one who wrote the article for ref 7. If there's anything else amiss please let me know! Staraction (talk | contribs) 17:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a few unarchived links. I went ahead and archived those. Happy to support now. -- EN-Jungwon 01:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

  • Section 2 of the US Constitution sets the bar that every state must have at least one rep in the House, regardless of population. This should be added to the lead where it references apportionment based on population (and should be added to all similar lists).
  • Currently, the dean, or longest-serving member of Congress from Idaho, is Mike Crapo, who was elected to the House of Representatives in 1992 and has served in Congress ever since, serving in the Senate since his election in 1998. this sentence is set-up weird by leading with "dean". I would recommend reordering to something like Mike Crapo has served in the Senate since 1998. As the longest tenured Senator, he holds the honorary title of Dean of the United States Senate. Prior to his tenure in the Senate, he served three terms in the House of Representatives.
  • I'll note too that the sentence I quoted above is word-for-word the same sentence under the "Current delegation" section. Whatever you do, there shouldn't be word-for-word regurgitation between the lead and body of the article.
  • to serve Idaho in the Senate "serve" sounds a little strong here. "represent" is more appropriate.
  • which prohibited restricting the right to vote on account of sex appears to be grammatically correct but reads as double negative to me. Could we be in the affirmative here and say recognized the right of women to vote?
  • including two years as chairman, in addition to serving as chairman of the Church Committee this is a run-on sentence. Recommend adding a full stop after the first instance of "Chairman"
  • You have a "current delegation" section yet under the Senate and House sections, you still mention the current delegation. Seems repetitive and not needed. This would also make updating the article easier, not having to update multiple instances after elections.

Nice work. Please ping me when you have responded. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your comments @Gonzo fan2007 and apologies it took so long to respond! I've fixed every issue except for a couple, noted below:
  • The concept of the dean of a specific congressional delegation is a little murky. There does not exist a Wikipedia page for the dean of a particular delegation but as far as I can tell it does not relate directly to either Dean of the United States Senate or Dean of the United States House of Representatives. Instead, the congressional delegation of each state has its own dean, which is defined as the longest-serving member of Congress from that state. It appears to be an honorary title and is referenced in many news articles, so it's relevant. I've made some changes to not lead with the word "dean" but what do you suggest as a more permanent solution to this issue?
Gotcha, sorry I misunderstood what you were referencing. It's fine how it is. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed "prohibited restricting the right to vote on account of sex" to "prohibited disenfranchisement on account of sex". Technically speaking the text of the amendment did not "[recognize] the right of women to vote"?
That works. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the reference to Idaho's "current senators" in the body of the article; I'm unable to find the one referencing the House. If it's still there, please let me know!
Looks good. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again and I'm looking forward to see your responses! Best, Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing, links to William Borah and Republican Party are duplicated. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:28, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gonzo fan2007, I have essentially one mention of William Borah linked each section, except for in the United States Senate section, where it is linked in both the caption and the text. Is that okay per WP:LINKDUP? I think I've fixed the duplication of Republican Party. Please let me know if the article still needs work in duplicated links or anywhere else! Staraction (talk | contribs) 18:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, support. Nice work! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [16].[reply]

List of Billboard Easy Listening number ones of 1967

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my latest nomination in this series. In this particular year, Frank Sinatra continued to be the top performer on the chart and unusually not one but two number ones did so poorly at top 40 radio that they didn't enter Billboard's pop chart, the Hot 100, at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

MPGuy2824
  • " "Cold" was the final number one of the year and would prove to be Gary's only Easy Listening chart-topper and his final entry on either that listing or the Hot 100" - A few sentences before this it is mentioned that Cold didn't reach the Hot100 at all.
    Would "last entry on any Billboard chart" do? Assuming that is accurate, of course. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Trouble is then I would technically have to source that he didn't chart on any of the dozens of other charts Billboard publishes (I am reasonably certain he didn't, but technically I would need to prove his absence from every single one of them since 1968). How about something like "After Cold, he would not have another easy listening or pop chart entry".....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, its a problem to prove a negative. Reading only your suggested sentence, it still sounds like the song was in the pop chart too. Since this piece of info (regarding him never being on the pop charts after 1967) isn't related to this list anyway, maybe you could leave it out OR wait for another reviewer to give a better suggestion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In contrast to the song by the Sinatras which was both an easy listening and pop number one, two singles in 1967 reached number one on the Easy Listening chart but failed to enter the Hot 100 at all. Both "It's Such a Pretty World Today" by Andy Russell and "Cold" by John Gary were Easy Listening chart-toppers but did not achieve sufficient crossover success to even reach number 100 on the Hot 100." - A lot of overlap in these two sentences. Maybe consider a merge.
  • That's all I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support promotion, since the only issue left is minor. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I changed the contentious sentence to "after it exited the Easy Listening chart he never achieved another entry on either that listing or the Hot 100". I genuinely don't believe this reads as saying that "Cold" was also a pop hit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

  • In 1967, Billboard magazine published a chart ... The chart, which in 1967 was entitled ... In 1967, 18 songs topped the chart based -- I think the 2nd and third instances of mentioning the year 1967 could be tweaked, or perhaps just the third instance only, since it is assumed that 18 songs topped the chart that year.
  • That's all I have. Great work as usual. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

@Pseud 14: - many thanks for your review, all addressed I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

I got nothing. Great work as always Chris! Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose


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

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC) [17].[reply]

List of eulipotyphlans

Nominator(s): PresN 22:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright y'all, mammal list #41 and the 6th and final list of Eulipotyphlans: our capstone list for the order! The species lists covered the hedgehogs, moles, shrews, shrews, and more shrews of Eulipotyphla, the 4th-biggest order of Mammalia (behind rats, bats, and monkeys), and this list, like the previous capstone lists, jumps up a level to list out all the genera of the order (and adds the two solenodon species, which are too small to get their own list). This follows on from the formatting of those previous lists, like List of primates, and also like those lists needed some careful structuring of the references to keep the page from getting too long to render. It's all in there though, and ready to review!

With this list, after 5 years we've gotten 15 of the 17 big-enough orders done (10 more have <10 species each), and just have the last two orders to go: Chiroptera (bats) and Rodentia (rodents). Unfortunately, those two have... more than half of all mammal species. Not quite sure how I'm going to tackle those yet! In any case, thanks to all the reviewers who've checked these lists out over the years. --PresN 22:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AK
  • "exceptions of...all but northern South America" is hard to understand, any way to reword it?
  • "between the...of gymnures" to "between the subfamilies Erinaceinae (hedgehogs) and Galericinae (gymnures)."
  • "split btween...red-toothed shrews" to "split between the subfamilies Crocidurinae (white-toothed shrews), Myosoricinae (African shrews), and Soricinae (red-toothed shrews)."
  • Also for Talpidae.
  • "exact organization of the species" Classification would be a better word than organization.
  • "No species...since 1500 CE" to "No species have gone extinct since 1500 CE"
  • Tables, refs, and images seem fine. AryKun (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AryKun: All done, thanks! --PresN 17:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support on prose. AryKun (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

Comments

  • My only query is that "Members of the Soricidae family are soricids, and include shrews." sounds like there's something along the lines of "and [something else]" missing at the end (i.e. the use of "include" implies that it covers multiple different types of thing, not just one). If all the soricids are shrews then this could be simplified to "Members of the Soricidae family are soricids, or shrews."
  • Other than that, all good as always! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

  • Source review:
    • Reliable enough for the information being cited
    • Consistent date formatting
    • Consistent and proper reference formatting
    • Appropriate wikilinks where applicable
    • Spot checks on 13 sources match what they are being cited for

Looks good! Support Hey man im josh (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [18].[reply]

The Linda Lindas discography

Nominator(s): – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 18:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria. JK I have been looking through other FL discographies and adapted features from them, so I think this one is ready. Please leave any feedback if you need. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 18:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

  • "The Linda Lindas formed in Los Angeles in 2018 by" => "The Linda Lindas were/was [whichever is correct in US English - I get confused with how band names are treated] formed in Los Angeles in 2018 by"
  • "In 2021, band went viral" => "In 2021, the band went viral"
  • Image caption isn't a complete sentence so should not have a full stop
  • There's no need for a "certifications" column in the album table if they haven't received any
  • If "Growing Up" was a single then it probably shouldn't also be included in "other appearances"
  • Why is the music video table split into two? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude:Done – added "was" and "the", removed period, certifications column, and "Growing Up" from other appearances.
    As for the music videos, I have it split because the main list is the music videos by the band, and the other one is a list of music videos the band made cameos in. (I moved them further apart for clarity) – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 21:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the second table is for cases where the band guested in someone else's video, I think it should indicate whose video it was.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Done – I added an "artist" column – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 15:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - apologies, I got a bit bogged down and forgot to revisit this one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

  • The EPs and singles are mostly unsourced. If something doesn't chart, it will need some other source to prove it was released. (SZA discography is a recent FL that does this well.)
  • "Totally Killer" should probably be in italics, not quotes

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Done – sourced releases of EPs, italicized Totally Killer – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 02:14, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still not seeing sources for the singles... RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RunningTiger123: Done – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 02:00, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, trying not to get too bogged down now but I noticed some of the new citations use Citation Style 2 when most of the others use Citation Style 1; you should pick a consistent style within the list and stick to it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normalized to style 1 – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 02:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by NØ

I have been enjoying your work on the Linda Lindas articles so I hope you don't mind that I have reviewed this!

  • I don't think the hatnote is needed since none of the topics at the disambiguation page would be sought out with an exclamation mark. In fact, just Vote! could also be safely redirected here.
  • "The Linda Lindas released their debut album entitled Growing Up in 2022." - Suggest commas before and after "entitled Growing Up"
  • The album not charting on the Billboard 200 appears to be unsourced, and I am not sure mentioning that is necessary even if a source were to be found.
  • It is not immediately obvious what "(87875)" denotes, and it does not seem to be common practice on discography articles to include these.
  • In ref 34, the parenthesis "Spin (magazine)" should not appear to readers and should instead just spell out "Spin"
That is all. This list is solid and, other than these comments, is ready for promotion in my opinion.--NØ 11:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan: done. Removed hatnote, created redirect, added commas, removed Billboard 200 claim, removed (87875) [which was the "ID" of the album on the label], and piped Spin. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) (ping me!) 12:40, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2024 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Women's 400 metres hurdles world record progression

Nominator(s): Editør (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because after rewriting the lead and cleaning up the table, I believe it passes the FL criteria. – Editør (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also the new 100 metres candidate. – Editør (talk) 22:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

  • The lead seems rather thin at just 104 words. Given that the article is about the progression of the record, could you add some content about some of the changes between the first and last?
  • Adding some images would improve the article
  • It looks weird to have a key containing three items which aren't used anywhere in the list, and a "status" column which is completely blank. I would suggest removing both the key and that first column. If you feel the article needs to state that all records have been ratified, write that as a sentence above the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments. I've added some statistics and a photo and I've removed the Status column and legend. – Editør (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude, with the new world record of 30 June 2024, I have added the letter P as standard athletics abbreviation for 'pending ratification' after the time instead of the previously removed explanation. – Editør (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The status and legend are standard elements on all of these world record progression tables. They may not be relevant to a specific article at any particular point in time, but are a general standardized feature so any initial reader of any of these will find the same information, rather than having it missing on some. It's removal here because of the above comment upsets that system. Trackinfo (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I had initially left the status and legend in for consistency, but I agree with ChrisTheDude that an unused legend should be removed when this article is to become a featured list, especially when there are simpler solutions like adding a letter P for a pending ratification. – Editør (talk) 10:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how it benefits the reader in any way whatsoever to make them scroll past a key listing various items which literally aren't used anywhere in the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:06, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MPGuy2824

  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1987 becomes !scope=row | 1987 (on its own line). The primary column needs to be unique across rows, so either the time or the date works for this table.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the nature of this table where each element in a row is variable, I don't think it should have row headers with scopes, and therefore I don't think they should be added. – Editør (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Some cell does need to be the header cell of every row per MOS:DTAB. If you don't think that the time or date woks for this then you can add a new column with just a number with the highest number being the current record. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for suggesting an alternative. However, I cannot find in MOS:DTAB that every table is required to have row headers and I don't think this table would improve by adding them. – Editør (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Featured list criteria number 5c requires that lists meet WP:ACCESS standards. While that page does not take an emphatic tone, FLC's interpretation is that one of those standards is that, just as there should be column headers, there should be row headers. Row scopes on the "primary" column for each row in combination with column scopes let screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Purposely not including them is the same as saying "I don't think readers with limited vision need as good an experience when reading this article as fully-sighted readers", which isn't okay. The row headers don't have to make the table look any different (though by default it does highlight the cell), and I can help with that if you need it, but they are required to be there in the page code for promotion at FLC. --PresN 18:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comment and offering your help. It seems that you are mostly repeating what was said before: I should add row headers because of the guidelines that don't actually say row headers should be added. Row headers are semantic elements that label the row, and as I have indicated the rows in this table where all values are variable don't seem to merit these semantics, not for visually impaired readers nor for fully-sighted readers, so the statement between quotation marks doesn't seem to apply here. This table differs from the ones in for instance List of winners of the Amsterdam Marathon where the dates are fixed elements that I believe are appropriately marked as headers. What you are proposing seems to have the purpose of marking one cell in each row as the most important within that row, but I don't believe that is what a header is or should be used for. – Editør (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another indication that none of the cells should be marked as row header is that none of them will always uniquely identify a row: a time could be equalled and count as a world record or two records can be set on the same day. – Editør (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fundamentally, the purpose of the headers isn't to declare one cell the most important, it's to provide context if you can't see the whole row/table at once. You pick a cell that provides the most context on its own, with whatever tradeoffs make the most sense. If you're on cell [1,2] "56.51", and you hit the down arrow, contextually you know that this is the next record set. "55.74". Down. "55.63". You cannot see the cells next to it. You don't know if it's the same person or not. Yes, you can find out by moving back and forth each time, doing more work just to read one column of the table, but fundamentally the act of reading a table via a screen reader is different than reading it visually because a) you can't take in the contextual information in parallel with the cell, you have to take it in serially and/or remember your place in the table, and b) because screen readers read out loud slower than the human eye.
If you set the first column as the row headers, then that same act of reading the series of records column becomes "Krystyna Kacperczyk (POL), 56.51" -> "Tatyana Storozheva (URS), 55.74" -> "Karin Rossley (GDR), 55.63". The listener can still check the other cells at any time if they want to know when and where (and the ref), but you're no longer forcing those listeners to do extra work to follow along any path beyond each cell in the table one-by-one in order than sighted readers have to. This does not mean that the name is more important than the date, just that it provides more context on its own. Which you presumably agree with, since you made that the first column, and not the date.
Look, I won't badger you further on this. If you really feel that 1 minute of work that has no impact on the visual output of the list is unreasonable, then don't do it. I don't own the article, and the access guidelines purposefully don't mandate that you follow them to the letter because then some people wouldn't do any of it. What I am saying is that the consensus at FLC is and has been that tables need row scopes to be accessible, and being accessible is a requirement for a list to be promoted at FLC. --PresN 17:54, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are not responding to most of my argumentation. To expand on the last point I made, WP:ACCESS explicitly states "it is necessary for the column headers and row headers to uniquely identify the column and row respectively", which means there are no columns in this table that qualify for row headers looking at the possible values of the cells. In Women's 80 metres hurdles world record progression you can see why this is a problem for the 1932 world records by the Americans. – Editør (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and comments from 48JCL

  • [1] Page needed
  • [2] I'm sure this supports the content, but surely there is a newer source that supports this claim? By the way, I am talking about the first use. For all the other uses, the location is not supported by the page number.
  • [3] Good
  • [4] Good
  • [5] Good
  • [6] Good
  • [7] Good
  • [8] Doesn't directly state "pending ratification" but it says ratification which is good enough.

Don't sources need archives? This can do it for you.

  • This list would benefit from an explanation on why Sydney McLaughlin's name changes to Sydney McLaughlin-Levrone.
  • Should the "time" section be sortable?
  • The caption "World records of the women's 400 metres hurdles" could be made screen reader only. This is my personal preference though.
  • McLaughlin-Levrone set five world records in this event, more than any other athlete. => McLaughlin-Levrone also set five world records in this event, more than any other athlete.
  • Add ! scope="row" before each date.

That's all I've got. 48JCL 21:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.
  • I've split the reference for source [1] and added pages for both uses.
  • I couldn't find a newer replacement for source [2], but if you can I don't mind changing it if you think that makes the information more reliable. There already was a page number that I think covers all uses of this source.
  • I don't think archiving is required or necessary: "Links added by editors to the English Wikipedia mainspace are automatically saved to the Wayback Machine within about 24 hours." according to WP:PLRT. Reference lists with many archive links usually look cluttered making them harder to read.
  • I've added notes for two maiden names.
  • The Time column is already sorted, so either all but 'Ref.' should be made sortable or none. I don't think the table needs sortable columns though.
  • I'll leave the table caption as it is.
  • I think adding "also" doesn't add much and would perhaps make the sentence more ambiguous: is it the record from the previous sentence plus these five or including these five world records? Instead I've changed the phrase into "McLaughlin-Levrone has set a total of five world records in this event, more than any other athlete."
  • See the discussion above at #Comments by MPGuy2824.
– Editør (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Editør thank you for your response. Support 48JCL 14:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@48JCL, I've replaced source [2] from 2009 with a newer one from 2015. – Editør (talk) 08:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Trackinfo

  • This subject matter is kind of my specialty. While this was exciting and newsworthy almost a week ago, this discussion and (noted above) damage to the article has lost that timeliness. I would like this article to get some play, this might not be the right time. With the challenge from Femke Bol, this is going to be a featured and much discussed event at the upcoming Olympics in a few weeks. I think this would be much better timed to correspond with either the discussion in anticipation of the match up, or after the final race. I think there is a good likelihood the record will be improved once again at the Olympics, but it could also result in one of them blowing up trying to make that attempt - - that's why you run the race. We know the date of the race is August 4. I think it would be much better on that date or immediately on either side of that date. With that as a superior proposal, I will be neutral on supporting it at some random date between now and then. Trackinfo (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comment that appears to be about featuring this list on Wikipedia's main page. You seem to be thinking ahead, because before that can happen, the article first needs to pass this featured list nomination. – Editør (talk) 10:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo_fan2007

  • Oppose per Criteria 5(c) which requires accessibility. Per long established consensus at WP:FLC, which was clearly conveyed to you by PresN, who is a FLC coordinator, accessibility includes row and column scopes in tables. Also I want to note that the nominator has two active FLC nominations and with my oppose here, there is not substantial support on this nomination to justify the second nomination. Respectfully, @FLC director and delegates: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Women's 100 metres hurdles world record progression/archive1 should be closed immediately. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the supposedly "clearly conveyed" points, my reasoning about semantics and the actual text of the manual of style was mostly ignored, including a quote from WP:ACCESS that I believe clearly indicates that row headers should not be added to this table. The fact that someone is a coordinator doesn't justify ignoring my reasoning. And neither of you is offering a solution supported by WP:ACCESS. – Editør (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Editør: PresN has been patient and explained things thoroughly. You're not required to agree with the requirements at FLC, but if you don't intend to meet those requirements, then I do intend to fail this nomination. We don't need to waste anybody's time trying to convince you to meet the requirements that are set out. You're welcome to discuss those at WT:FLC, but I don't see a scenario in which we drop the easy to meet requirement of adding scopes to rows and columns. I mean this as respectfully as possible, because I do appreciate your efforts to improve Wikipedia, but let us know whether you're going to add scopes or not so I know whether to fail this and your other nomination. There's a backlog of items to review and I'd much rather reviewers focus on nominations with a chance at passing. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are again ignoring my reasoning and not proposing any solutions.
    We need a table layout that is following both WP:FLCR and WP:ACCESS.
    I fully support FLCR 5c about accessibility, which states "It uses proper formating to be accessible to all readers." Here the words "uses proper formating" link to WP:ACCESS and the words "accessible to all readers" link to the general article Web accessibility. So from the FLCR it is clear that the text of the linked manual of style document needs to followed.
    The section MOS:DTAB of WP:ACCESS about Row and column headers states "Like the caption, these help present the information in a logical structure to visitors." So the manual of style explicitly refers to logic, marking cells as headers should make sense logically.
    The section goes on "The headers help screen readers render header information about data cells. For example, header information is spoken prior to the cell data, or header information is provided on request." Here it is explained how screen readers use headers. However, it doesn't say every table should have row headers to make them accessible for screen readers, this doesn't follow from the text. Row headers are not mandated by this text if they don't make sense logically.
    How row headers could make sense logically is that they should always uniquely identify the row, which can be found in the next line: "Because the row header and column header may be spoken before the data in each cell when navigating in table mode, it is necessary for the column headers and row headers to uniquely identify the column and row respectively." None of the current values in the columns 'Athlete (Nation)', 'Location', and 'Ref.' can uniquely identify a row, so these cannot be used for row headers. The current values in the columns 'Time in s' and 'Date' may uniquely identify a row, but this isn't always the case. The time of a world record can be equalled and count as a world record and two world records can be set on the same day. An example of this can be found in Women's 80 metres hurdles world record progression for the four world records from 1932 where none of the columns contains unique identifiers for the rows. So in this sort of table, the columns 'Time in s' and 'Date' shouldn't logically be used for row headers either, because they don't necessarily uniquely identify the rows.
    The least bad candidate for row header in the current table is the column 'Time in s', because it would make the most sense for screen readers to read this cell aloud before any other cell, but because this column doesn't always need to have a unique value, it would be a temporary patch only until a record is equalled and it would not be an example of Wikipedia's very best work in my opinion.
    This leaves the alternative to add a column with unique values as proposed by MPGuy2824 above. You could add a column with an integer (e.g. 1, 2, 3, etc.) to uniquely identify a row, but this wouldn't make much sense for screen readers, because these values don't have an intrinsic meaning, they would be only added for the sake of adding unique identifiers.
    I believe it all comes down to your willingness to understand the nature of this table about women's sport and your willingness to find the most suitable solution that exemplifies Wikipedia's best work. Saying that all tables should have row headers, so this table should have row headers, because that how it is always done isn't supported by the texts of WP:FLCR and WP:ACCESS. However I am open for new creative solutions that are actually supported by these texts.
    It has my preference to not add row headers based on the FL criteria, the manual of style and logic. If other editors continue to refuse logical reasoning over claimed precedent because that how it is supposedly always done, then the beforementioned temporary patch of marking the column 'Time in s' as row headers seems like the best way to move forward. – Editør (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See also my general note below. – Editør (talk) 10:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It has my preference to not add row headers based on the FL criteria, the manual of style and logic. If other editors continue to refuse logical reasoning over claimed precedent because that how it is supposedly always done, then the beforementioned temporary patch of marking the column 'Time in s' as row headers seems like the best way to move forward. This comment is counterintuitive and unclear. Please also refrain from focusing on other editors, such as claiming we are being illogical, as this is unhelpful and an assumption of bad faith. Please be definitive and make the change if you are going to. My opposition is not changing unless you implement what has been recommended. Note, that there is nothing "temporary" about the change. Making a change to pass the FLC process to then only go and revert that change after-the-fact would be acting in bad faith and counter to the FLC criteria and would be dealt with accordingly, likely with a warning and a summary delisting. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gonzo fan2007 I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve, I don't find your comments constructive, and therefore I no longer see the point of continuing to discuss matters with you. – Editør (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • The entire second paragraph of the lead lacks inline citations. These should be added, even if the table supports the claims.
  • The "Nation" data should be in its own column. This would make it easier to see how many different countries have owned the record.
  • The table should be sortable. This would allow the reader to easily see how many times someone has held the record, which can be difficult if people have regained the record after losing it (i.e. like Krystyna Kacperczyk, who held it first and then fourth).
  • Both notes regarding maiden names should have an inline citation.
  • Locations for US places should include the state (WP:USPLACE). Not sure about other countries, but that should be investigated for consistency.
  • "Time in s" should use {{Abbrlink}} to clarify what "s" stands for.
  • You have the space, a number of the athletes have free photos. Recommend adding in at least one more next to the table with a beneficial caption. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Copy of my statement elsewhere @User:Gonzo fan2007: I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve, I don't find your comments constructive, and therefore I no longer see the point of continuing to discuss matters with you. – Editør (talk) 18:01, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To briefly account for recent changes, I've taken over all suggestions except for the Nation column (because Nation is about the athlete, not about the world record) and the photos (because more photos would end up next to the table unnecessarily squeezing it, especially in narrower windows). – Editør (talk) 07:00, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General note by Editør

I want to add a general note. The above discussions seem to include a personal attack and to appeal to authority and tradition instead of critically interpreting the criteria and guidelines what I understand the review process is supposed to be about. I hope that we are all here to try and make Wikipedia better and that we can work together and find suitable solutions to improve this list where necessary and if possible. – Editør (talk) 10:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Editør, please provide a quote or diff showing said personal attack. After rereading everyone's comments above, I see no example of any personal attack. Otherwise, I kindly request that you strike your comment. No one is appealing to authority or tradition, we are merely stating the established consensus that has developed over the years. Consensus can change! So if you would like to make a proposal to change that consensus, update the featured list criteria or clarify any expectations, please do so. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: Purposely not including them is the same as saying "I don't think readers with limited vision need as good an experience when reading this article as fully-sighted readers", which isn't okay. – Editør (talk) 16:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't want to change the rules. I want them to see applied appropriately. And I want them not blocked because of someone's status as coordinator (i.e. appeal to authority) or because their interpretation gave different results for other articles in the past (appeal to tradition). – Editør (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a personal attack, which is clear in both the direct quote and when accounting for the full context of comment. Our coordinators interpret consensus and ensure a fair process. That is what they do. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me it looks like a bad-faith personal accusation meant to discredit, i.e. a personal attack.
Still I would like to invite you to contribute constructively and work towards a solution for this list, if you are indeed here to make Wikipedia better. – Editør (talk) 17:32, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of my statement elsewhere @User:Gonzo fan2007: I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve, I don't find your comments constructive, and therefore I no longer see the point of continuing to discuss matters with you. – Editør (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of this lengthy discussion: Editør disagrees with the consensus at FLC for how to apply the accessibility criteria to tables, specifically about whether row scopes are required. They have laid out their logic for why, specifically that their interpretation is that it is better to have no row scopes than for those row scopes to not be unique across all rows, which for this table is not always possible. One reviewer and two coordinators have disagreed with this interpretation as not matching the FLC consensus. Editør disagrees, and says that they will not follow any other interpretation unless someone gives them a logical argument that they agree with, and they do not agree with the ones given. Unfortunately, while they are free to disagree with the FLC consensus on this matter, that does not make it go away or not apply to whether or not to promote the list.

At this time, I do not see a path forward towards this nomination (or the 100m one) being promoted. Closing the nomination. --PresN 12:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Older nominations

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

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

List of Swiss Nobel laureates

Nominator(s): Broc (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently created this list, with the aim to fulfill the featured list criteria from the start. I believe it does meet all of them, hence my nomination. Switzerland has been closely linked to the Nobel prize since the start, and a large number of laureates were Swiss. Broc (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator

I did significantly expand the last lead paragraph, which at the time of nomination only included Switzerland is among the countries with the highest number of Nobel laureates, both in total and per capita. I wanted to add some context with explanations that have been published in Swiss media, as well as a remark on the general Nobel controversies (Western bias is a pretty obvious one). This should provide better context and more WP:NPOV, avoiding the mildly celebratory tone that country-based lists end up having. Broc (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comments from Staraction

  • Images need alt text.
  • Use upright scaling instead of defining the size of an image. See WP:PIC#Thumbnail sizes.
    • Note to future reviewers: have not looked into copyright status of images yet. Not a full image review.
  • "The latest Swiss laureates are Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz, who received the Nobel for Physics in 2019." --> "The latest Swiss laureates are Michel Mayor and Didier Queloz, who received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2019."

Excited to see this list nominated! Staraction (talk | contribs) 15:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Staraction! I added alt text to all images and changed the sentence as you suggested. Upright scaling can only be used with thumbnails, which might not be the best option in a table. What would you recommend? Broc (talk) 14:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added upright scaling using "frameless" option. Broc (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row. In the case of this table, I think the primary column is the "Laureate" column which contains their name.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done thanks for the inputs, @MPGuy2824 Broc (talk) 14:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

MPGuy2824
  • List of Indian Nobel laureates seems to be only other nation-based nobel laureates list. It has a section of nominees who didn't win the award. You could consider adding them here too.
  • The last paragraph of the lead section is just a single sentence. See if you can merge it with one of the paragraphs above it.
  • Run IABot on the list.
  • The Telegraph reference is generating a CS1 error. Please fix.
  • That's all that I got. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 I adapted the lead section as suggested, ran IABot, and fixed the CS1 error.
    Regarding the list of nominees, I have a few concerns:
    1. A list of Swiss Nobel laureates certainly fulfills WP:NLIST, given the amount of sources publishing on the topic ([21][22][23][24] just to link a few). However, I could not find a published list of Swiss Nobel nominees.
    2. List of Indian Nobel laureates nicely distinguishes between Indian nationals at birth, individuals of Indian origin, people with acquired citizenship, but does so only for the list of laureates and not for the nominees. I am then left to wonder what the selection criterion for the nominees section was.
    3. The lack of a published list of Swiss Nobel nominees, combined with the relatively arbitrary definition of what "Swiss" means (in the case of laureates, "held Swiss citizenship at the time of the award" seems a commonly accepted criterion, but I do not know what would be a viable one for nominees), would make the creation of a list of nominees rather close to WP:OR, in my opinion.
    Broc (talk) 10:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can wikilink a few more terms/names like "Inter-Parliamentary Union", "Olympian Spring", "Fridtjof Nansen" and "Geneva Convention", but I'll support in advance of those changes. If interest and time permit, please comment at my FL nom. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments

  • @Broc, I feel like splitting would be better to avoid confusion. Also, there might be some discrepancy regarding Theiler's citizenship. According to this report by SERI (p. 16), Max Theiler is listed as a Swiss citizen. Maybe he could be placed in the naturalized citizen section with Pauli and Steinberger. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 09:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nitro Absynthe uhm that's a tricky one. The Historical Dictionary of Switzerland mentions that Theiler was Swiss citizen by birth (place of origin: Hasle), which makes sense as his parents were Swiss. On the other hand, he certainly received a honorary citizenship, again from Hasle, in 1952, which would not make sense if he already was a citizen. However, according to the list you shared, he was Swiss when he received the prize. I think it might be best to add him in the main list with a footnote. Broc (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Source review

I see this as still awaiting a source review in the list, so will give it a shot.

  • List entries: Main

Verifying these match Das sind alle Schweizer Nobelpreisträger with the exceptions of Pauli (exclusion explained in lede) and Hermann Staudinger (explained in footnote).

  • Table row entries: References

I spot-checked a few and they all appear to be to the Nobel website, verifying the row data. Did not check every single one but I imagine this is the least controversial part of the article.

  • List entries: Later citizenship

Pauli is fine per above. Steinberger, though... the source just says "ab 2000 von Genf" and his Wikipedia article doesn't say anything about him acquiring Swiss citizenship late in life. The NZZ.ch "Das sind alle Schweizer Nobelpreisträger" list above doesn't include him, and it was clearly created after 2000. Is there a source verifying this alleged Swiss citizenship more directly? For Koffi Annan, I'm of the opinion that honorary citizenship isn't enough to qualify for what this article is talking about. It's fine to discuss him in a footnote but I don't think this deserves a full table row, especially since the above NZZ.ch source also doesn't include him but does include other later-Swiss citizens like Pauli. Like, it would be weird to call Winston Churchill an American Nobel laureate because of his honorary American citizenship, right?

  • Verified now, thanks. (Also, for clarity, I wasn't questioning the reliability of the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland, but rather the question of whether it was even indicating Swiss citizenship at all, given that the mention was brief and oblique.)
  • Additionally, four laureates acquired Swiss citizenship after the award:

Who's the fourth laureate? (Although it should be maybe two or three anyway per above if Annan is reduced to footnote status.)

  • Ten organizations headquartered in Switzerland have received the Nobel Prize for Peace. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has been awarded twice, and the International Committee of the Red Cross three times. Four of these organizations were also founded in Switzerland, and they all have their headquarters in Geneva, a city hosting more than 40 international organizations and 750 non-governmental organizations.[7]

I can't find this in either https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/facts/nobel-prize-facts/ or the 2018 archived version. It all looks pretty non-controversial but perhaps needs a better source? Certainly should be easy to get a source on Geneva hosting a ton of UN & other global orgs.

  • Geneva facts look good. However the main concern was the "ten organizations headquartered in Switzerland" bit, which is really the same question as sourcing the orgs list. See below for ideas on that.
  • List entries: Organizations

While it's not the end of the world if we do a tad bit of synthesis here... is there a source that explicitly lists this out?

  • I couldn't find a complete list, no. There is one at the bottom here [25] and here, but neither are comprehensive. I'm not sure how I could add these to the list, do you have a suggestion? Broc (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is where we write a fancy, long reference that explains where this is coming from when it's not from a source directly. You can include the other two links to prove that the topic of Swiss organizations winning Nobels isn't synthesis even if the lists aren't mirrored exactly. Something like:
    <ref>Ten organizations are based on the comprehensive list of Organization Winners at: https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/nobel-prize-awarded-organizations/ (format this nicely as a cite). Non-comprehensive lists discussing the matter can be found at: (your two links here).</ref>
    Note that you can format long references drawing on multiple sources a little more nicely with Template:Multiref2 or Template:Unbulleted list citebundle if you'd like. Can be handy to ensure the citations for webpages are on new lines. Normally I'd stick the reference in the title of the table, but since you're using a style that doesn't have titles for tables, having it in the lede section on the "Ten Swiss organizations" line is fine too.
  • Switzerland is among the countries with the highest number of Nobel laureates, both in total and per capita

The "per capita" article has been deleted, FWIW. (Swiss Info Source does check out, for all it's something of a statistical artifact.)

  • Several factors have been suggested as possible explanation, including large public funding for research,[10]

[26] and [27] verify the raw amount of funding (although it's not clear it's even "public" funding - GTranslate offers "The private sector not only finances 65 percent of research and development here" for one line), but don't seem to connect it to the Nobel Prize or awards in general at all. The real reference here is https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/nach-physik-auszeichnung-deshalb-bringt-die-schweiz-so-viele-nobelpreistraeger-hervor - I'd reformulate the SNF links to be "see alsos" in the reference primarily cited to the SRF article, and then reuse that reference for both large public funding for research and good universities.

Nitpick: None of the sources seem to use the word "Switzerland" or "Swiss" (don't have access to the full Telegraph article so can't be sure there). Obviously Switzerland is a Western country, but it could be argued that the relevance of this isn't fully established. Not demanding this be removed, just it'd be nice if there was a source connecting the dots more directly. (I do get the above comment that this is to avoid being overly celebratory / chest-puffy.)

  • Unfortunately, I could not find such source. However, omitting such important aspect (a widely recognized bias of Nobel prizes in favor of Western countries) only because it does not specifically mention Switzerland would not be according to WP:NPOV and give a rather promotional tone to the article. I do believe the current statement gives a fuller picture. Broc (talk) 12:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you gave it a look, it's fine. I agree it's a positive addition to the article, just a nice-to-have rather than a requirement on tying this to Swiss laureates.
  • According to Nobel laureate Werner Arber, the large number of awards to Swiss nationals is "likely a statistical anomaly".

True, and in the cited source, but the source ALSO includes Richard Ernst saying that it's not a coincidence and he's confident Switzerland will remain on top in the future. Both Arber and Ernst are Nobel laureates, but there's really little reason to think that either would be THAT much more informed about Nobel-politics than, say, a historian of science like Roland Müller mentioned in passing in the article. (Plenty of Nobel laureates out there with weird opinions on things, cough, cough, James Watson.) While keeping the snappy Arber quote is fine, do you have any other sources saying it's a statistical anomaly so it's not resting solely on him? (Or, alternatively, include the nationalist "it's because the Swiss are just so awesome!" by contrast first, since it's coming from an equivalently weighted source, even if we both think it's "wrong".)

Other comments unrelated to sources:

  • Peace and Economic Sciences[nb 1],[1]

Shouldn't the footnote go after the punctuation as well? Also, this is a case where the Oxford comma is mandatory IMO even in an article that doesn't use that style, because there's an earlier entry on the list titled "Physiology or Medicine". This makes it appear that "Peace and Economic Sciences" is possibly a Nobel category as well, so a comma to set apart each list entry is required IMO.

This has nothing to do with the sources, but I will plant my flag to plead that birth & death dates don't matter in this context. I know a lot of lists do include this information, and it is indeed in the Nobel webpage blurbs, but it's irrelevant and those other lists shouldn't include it either. "Age at time of Nobel award" perhaps but otherwise it's not relevant to this list. Not a blocking comment, it's up to you, but I'd personally either omit entirely, or just have a single column with both birth & death dates, sortable by birth dates. (Nobody should want to sort by death dates anyway? What would that even mean?) Totally optional, just dropping off my two cents.

Nice work overall. SnowFire (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that it's best to reply after a person's comment and to ping them @Broc, that way @SnowFire can voice their support or point out things that still need to be addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh I'm not done addressing all point yet, will do that as soon as I have a moment :) Broc (talk) 06:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire I think I addressed all points, see individual comments right below yours. Please let me know your thoughts.
As for birth and death dates: I removed the option to sort by death date (not very meaningful indeed). Age at the time of award might also be a valuable addition as the age of the laureates is often a point of discussion regarding Nobel prizes. I might add that at a later point, but would not want to remove the information in the current table, as the format is the same the Nobel Prize website uses in its blurbs. Broc (talk) 12:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, like I said I know that others opinions differs with mine on this, so I wanted to bring it up as a thought, but if you think it's relevant enough, go for it.
Just crafting a fancy citation for the ten orgs issue remaining - think we're very close! (I'd be happy to give it a shot if you'd like too.) SnowFire (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire I added the reference as you suggested in [nb 4], updated the entry from the IPB and removed the ICBL (I had initially added the entry from the German Wikipedia list, but I can't find evidence they were based in Geneva at the time of the award). Double-checking the list was worth it. Broc (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the new footnote should do nicely, and more closely drawing the line from the sources definitely helps. SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [28].[reply]

Rumford Medal

Nominator(s): Nitro Absynthe (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A prestigious physics award given by the Royal Society since 1800. The article's structure (particularly the lead) is largely based on Darwin Medal, another RS Medal, which was promoted to FL in 2022. I am renominating this for FL because I feel like I've addressed all the issues that were brought up in the article's FLRC discussion. Also, I got approval for the same in a recent peer review. This is my first FL nomination. Nitro Absynthe (talk) 05:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Sir Benjamin Thompson, known as Count Rumford" - this makes it sound like it was a nickname, rather than an honorific title. Change to "Sir Benjamin Thompson, Count Rumford"
    • Fixed.
  • "noted for his works on thermodynamics, and for establishing the Royal Institution" - remove that comma
    • Fixed.
  • "one each in silver and gold, struck in the same die, and made of silver gilt." - one is silver and one is gold, but they are both made of silver? I don't understand this.
    • Apologies, that was a poorly worded sentence. Initially, 2 medals were awarded (silver and gold). Later, this was changed to 1 silver-gilt medal. Similar changes were made for Copley Medal as well. I have rephrased it in the article.
  • "For ten times during the early 19th century" => "Ten times during the early 19th century"
    • Fixed.
  • "since then it is awarded annually" => "since then it has been awarded annually"
    • Fixed.
  • ""For his Experiments on Heat, published in his Work, entitled, an Experimental Inquiry into the Nature and Propagation of Heat"" - is this bizarre capitalisation of random words how the source presents it?
    • Yes (from ref 13). Earlier editions of RS-published sources had inconsistent capitalization, from which some of the rationales were sourced, hence the issue.
  • "For his 'Experiments on the Polarization of Heat,' " - comma should be outside the quote marks (unless this is how the source presents it)
    • That is how it is presented in the source (ref 32).
  • "For his 'Experimental Investigations on Polarized Light,' " - same here (unless this is how the source presents it)
    • Same here (ref 40).
  • "the Society of Arts of May 12, 1854" - did the Society really use the US date format?
  • Where there were joint winners, you could merge the cells in the rationale column
    • Could you please elaborate on this? The cells in the rationale column for joint winners are already merged, unless I am missing something here.
  • 2000 rationale has no end quote mark
    • Fixed.
  • "for his role in rebellion of 1831 in Parma" => "for his role in the rebellion of 1831 in Parma"
    • Fixed.
  • "Alfred Des Cloizeaux" should sort under D as "Des" is part of his surname, not a second forename
    • Fixed.
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


MPGuy2824
  • It would be good to get the English translations of the Latin inscriptions on the medal, at least for the modern version of the medal.
    • Done for the modern version. Couldn't find any source for the older version.
  • "All citizens or residents of the United Kingdom, Commonwealth of Nations, or the Republic of Ireland". Since the UK is in the Commonwealth of Nations, you can skip it from this list.
    • Fixed.
  • Infobox: It's not obvious from the reference that the Rumford medal is just lower than the Royal Medal in precedence.
    • 'Precedence' was added to maintain consistency with other RS Medal articles like Copley Medal and Royal Medal. I couldn't find any other source explicitly mentioning the order of precedence, so retained the source cited there. The awards in the table are listed in decreasing order (Royal Medal is the lowest rank of Premier Awards; subject-specific medals are of equivalent rank). I'm willing to remove this section if the source isn't good enough. Please let me know.
  • Suggestion: Expand the "No award rowspan to cover the "Notes" column too.
    • Done.
  • That's all I have. Please ping me here when you reply. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 01:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [29].[reply]

List of Seattle Reign FC seasons

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 19:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sixth list in a series on Seattle sports team seasons that I have brought to FLC, and one for one of the newer teams in the area. Seattle Reign FC are in their 12th season as a top-flight women's soccer team and have yet to win a league championship, but not for a lack of trying, with three podium finishes. The list is formatted similarly to List of Seattle Sounders FC seasons, which blends American sports lists with the international soccer standards. SounderBruce 19:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "the best performing team [....] with the most points" - is this not a bit tautological?
    • Removed "best performing" to make it clearer; American sports can have multiple ways of determining the "best" team.
  • "The NWSL Cup champion" - is this the same thing as the NWSL Challenge Cup?
    • Fixed.
  • "The Reign set the standalone single-match attendance record" - is the word "standalone" needed here? In this context does it not just mean the same as "single-match"?
    • Removed "single"; the Reign also have a higher reported attendance from a "doubleheader" with the Sounders where one ticket was good for both games on the same day, but separate numbers weren't released.
  • "The winner of that competition qualifies for the FIFA Women's Club World Cup" - given that that competition hasn't launched yet, I think this needs to be in the future tense (this occurs in two places)
    • Fixed.
  • That's it I think :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • In the table you can remove the SC column since it has no data.
    • The SC column is for a new annual tournament that will begin in a few weeks' time. It is expected to be a regular and major event, so I think it warrants its own column.
  • Italics seems to be for an ongoing competition, but it is used in the 2020 season's row.
    • Removed.
  • The Div cells can be merged since they have been in the same Division since their inception. Ditto for the League column.
    • These are standard across soccer lists due to other leagues employing promotion and relegation. There is also a chance that the table could be transcluded into History of professional soccer in Seattle, which would also include the lower-division women's teams in the area.
  • Sorting the CC column in descending order should show SF, the QF, then GS, right?
  • Similar issue with the result column for the other competitions. Also, I think you can replace "W" with "1st", for consistency with the "Position" column.
    • These are sorted similar to other soccer lists for simplicity, since the sort anchor is by the number of teams remaining at each stage of the competition (e.g. 01 for winning, 04 for semifinals, 08 for quarterfinals).
  • That's all I have. Please ping me here when you reply. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

  • Consider adding the {{Use mdy dates|July 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description in case anybody else adds references later on and they are not as careful as you've been
    • Added.
  • I think the position column could be titled better. Is it their division placement, their placement in the regular season, what is this?
    • Added tooltip description.
  • Several of the cells in the total column should probably be combined and greyed out, or at least greyed out to indicate they aren't going to be filled, such as the playoffs, CC, SC, and "other" columns. They're not really a good thing to try to summarize the "total" of at that location.
    • Grayed out most of the columns.
  • Do the statistics included in the table include all playoff statistics as well? I'm not sure how it works in soccer stat tracking, which is why I'd like to know about this.
    • Playoffs are not counted in the main table, per international norms that treat them as secondary competitions.
  • Is the intent, should the Reign finish last in a season, to list their position as "last", or to list the actual placement number? If it's not the text "last", then
    • Removed, as hopefully it won't ever need to be used. It was a holdover from tables that indicate promotion and relegation, which is very unlikely to be implemented anytime soon in NWSL.
  • Is there any reason that Rapinoe islisted ahead of Balcer in the 2022 row? I believe we typically order alphabetically by last name in instances of ties
    • Rapinoe had more assists, so she is listed first in FBref; this is a pretty common tiebreaker when determining the Golden Boot winner for many leagues.
  • Have you always only wikilinked on first mention of a source in references? You're consistent in doing so here, for the most part. I obviously prefer to link everytime, since references get added and changed, but I was just seeking clarity before my next comment
    • Either wikilink more than the first occurence, or
    • Ref 27 – Remove link to Sports Reference
      • Removed. I prefer to only link the first instance in citations.
  • Refs 1, 2, 4, 6 – Add a subscription needed tag, I'm assuming you have a Seattle Times subscription given your interests :P
    • Added a limited tag, as the paywall usually allows for some free articles.
  • Refs 14 and 27 – I believe the convention would be to change "FBref" to FBref.com and wikilink in 14 but not 27
    • Added.

Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @SounderBruce, as it seems like they didn't see this comment yet. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: All comments addressed. Thanks for the review. SounderBruce 23:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brindille1
  • "The team has the fourth-highest average attendance among NWSL franchises with 13,609 spectators per match" - Should make this clear that it's the highest average for a single season.
    • Added.
  • The prose and the "Key to competitions" should explain the NWSL Fall series
    • Added.
  • "A concurrent cup tournament, the NWSL Challenge Cup" - What is this concurrent with? Also, this tournament has restructured and the prose should mention that
    • Added.
  • The "Key to competitions" should include The Women's Cup
    • Added.
  • In "Key to cup record", NH, DNE, QR, PR Ro16, and Ro32 are unused and can be removed (Ro32 and R16 are also out of order).
    • The key would be incomplete without a full set, so I don't think it would be worth removing them. Fixed the order of the rounds.
  • It seems unnecessary to include the League and especially the Div. The club plays in the same league and there's no pro/rel
    • As explained above, it is to maintain consistency across other soccer lists and allow for future transclusion.
  • I don't see the playoff results on the FBREF page that's been cited
  • The source for Rapinoe's 51 goals doesn't indicate that she's the club's all-time leading scorer.
    • Added a source.

Brindille1 (talk) 13:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Brindille1: Thanks for the review. I have addressed your comments and made changes to the list. SounderBruce 06:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brindille1 (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC) [30].[reply]

List of Green Bay Packers team records

Nominator(s): « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A high-level overview of Green Bay Packers team records. Note, per WP:NOTSTATS, I tried to stick to the most notable and commonly reported records, and avoided to the best of my ability to dive too much into sports almanac or statbook territory. As always, happy to address any concerns. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Drive by comments, I'll be back for a full review later on:

  • A number of these year ranges use 4 digits for the second part of the range while others only use 2 digits.
  • Under the team achievements section, most of the items in that should be changes to title case (I'll call it out more specifically in the full review depending on what changes are made before I get to it)
  • "Single season" vs "single-season" – You used "single season", but most refs tend to use "single-season". I believe "single-season" is correct.
  • Rushing touchdowns in a single game, needs an "&" when listing the people

As mentioned, I'll be back for a thorough review. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey man im josh, I addressed all of them except the title case, which I will wait for your full review. Note that if a date range covers a transition from 1999 to 2000, the years should be expanded to 4 digits. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Passed

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

Feedback:

  • Ref 6 – Should be Green Bay Packers 2023 instead
  • A lot of refs – Shouldn't these be "Green Bay Packers (2023)" instead of "Green Bay Packers 2023"? This isn't a ref format I'm super comfortable or confident in, but, given the source listed above as "Green Bay Packers (2023)", I thought it best if they matched
  • I don't particularly LOVE FootballDB.com as a source, but I recognize that PFR is lacking in some of the stats they provide for free. Has footballDB.com ever been evaluated for reliability at any of the relevant boards? I would appreciate a recognized reliable source outside of PFR for statistics.
I replaced that FootballDB sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Team achievements table:
  • Downcase "Titles" to "titles" in all of these headers
  • Downcase "Wild Card Berths" to "Wild card berths"
  • Downcase "Playoff Appearances" to "Playoff apperances"
  • Downcase "NFL Title Game Appearances" to "NFL Title Game appearances"
  • Downcase "Super Bowl Appearances" to "Super Bowl appearances"
  • Downcase "All-time Record" to "All-time record"
Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Single-game records -> Kicking -> Field goals made – Wikilink Ryan Longwell and Mason Crosby
Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you calling out ties for NFL records? I see ties / most recent person to accomplish a feat listed for non-records. I'm looking at most safeties in a season specifically, where there's apparently been 19 other players who have also accomplished 2 safeties in a single season. Another example would be longest reception (99 yards).
I am not doing that. Do you think it is necessary? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other notable records -> Offense -> Most seasons leading league in lowest interception percentage – Should call out minimum number of attempts to qualify.
The source doesn't provide this. My assumption is that each season had to qualify, but that would likely be OR. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other notable records -> Offense -> Most seasons leading league in receiving yards – Stray "pg 292" in text which looks like it was meant to be in the ref
Deleted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note i, for sacks becoming an official stat in 1982 – Can you tweak this note to state whether this is counting that or not? I know we have stats available for 1960–1981, and though these are unofficial, we both know the NFL and teams often count them as if they were. Could be a useful clarifying point, though, it looks like it doesn't make a difference to who holds the record.
  • Career records -> Special teams -> Yards per punt (net) – What's the threshold to qualify? I'll note that PFR uses a threshold of 250 punts for career punting stats, which would mean it probably should be Tim Masthay for this as well
Added threshold and fixed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Single-season records -> Offense -> QB rating – No qualifying threshold stated.
  • Use "&" instead of a comma to separate the two players, as it looks like that's what you're trying to do throughout.
  • Single-game records -> Offense -> Passing -> Attempts
  • Single-game records -> Offense -> Passing -> Yards
  • Single-game records -> Special teams -> Punting -> Punts
Done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other notable records -> Offense -> Most consecutive seasons leading league in total touchdowns – Close the brackets
Brackets closed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that's all I've got, good stuff Gonzo! Please ping me when the above issues have been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review Hey man im josh. I have addressed everything except two items, where I provided responses. Let me know what you think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily think it's necessary to call out when something noted as an NFL record is a tie. I think it might be nice to have it as T-NFL record in the bracket to make it clear, but I won't be a stickler for it. Source review passed, support. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Staraction

  • All images have alt text
  • All images are appropriately licensed (WP:AGF on self-published works)
  • All images are relevant to the article
  • Captions:
    • "Blake Martinez set the Packers' record for most tackles in 2019 with 203." -> "Blake Martinez set the Packers' record for most tackles in a single game in 2019 with 203."
    • "Billy Howton had 257 receiving yards in a 1956 game, the Packers' record for a single-game."

@Gonzo fan2007 I think that's it from me! Thanks for the nomination, as someone who doesn't follow American football very closely it was an interesting read. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:47, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review Staraction! I fixed both captions, although Martinez's record was for a single season, not a single game :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 13:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alavense

  • Since entering the NFL, the team has won 13 championships (the most in NFL history), including nine NFL Championships prior to 1966 and four Super Bowls, which is inclusive of two additional NFL Championships won during the AFL–NFL merger. - As per MOS:NUMNOTES, "Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently".
  • 40 years later - Figures at the beginning of a sentence should be avoided.
  • "phenomena" is the plural of "phenomenon", so a relatively recent phenomena doesn't make sense.
  • In the first table, it should say "Ref." as there's only one. Please include the "." and maybe you can use {{abbr}}.
  • over a two season period - "a two-season period".
  • I see a lack of consistency when it comes to the saxon genitive: Donald Driver holds the Packers record but Davante Adams set the Packers' single-season receiving records. There are several instances of this.
  • In the notes, Minimum one attempt per game to qualify but Minimum 1 kick return per game to qualify.

That's all I saw, Gonzo fan2007. Nice work. Alavense (talk) 08:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Alavense! I implemented the first five bullets and the last one. Regarding the saxon genitive, does there need to be consistency? I often try not to be repetitive, so there is some purposeful change to sentence structure and diction. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edits. Support. Alavense (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [31].[reply]

List of international goals scored by Pelé

Nominator(s): Sgubaldo (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are several featured lists covering the international goals of several prominent footballers, but Pelé's is not yet among those. I've significantly expanded the lead and sourced all of his goals, so I'm hopeful this now meets the FL criteria. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

MPGuy2824

Comments

  • The cities and countries listed in the venue columns really don't need to be linked, following the formats of other international goal lists. WP:SOB
  • The Argentina flag in the hat-trick list is an alt version and should be changed.

Idiosincrático (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done, @Idiosincrático. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Idiosincrático (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - BennyOnTheLoose

Source review and a couple of general comments below. Happy to disuss any of these. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose, responses below. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

  • Footballdatabase.eu is user generated content (see discussion at RSN)
    • Replaced. –S
  • What makes Sambafoot a reliable source?
    • I haven't seen any issues with it at RSN and it's the only source that shows specifically what goals were scored by who in the two matches it's cited for. I'm happy to replace it with 11v11.com if you disagree. –S
  • Goal (website) could be "Goal"
  • Spot check on "Pelé scored seven international hat-tricks, the most of any Brazilian player." - what's the support in the source for this being "the most of any Brazilian player"?
    • Added another source to better support this. –S
  • Spot check on "one of only five players, the others being Uwe Seeler, Miroslav Klose, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Lionel Messi, to have scored in four separate ones" - no issues
  • "At the 1958 FIFA World Cup, Pelé was at the time the youngest player to participate in a World Cup" - as this is supported by the Mukherjee source (#9) rather than by the FIFA one (#10), I think it would be better to have #9 inline in the body as well as attached to the note.
    • Placed inline as well. –S
  • Spot check on "He finished the tournament with six goals, behind a record-breaking Just Fontaine, and was named best young player of the tournament" - not all supported by the cited page.
    • The source does show that he won best young player and came second in the Golden Boot race. That being said, I've added another source specifically to support the fact that Just Fontaine broke the record for most goals. –S
  • "he was nicknamed O Rei (The King)" - I'm not seeing support for this in the cited source.
    • Added another source to support this. –S
  • Spot check on "emerged as a worldwide black sporting star" - no issues.
  • Spot check on "scored his final international goal on 11 July 1971 against Austria, and made his final appearance for Brazil against Yugoslavia on 18 July 1971." - no issues
  • "Pelé is widely regarded as one of the greatest football players of all time and was among the most successful and popular sports figures of the 20th century." - seems a fair statement given the Olympics source which provides next inline citation, and the following sources cited.
  • Spot check on "included in the Time list of the 100 most important people of the 20th century," - no issues. It really was by Kissinger.
    • I also did a double take when I first saw that. –S

General comments

  • I accepted the changes to the list suggested by scripts about hyphens/dashes and replacing curly quotes with straight - please check, and revert if required.
    • Changes are fine, thanks. –S
  • I see there have been a couple of recent changes to the article. I think the restoration on 13 July is reasonable.
    • The editor had added non-full international appearances which, to my understanding, are never included in these sorts of lists. –S
  • "remains Brazil's youngest ever goalscorer"/"seven international hat-tricks, the most of any Brazilian player"/"He is the only footballer to have won three World Cups and is one of only five players, the others being Uwe Seeler, Miroslav Klose, Cristiano Ronaldo, and Lionel Messi, to have scored in four separate ones" - these statements will possibly become outdated. Consider rephrasing (e.g. to the effect "As of 2024, ...")
    • I think "remains Brazil's youngest ever goalscorer" is fine as is. I've added something for the other two statements. –S
  • In the Goals table, is 1–2 meant to appear between 1–1 and 2–0 in the Result column when it is sorted?
  • The sorting by date in the Hat-tricks table doesn't seem to work properly.
    • Fixed. –S
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC) [32].[reply]

List of SB19 live performances

Nominator(s): – Relayed (t • c) 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I have nominated an article/list, but here I am with another, List of SB19 live performances! This list documents the live performances that the Filipino boy band SB19 have done since their debut, including tours, one-off concerts, awards shows, television, and more. I began revamping this list last February, but only progressed much later in May, and I finally finished it this week. This has to be the hardest list I have got my hands on revamping; sorting their performances, working with multiple sources, and the size of the article is definitely a pain.

The revamping of lists like this is part of my efforts to improve Wikipedia's coverage of SB19, hopefully getting them to have their featured topic soon! I believe I have improved the list pretty significantly from its previous state with the criteria in mind, and I think this list is deserving to be promoted as a featured list. I would be happy to address all your concerns, suggestions, and feedback; they are much appreciated. I sincerely thank the reviewers in advance who will put their time and effort here. – Relayed (t • c) 18:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and accessibility review
  • All images have alt text
  • All images are in public domain or appropriately licensed
  • All images are relevant to the article
  • All images are captioned appropriately
  • All of the tables meet MOS:DTAB, along with the infobox.

Support on image and accessibility review. 48JCL 14:50, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and for being here, 48JCL! – Relayed (t • c) 14:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vaughan J.

Placeholder. Full table review coming soon! — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 10:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • {{N/A|—}} → {{N/A}} – The template has the dash "—" already applied. Ditto for the next few sections.
    Done; thanks for spotting that!
  • Would it be better to add rowspans? Except the show numbers. See List of Regine Velasquez live performances. Ditto for the next few sections.
    I prefer avoiding rowspans for this list because I think the extra cell borders make it easier to read information row-by-row, especially since there is a lot of similar information in the tables, which can be quite difficult to navigate if rowspans are in place. Also, I use some of the "Virtual" cells with notes for additional information as to where the footages of their performances were recorded.
  • {{Abbr|Ref(s).|Reference(s)}} → {{Abbr|Ref.|Reference(s)}} per this and this review. Ditto for the next few sections.
    Done

That's all the concerns I have for this review. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 10:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being here, Vaughan J.! I have addressed your concerns. Let me know if you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 18:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Everything else is sorted. For the second concern, that does makes sense, so I'm crossing that out. — VAUGHAN J. (t · c) 07:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, Vaughan! – Relayed (t • c) 08:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "They also attended several virtual music festivals" - "attended" makes it sound a bit like they were in the audience of just hanging about. Suggest changing to a word which makes it clear that they actually performed.
  • "Additionally, SB19 have also performed at the 2023 Asia Artist Awards and became a featured act at several music festivals" => "Additionally, SB19 have also performed at the 2023 Asia Artist Awards and been a featured act at several music festivals"
  • For things like the UP Fair: Hiwaga, I would put "unknown" under "songs performed", as the dash makes it look like they performed no songs
  • "Dunkin' Presents: SB19 was initially scheduled for March 19, 2020, with the title Dunkin' Presents: Give in to SB19,[35] until postponed to April 23, 2022" => Dunkin' Presents: SB19 was initially scheduled for March 19, 2020, with the title Dunkin' Presents: Give in to SB19,[35] but was postponed to April 23, 2022"
  • That's it I think - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, ChrisTheDude! Thanks for having a look! I have addressed all your comments. Let me know if you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 11:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support! – Relayed (t • c) 11:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MyCat

I was offline in July- sorry for missing your message! Happy to review now that I'm back MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The band co-headlined another online concert, Forte: A Pop Orchestra Concert, with 4th Impact in October 2021, for the benefit of music scholars - not sure what "for the benefit of music scholars" means
  • the Aurora Music Festival 2024 in Pampanga and two outside the Philippines, the Round: ASEAN–Korea Music Festival 2023 in Indonesia and Pistang Pinoy sa Korea 2024 in South Korea. - I don't think "two outside the Phillipines" is needed, just "the Aurora Music Festival 2024 in Pampanga, the Round: ASEAN..." would suffice

I see nothing else of concern, great work as usual MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 19:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MyCatIsAChonk! Glad you made it! It's alright. I apologize for making you review as soon as you have returned. Thank you for reviewing BTW. I have addressed all your concerns. (I have been busy lately, which is why I was not able to take action on them sooner.) Let me know if you have anything else. – Relayed (t • c) 17:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All good, happy to support MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 18:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, MyCatIsAChonk! – Relayed (t • c) 07:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 13:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC) [33].[reply]

List of cities in Luhansk Oblast

Nominator(s): Dan the Animator 04:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given my current FLN List of cities in Donetsk Oblast is effectively ready and will likely be promoted in the next day or two, I'm going to go ahead and start this one. Most of the list content is copied over from the stuff I created at the Donetsk Oblast list, which was already reviewed during that article's FLN, so I'm guessing there won't be any major issues to resolve with this one. In any case tho, excited to get this one through and continue the series! Cheers, Dan the Animator 04:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Steelkamp

  • Do the raions cover the whole oblast or just part of the oblast? This should be explicitly mentioned in the second paragraph.
Fixed? Yup, I reworded it to say The eight raions that make up the oblast are Alchevsk... and Svatove raion but let me know if additional rewording is needed.
  • "War in Donbas" should be changed to "war in Donbas".
Fixed
Fixed
  • I don't think linking City in the table is necessary as it's an everyday word as per MOS:OVERLINK.
Removed link
  • The space before reference 15 should be removed as per MOS:REFSPACE.
Fixed
  • Why is Luhansk in italics in the table?
Luhansk is the oblast capital so I though I'd put some distinguishing feature on it similar to how other list of cities articles put an asterisk on capitals. If it helps tho, I don't mind taking it out... I didn't really expect it to be an issue.
It's just that without a key, readers might not know why Luhansk is italicised. Also, as per MOS:TABLEKEY, I don't think italics is considered accessible. A symbol is needed instead and a key used. Given that Luhansk is already mentioned as the capital in the lead, you could just do away with italicising/using a symbol in the table altogether. Otherwise, a key and symbol are needed.
Fixed I just took it out.

Steelkamp (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steelkamp thanks for the edits and reply! Let me know if there's anything else left to do. Dan the Animator 04:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Steelkamp (talk) 04:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In addition to the above.....

  • Can't see any reason for the former names of cities to be in italics
Removed italics
  • None of the image captions are complete sentences, so they should not have full stops.
Fixed
  • Most of the image captions contains facts (eg "Popasna, a major railway city heavily damaged during the invasion") which are not mentioned anywhere else in the articles, so these will need to be sourced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added sources


  • Maybe it's my browser, but there is no black line between the header and the first row (as is between all other rows).
The table looks alright on my end (I'm using the desktop version on a Dell laptop) so could be your browser?
  • I believe the columns with numbers should be aligned to the right, so it is visually easier to compare the numbers.
I aligned the two population columns and the pop. change column to the right but it leaves excessive whitespace imo. I'll leave it on for now so you can take a look but if its alright I think its actually easier to compare the numbers with center-alignment since there's less space separating them (alternatively, if there's a way to decrease the width of the columns to get rid of at least some of the empty space, that would also work for me).
  • The images are great on desktop, but on mobile, it is simply more to scroll past before I get to the table (which is the most important thing in this list ofc). So I would recommend limiting the number of images (maybe only in the introduction).
Fixed? I didn't remove any images since I really think five images is fine (also there's no space in the intro/lead so that's not feasible) but I added in a link on the top of the images in the list section that mobile users can click to skip (jump to) the table directly, bypassing the images. Also tested it myself on mobile and it works fine! This type of link is usually used on other similar types of list articles too with images so this should solve the issue but let me know if there's anything else to do!
  • It think the table should make clear that the Ukrainian links point to another Wikipedia language version.
Fixed? I don't disagree but I can't figure out a good way to do this. I changed the title of the column to "Name (in Ukrainian Wikipedia)" but is this be too ambiguous? (e.g., some users might be unsure whether the name is actually displayed in the Ukrainian language or if the Ukrainian names are correct (since Wikipedia, in any language, is not WP:RS)). Interested to hear your thoughts about this!
  • The Commonscat template can be moved to See also, to minimize whitespace.
Fixed I just moved to the External links section instead in-line with how a lot of other articles do it.
Dajasj (talk) 20:57, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestions Dajasj! Let me know if there's anything else I can do with the article (also fyi I'll also be applying any suggestions here to my other FLN List of cities in Donetsk Oblast. Cheers, Dan the Animator 01:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the replies!
  • I am now on another laptop, and there is no issue with the top line any more, so it was my problem...
No worries! Good thing it fixed itself! ;)
  • The column could be "Name in Ukrainian (Link to Ukrainian Wikipedia). It is a bit long, but that's not a big issue because other column names are also long.
After careful consideration and testing out a few different things, and also realizing that apparently there's an English Wikipedia page about the Ukrainian Wikipedia, I settled with: Name (on Ukrainian Wikipedia). My thoughts behind this: the link to Ukrainian Wikipedia says in its first line in the lead that it is a "Ukrainian-language...online encyclopedia" and its already implied that the name is in Ukrainian since its coming from the Ukrainian Wikipedia so the "in Ukrainian" part is redundant imo; the blue highlighting that Wikipedia projects use to indicate links to other pages already implies that the links go to the Ukrainian Wikipedia and the word "on" is sufficient for this too I think. Let me know if this title is alright with you but just to let you know, I feel strongly that this is the best choice after thinking about it quite a bit the past few days.
  • Aligning to the right looks perfect on my current screen and on mobile. You could set a "width" to these columns, so there is a max width to these columns on wider screens (where it tries to write "Population" on one line). That should limit the whitespace. Dajasj (talk) 06:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dajasj! After testing out the width parameter markup, turns out its better just to keep it as-is with the right alignment and no additional markup.
@Dajasj: And I think that should covers everything! Let me know if there's anything else I can do/if the article's alright now and thanks again for all the suggestions! :) Dan the Animator 04:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Dajasj: its been a few days now so please let me know if there's still anything holding up your support. Hope all's well! Dan the Animator 21:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support, sorry for my late reply. Regarding Mattximus point below, I won't oppose if the jump link is removed, because I see this often in (featured lists), but multiple images is nevertheless annoying for mobile users (which nowadays is most of our readership). Dajasj (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Np and sounds good! I'll rmv it based on Mattximus' followup. Thanks for the support!!! :) Dan the Animator 17:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Not sure why there is a jump to table link, that can be removed (from both this table, and the one in Donetsk).
Earlier in the review, Dajasj suggested removing images due to the need to scroll a bit on mobile. I think the number of images is perfectly fine and works really well on desktop so to address those concerns, I added the jump link. I don't have a strong preference for keeping or removing the jump link so if Dajasj's alright with it, I can take it off.
  • This article is quite good, but the image captions need a bit of work. The cities are not smallest, or largest, as the areas are not given. They are the most populous, or have the smallest population, or some other wording.
Fixed
  • Citation for 2001 census broken for me.
Fixed? applied the same changes I made with the Donetsk list so if that one's alright now then this should be fine too.
Thanks Mattximus!!! :D Let me know if there's anything else I can do! Dan the Animator 16:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CMD Hello, a few comments and questions:

  • The moving back and forth in chronology in the lead is a bit jarring (2022, 1977, 2020, 2014, 2022, 2016). Not suggesting strict chronology is needed, but I do think a bit more would be beneficial.
While I don't full disagree, after trying a lot of different rewordings and restructurings, I think its best to keep the arrangement mostly as-is. I did switch out the 2022 estimates with 2001 census stats per below so hopefully that helps a bit but for the rest of the lead, I think its important and more helpful for the reader to keep it organized topically/thematically (e.g. keep the sentences about military occupation from 2014 and 2022 next to each other rather than divide them with the admin. reform from 2020). With the current order, it really helps save on words while still being specific/detailed on which cities were occupied by separatists (if the admin reform is moved after, it becomes necessary to either say vaguely "most cities in the south of the oblast" or list out each city occupied individually, which is not ideal imo). Also, whatever ordering is decided here should likely be applied more or less to all the other oblasts lists so best also to take a look at those articles (like my other current FLN for List of cities in Donetsk Oblast) and consider those lists too. I'm definitely open to any ideas/changes about this tho if its decided and wouldn't be fully against the needed changes for this (I just don't think making these changes are ideal for now).
  • Unclear from the lead if the "cities of regional significance" are part of the 37 count, and the exactly relationship between city settlements and raions.
Fixed? I expanded/reworded the lead a bit with more clarifying details and specifics so let me know if its more clear now.
  • Probably helpful to include in the lead an explanation that the 2001 census is both the most recent and only census in independent Ukraine, although given both the Oblast and the lead stretch further into the past, is there a reason older censuses could not be included? (It would for example, give context to the 1977 change.)
Fixed added that bit about the 2001 census into the lead and switched out the 2022 estimates with the census numbers to make it flow better (I don't think this switch should be a huge issue tho since the 2022 estimates are still on the list anyways and many sources opt to use the 2001 stats, like WashPo apparently and the UN and others).
About including older censuses, I based my limiting it to two on my thorough checking of other similar FLs (an earlier reviewer Mattximus's userpage is especially helpful for this (not linking here so not to bother them)), which almost all have only two population columns, the Ukrainian language versions of these lists, most of which are already featured content and also use two pop. columns, and the recent successful FL for List of cities in New Brunswick where it wasn't an issue. I'm open to adding additional statistics if there's a compelling reason for it but I think having three pop. columns would possibly mess up the pop. change column and wouldn't be too helpful anyways (about the 1977 change for Almazna, its city status was given solely because of its importance to the local mining industry, not its population (and this is already suggested in the lead since Almazna has less than 10k ppl and falls into the "economic significance" sort of cities)). Also, I think the 2022 estimates, even if they're estimates, are still really helpful and shouldn't be replaced or considered subpar to the census data (in case it helps, this Atlantic Council piece does a great job imo saying why the estimates are alright).
  • Why are the city names being implied as being sourced to Ukrainian Wikipedia (not a reliable source) when the main source for the list [34] gives Ukrainian names?
I'm guessing this is referring to the Name (on Ukrainian Wikipedia) column name. Earlier in this review, Dajasj suggested changing the then column title Name (in Ukrainian) to indicate that the Ukrainian names link to the Ukrainian Wikipedia articles. After trying out a few different titles and weighing them, I settled on the current one. Check my reply above in After careful consideration [...] the past few days to see my main reasoning behind choosing this wording and why I think it should be alright. If it helps, I'm open to adding in the 2022 estimates ref next to the column title.

CMD (talk) 04:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks CMD for the suggestions and great to see you here! :) Let me know if there's anything else I can do and what you think about my replies/follow-up edits. Dan the Animator 14:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: pinging in case my earlier reply didn't get through (sorry for the bother!) Dan the Animator 18:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed replies. I am unfamiliar with the way other featured lists of this type are done, if it's normal to just list one or two of the most recent then no need to challenge that consensus here. I do think the reference should be duplicated; I don't know if I understand this presentation of interwiki links, but if it is to be used the article needs to be as clear as possible that a wiki is not being used as a source. The city/raion wording is much clearer. What are your thoughts on creating a new paragraph starting from "Following the Donbas war..."?. It doesn't seem related to the first parts of that a paragraph, and at least would reduce the jumping around within paragraphs. CMD (talk) 11:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicated the reference per above but also changed the name again, this time adding a note which hopefully should address your and Dajasj's earlier comments (I brought the column title back to its original but I also added a note which says that the names link to Ukrainian Wikipedia articles). Take a look and let me know if this would work for everyone.
For the lead organization, thanks CMD for the suggestion! :) I tried out having it separate but it felt a bit off having four separate paragraphs in the lead (especially for this article's size) so I opted to do some more lead rewording/reorganizing to keep it at three paragraphs. It still has some time jumping within paragraphs (mostly just the middle one where it goes from the 2020 reform to the 2016 renaming) but I think the new ordering's an improvement (for the lead overall now, the chronology from start to finish is roughly 2001, 1977, 1991/2020, 2020, 2016, 2014, 2022, 2016/2020 (I don't think this last one really counts tho since it's referring to earlier parts of the lead)). Let me know if its better or if there's anything else I should do. Dan the Animator 18:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead seems improved, a bit more thematically coherent. I still do not really understand the interwiki link usage here, but looking at the MOS I can't actually find much on it, so I don't think it causes an issue with the FLCR. Aside from no alt text on the first map, the FLCR appear met with the changes. Best, CMD (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed (assuming google translate is not wildly misleading me); promoting. --PresN 00:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC) [35].[reply]

List of Taylor Swift live performances

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list covers the live performances of Taylor Swift, who has recently become the first artist to headline a $1 billion-grossing tour. Kudos to Medxvo for assisting with removing NONRS. Ippantekina (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would this still qualify for deletion to quality despite that the person who nominated it for deletion was the FL nominator? 48JCL TALK 20:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus at the AfD was keep so I really don't see the issue. Ippantekina (talk) 04:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

  • Swift's sixth studio album, Reputation (2017), was supported by negligible television performances -- suggest an alternative wording for negligible, or perhaps since she did little TV performances, you can lead into the Reputation tour directly.
  • It is the first concert tour in history to surpass $1 billion in box score revenue. -- maybe some wording here can be piped to List of highest-grossing concert tours, since it is a notable record and one she currently tops.
  • In the "Concert tours" table, I don't think we need to link the countries/territories (per MOS:OL)
  • In the reference column for all your tables, I would update the abbreviation to "Ref(s)" since it is written as "Reference(s)" when hovered.
  • Great to see this is finally on FLC. Nice work. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:24, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Pass

Hi @Pseud 14: I've addressed all of your comments except the links to countries. I think while it makes sense to not link "common" countries like U.S., England... there are also "lesser-known" ones like Wales, Northern Ireland... so I decide to link them all to avoid potential demographic biases. Ippantekina (talk) 06:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. Maybe just a minor nitpick but not a deal-breaker. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

  • For the lead's first sentence, shouldn't it be (American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift) rather than (The American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift)? Something about the use of the determiner seems off to me, but I could be wrong though.
  • For the lead's second sentence, I do not think "various" adds much and can be cut as the focus seems to be more on the different venues where she has performed.
  • This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance but I would use "television" rather than the acronym in this part (as well as on TV and radio). I would do the same for the "TV shows and specials" section heading.
  • The lead makes a point that The Red Tour was her last tour as a country artist, but it does not specify what genre she transitioned to after that for her subsequent tours.
  • I doubt that the countries need to be linked in the tables as most readers would be familiar with these areas. This kind of thing is brought up in MOS:OVERLINK. Also, since the table is sortable, there are instances where the first time the country appears is not linked. I would limit the links more so to cities and more specific areas like that. I respectfully disagree with your above "potential demographic biases" argument.
  • The linking for the tables is inconsistent. The award shows, such as the American Music Awards, are linked in every instance, but the television shows, like Good Morning America, are only linked on the first instance. On top of that, since the table is sortable, readers may encounter an unlinked term before getting to the actual link. To account for that, I would think that everything would need to be linked. Other examples of this would be Rascal Flatts being only linked once in the "As opening act'" table or the song titles only being linked once.
  • Apologies for that, and thank you for your clarification. I should have checked the awards links more thoroughly. That being said, my other point still stands. Since the tables are sortable, it cannot be controlled which entry a reader may encounter first. Things like songs are currently linked on only the first instance if no sorting is done, but if a readers does sort, they may through multiple, unlinked entries before getting to the link. As I said above, I would think that every item would have to linked in each instance to account for this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes sense as WP:DL does say that duplicate links are allowed in tables. I'll implement this shortly! Ippantekina (talk) 04:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the One World: Together at Home part, I would include a note that it was done virtually and also include where she filmed her performance if it is known.
  • I would be consistent with either using title case or not in the citation titles.
  • Citation 27 (here), Citation 28 (here), Citation 31 (here), Citation 32 (here), Citation 33 (here), Citation 35 (here), Citation 49 (here), Citation 138 (here), Citation 227 (here), Citation 255 (here), and Citation 265 (here). are no longer active. The CMT ones in general seem to have issues as most just redirect to the home page.
  • Citation 55 (here) should specify that it is in Japanese.
  • I would avoid putting words in all caps like in Citation 71 (here).
  • For Citation 79 (here), I would use the press release citation formatting instead.
  • Citation 121 (here), Citation 123 (here), Citation 133 (here), Citation 154 (here), Citation 220 (here), Citation 247 (here), Citation 248 (here), and Citation 275 (here) are missing the authors. I would honestly check all of the citations without author credits for this. I also believe that Citation 275 should be Time not Time Magazine.
  • Citation 163 (here) is still active for me so I do not think the archived version needs to be used. Same for Citation 166 (here) and Citation 274 (here).
  • The archive for Citation 224 (here) does not support the information provided. Also, the song title should be in single quotation marks as it is presented in the citation title.
  • Citation 231 (here) requires a subscription. That should be noted in the citation template. I would make sure any other instances of this are noted as well.

I am sorry, but I oppose this list for promotion, primarily because of errors in the citations. I have also noticed inconsistencies with how linking is handled in the tables, which would not be as big of an issue by itself. Apologies again, and I would be more than happy to revisit this review once my comments are addressed. You have always done great work so I hope that this does not come across as too harsh or anything overly negative. Aoba47 (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Aoba47:, I believe your points are actionable and will act on them. In the meantime I've replied to some of your points above. Ippantekina (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Take as much time as you need. I have replied to your responses above. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Aoba47: for the refs. could you kindly specify the article revision that you reviewed so I could better keep track of them? Ippantekina (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not including this earlier. I honestly did not think of doing that, but it makes sense as things will likely change during revision. I believe this version was what I was looking at during the time of this review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: Thank you for your patience. I believe I've addressed all points that you raised above :) Let me know if anything remains unsatisfactory. Ippantekina (talk) 05:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding to everything. It all looks good to me. My only remaining point is that the citation for the first Nova's Red Room performance does not support the songs. The archived citation (at least for me) goes to an overview of different articles on the site. I do see a link to an article about her performing "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" there, but that does not appear to be archived. Once that has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find a replacement ref anywhere so I'll remove that until a reliable source is found... Ippantekina (talk) 16:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I had a feeling that would be the case. I tried to either get access to a better archived version of the original source or to find a different citation, but I did not have any luck with either. Removing it would be the best option. I approach this kind of list as containing all of the notable live performances of a particular artist, rather than being an exhaustive list so since I think that it is okay that this performance does not make it due to a lack of a citation. I did not look through newspapers so maybe that would help, but I think this is the right choice for now.
Apologies for the long response, but I do support this FLC for promotion based on the prose and I have struck my oppose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did look through Newspaper.com, ProQuest for potential news sources to no avail. I'll try to continue looking for a replacement ref anyways. Thanks so much for your constructive feedback :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am just glad that I could help. Thank you for your patience with my review. Best of luck with finding a replacement reference. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (ec with last editor)

  • "She has additionally performed in various festivals, awards shows, benefit concerts, and sporting events" - unless usage in US English is different, I would suggest this should be "She has additionally performed at various festivals, awards shows, benefit concerts, and sporting events". Certainly in the variety of English spoken in my neck of the woods, one does not perform "in" a music festival. But, as I said, maybe US usage is different......?
  • "which supports all of the albums in Swift's discography." => "which supports all of the albums in her discography."
  • "to surpass $1 billion in box score revenue." - box office revenue surely, unless this is a US usage of which I am unaware
  • Tour names starting with "The" should sort based om the next word in the name
  • Any particular reason why the first three tables have the name of the event first and the dates second, and then suddenly it switches to the other way round?
  • I followed other examples like List of Lady Gaga live performances, and if I rationalize that myself, each concert tour (the content of the first 3 tables) is a combination of various concerts and hence the tour names being listed first makes more sense; plus dates are presented in rage so including them first is confusing imo. Meanwhile other events (TV, radio, awards) are one-off events so it makes more sense to sort it chronologically by including the event date first. Ippantekina (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did she not perform any songs at "Trails West!" and some of the others, or is it just unknown what she performed? If the latter, I would suggest putting "unknown" or similar, as the dash honestly looks like it means "none"
  • Is there any value in that songs column being sortable given that it will only ever sort based on the first song listed?
  • TV show titles starting with "The" should sort based om the next word in the name
  • Why are some of the benefit special titles in italics and others not? For example, Children In Need (a UK telethon) is in italics but Stand Up to Cancer (also a UK telethon) is not

Source review

Most sources in the article are reliable. Some are acceptable primary sources (i.e. iHeartRadio source to confirm a show at the iHeartRadio Music Festival). Some are long-established local newspapers related to the city where Swift played. However, there are some sources that don't appear to be reliable at a first glance.

  • I haven't done spotchecks, but I checked one source, [37], and it doesn't confirm the August 18, 2007 date.

Skyshiftertalk 21:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll get back to you asap. My preliminary comments are that while Bustle, Us Weekly are not the most reliable for BLP or commentary, in this usage as reports of popular culture they should suffice. Ippantekina (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Ippantekina. No rush, just following up on a number of FLC comments at the moment. Just pinging to see if the concerns have all been addressed. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: @Skyshifter: hey, I've responded above. Let me know if anything needs further adjustments :) Ippantekina (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Skyshifter didn't do spotchecks, I used a random number generator to check 10, and found some consistent problems:

  • 23, 67, 218, 236 - good
  • 72, 125, 155, 189, 248 - does not explicitly state the date
  • 48 - does not explicitly state the date, does not say it's part of the Fearless tour, implies she sang more than the two songs listed

I do believe that the information given is accurate; why wouldn't it be. But over half of the randomly selected refs don't actually say the date for the event they're citing, as far as I can see, which I feel is problematic. Please see what you can do to address this in general (presumably this is an issue for more than just these specific refs). --PresN 00:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally news coverage of awards shows/TV like 72, 125, 155 are published pretty much immediately after the events happen; of course articles that explicitly mention the dates do exist so I hope to find alternatives asap. 48 does imply she sang more than the 2 songs listed but since it doesn't say more, why would we include more; plus the "Part of the Fearless Tour" is cited by ref 35. Ippantekina (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: update, I'm running through all refs again to make sure they mention the exact dates. For refs that fail this verification and there are no replacement news/articles/reports, I use {{Cite episode}} or {{Cite AV media}} which are a little on the nose but the second best thing we can go for.. Will update you once it's done. Ippantekina (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: I've conducted a run-through of the references (phew!) Let me know if it looks better now :) Ippantekina (talk) 09:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, promoting! --PresN 20:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC) [38].[reply]

Rock-climbing equipment

Nominator(s): Aszx5000 (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because this is a comprehensive list of equipment for the discipline of rock climbing. While individual elements of rock climbing equipment will change/evolve, the essence is quite stable. Rock climbing is now a new Olympic Sport, so I think this area will get even more attention in the future. I had proposed it as a GA but the recommendation was that the article was more of a list, which is correct, and that it would be a good suggestion as an FL per Talk:Rock-climbing equipment/GA1. thank you. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

This review will take me a little while – feel free to ping me if I go more than a few days without following up.

  • Images need alt text
Done.
  • "And finally" → "Finally,"
Done.
  • The lead lists modern devices with the older devices they replaced – where is this information supported in the body? For instance, I see no mention of chockstones after the lead.
Done., I have mentioned chockstones in the body, where they were replaced by nuts.
  • Not technically wrong, but the list has a tendency to overuse parentheses; some of them can be reworked
    • Example: Under Type of climbing, "and its X variant" doesn't need parentheses
Done., hopefully that is better now.
    • Another example: The second paragraph of Ropes (starting with "Some climbers will use...") has 4 sets of parentheses in one sentence. This ends up feeling really choppy.
Done., and agree, hopefully better now.
  • Per MOS:ACRO1STUSE, write out acronyms where they first appear: UIAA, CEN, OSHA, maybe CE marking?
Done., CE marking is the actual name here.
  • "in lieu CEN" → "in lieu of CEN"
Done.
  • "which are (circa 7–8 mm)" – misuse of parentheses
Done.
  • "(or 'tape')," – no comma needed
Done.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delighted that you are willing to help @RunningTiger123. This is (clearly) my first attempt at Featured article status. I have a few GAs under my belt and I think I am writing at a reasonable GA standard, but have little concept of FA stardard, but if you are up for it, I would love to learn and happy to spend time on this with you at whatever pace you prefer. thanks again :) Aszx5000 (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • "European European Committee for Standardization" – redundant
Done.
  • "e.g. the asymmetric/offset D-shape is the most common" – misuse of "e.g."
Done.
    • "e.g." means "for example" – if you substitute "for example" in place of "e.g." and it doesn't make sense, you're using the wrong phrase
understand thanks,
  • "(and materials used)" – no need for parentheses
Done.
  • "e.g. they require little in the way of gear-carrying loops" – another misuse of "e.g."
Done.
  • "e.g. to fit around heaving winter clothing" – same thing
Done.
Done.
  • First paragraph under Belay devices is unsourced
Done.
  • "e.g. a static rope that is hanging from a fixed anchor" – another "e.g."
Done.
  • "Petzel Traxion" – typo for Petzl
Done.
  • "Petzel Micro Traxion, and Camp Lift" – no comma needed, also same typo?
Done.
  • "SCLDs" – should be SLCDs? (occurs twice)
Done.
  • "like a Hex" – use lowercase for consistency
Done.
  • Don't hyphenate "bolt-hangers" for consistency
Done.
  • "stands one on aider" – I think this should be "stands on one aider"?
Done.
  • "Rock climbing hammers are mainly used..." – bullet point doesn't follow the same opening format as all of the others
Done.
  • A lot of bullet points under Miscellaneous equipment are unsourced
Done., I also added one extra item, the Knee pad, which is a commonly used piece of equipment
  • "is used by all rock climbers" – all is a strong word, so it either needs to be clearly sourced or removed
Done., changed to "is very popular amongst rock climbers"
  • Remove comma after parentheses for medical tape
Done.
  • Suggest archiving web sources (see WP:IABOT)
checking this.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:45, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123, thanks for those comments. I have made all of the changes but I am not sure I understand the last one re WP:IABOT? My understanding is that that bot runs automatically, or am I meant to run it? thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:08, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can run IABot on demand here – it's not required but it can be nice to include. Also, I think you missed the "e.g. a static rope..." comment above, but I don't think it's worth waiting to support over that. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, have fixed the "static rope" now, and I will run the IAB. Thanks so much for your help and comments on this. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just ran the IABot as well - wasn't aware of that. Thanks again. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo_fan2007

General
  • Be conscientious of your use of "where", which is often not the best word for what you are trying to say.
done, good point and have reduced the # of where's to 3
  • I'm not sure of Wikipedia's policy on "e.g."... Ill try to see if I can find something.
I found MOS:ABBR, and while there is no mention of "e.g." it does use the term a lot?
  • You use a lot of parentheses; not necessarily bad but it is best to try to word sentences in such a way that this isn't needed as much.
That is a fair point. I have taken out most cases where they are used outside of when it is an "(e.g. )" or "(also known as..)" situation.
Lead
  • Why is "rock-climbing" hyphenated in the title and the article? Rock climbing isn't.
I am not sure about the grammar of whether combining the word "equipment" necessitates the hyphen. I have found books with/without the hyphen. I am happy to do either way but would need admin support to remove it as it was originally moved from the existing rock climbing equipment in 2011?
When this FLC is done, it should be moved. I've never seen the hyphen before and don't see any grammatical necessity for it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you link "climbing" as climbing in the first sentence?
done
  • Bouldering needs the least equipment outside of shoes and chalk and optional crash pads. replace the first "and" with a comma.
done
  • Finally, aid climbing uses unique equipment (e.g. aiders). - add to assist the climber in upward movement (e.g. aiders) or something similar
done, said ".. to give mechanical assistance to the climber in their upward movement (e.g. aiders)"
  • done manually, and with greater control (in all conditions) and less effort delete the first "and"
done
Use and certification
  • Equipment is limited to climbing shoes and chalk (with chalk bag). add "generally" before "limited" as neither shoes nor chalk are technically actually required to climb
done
  • variant, adds a rope, harness, and belay device, but no general climbing protection outside of that which is used to create the anchor point at the top of the climb from which the top rope is hung (which is usually done with carabiners, slings, and/or cord) run-on sentence. Recommend a full stop after "belay device"
done
  • Recommend replacing "in-situ" with on-site or linking in-situ
done, replaced with on-site
done, should not be hyphenated
  • every pitch needs to be solo climbed (SLDs) what is "SLDs" referencing here? SLDs is later defined in the article as "self-locking devices"
done, expanded to self-locking device and added "using"
  • At least link "Brexit" or explain. Like "After the United Kingdom left the European Union, it adopted the UKCA certification in place of the CEN.
done, used your wording which is better
  • UKCA needs to be defined
done, linked to the UKCA marking article
Ropes and slings
  • Some climbers will use a single full-thickness climbing rope of circa 9–11 mm circa -> approximately. mm should be defined ({{Abbr}})
done for both
  • both shouldn't be italicized
done
  • "Circa" again, just use the more common "approximately"
done it for the full article
  • Where two thinner ropes are used that are both clipped into each protection point (i.e. it is not to reduce rope drag, but instead to have a backup rope for long climbs), it is known as twin roping add in the 7-8 mm thickness after "tinner rope", like two thinner ropes, typically 7-8 mm in thickness, are. Also, it would sound better to just start with Twin roping is...
done all suggestions
  • Climbers use webbing that has been sewn using a certified standard of reinforced stitching into various lengths of closed loops called "slings" (or "runners"), which can be used in a wide range of situations, including wrapping around sections of rock (e.g. for abseiling, or creating belay anchors, or as passive protection), or tied to other equipment—often via carabiners—to create a longer version of a quickdraw or even a makeshift lanyard. long run-on sentence. Find somewhere to split into two.
done.
  • "Circa" again
done, replaced for full article.
  • Cord loops (also known as "cordelettes") serve a wide variety of functions in rock climbing including creating friction prusik knots for ascending or gripping fixed climbing ropes, usually using thinner circa 5–6 mm cord, or for attaching to, and equalizing forces across, multiple fixed anchors points,[15] such as when setting up abseil or belay anchors on multi-pitch climbing routes, usually using thicker circa 7–8 mm cord. long run-on sentence again. Split.
done
Rope devices
  • You define "SLD" multiple times in the article. You also link the second use of the term. You should really link and define at the first instance. Maybe move the SLD section up above descenders?
done, per above, I have now linked to it at its first mention in the "Type of climbing" sub-section. Given that, have not moved the SLD section above Descenders, and left in alphabetical order?
Protection devices
  • This section is the only one where you introduce the term with a full stop immediately after (e.g. Hexes. instead of Hexes are...). Recommend changing to be consistent.
done, have changed to be consistent with the rest of the article
  • Tricams are typically cheaper and lighter than SLCDs, and are less in use today. and -> but and no comma needed
done
  • Similar to the previous section, you use SLCD before you define it. Maybe move "Active" before "Passive"
done, swapped
  • is attached into which carabiners (and quickdraws) can be clipped. no need for the parentheses.
done
  • decade, but have a finite, comma not need
done
  • protection of choice, but are still, comma not needed
done
  • Define or link "crag"
done, linked to crag (climbing)
Aid equipment
  • "aid" to the aid climber in ascending, no need for the second "aid"
done
  • which are a central part of the technique of aid climbing where they are normally used in pairs some rewrite needed as it is confusing. Is it a central part of aid climbing only when used in pairs? "where" is probably not the right word either (when is more appropriate)
done, split sentence and re-worded to ".. and are a central part of the technique of aid climbing. They are normally used in pairs .."
  • Like aiders, daisy chains are also a central part of aid climbing where they link the harness to the aider (see above); not sure what you mean by "where they link the harness to the aider" nor do I understand what the "see above" is referencing.
done, re-worded to "Like aiders, daisy chains are also a central part of aid climbing. They are used to attach the harness to the aider. Care has to be taken ...."
  • Copperheads are only used in aid climbing and their low strength means that they can only handle the "static bodyweight" of an ascending aid climber, and will likely fail where the climber makes a dynamic fall. the first and should be a "but" and the comma before the second "and" isn't needed
done
  • These are steel hooks of various shapes (e.g. bat hook, talon hook, grappling hook, etc.,) that are hung from cracks and flakes (e.g. the fifi hook and skyhook). Mostly used in aid climbing, but they have been used in extreme traditional climbing routes as a last resort (i.e.hook placements may not withstand a dynamic fall). -> Steel hooks of various shapes (e.g. bat hook, talon hook, grappling hook, etc.,) are hung from cracks and flakes (e.g. the fifi hook and skyhook). They are mostly used in aid climbing but have been used in extreme traditional climbing routes as a last resort (i.e. the hook placements may not withstand a dynamic fall). Note that in my update, I fixed a missing space between "i.e." and "hook"
done, and merged sentence with the heading of "Hooks", per earlier changes.
  • These are mainly used by aid climbers to hammer in various types of pitons while ascending routes; note that clean aid climbing does not allow the use of hammers as all clean aid equipment must only be inserted on a temporary basis. -> A type of hammer made insert various types of pitons whilee ascending routes; clean aid climbing does not allow the use of hammers because all clean aid equipment must only be inserted on a temporary basis.
done
Clothing equipment
  • The anchor link to belay glasses doesn't work for me (i.e. it doesn't go to the specific term in that page)
done, linked to the Belay glasses article
  • Belay gloves are used to protect the hands when doing lots of belaying (especially on big wall climbing routes), and their construction from leather or other hard-wearing materials, generally improves grip with the rope, which lessens the risk of a failure of the belay system. I would recommend deleting ""when doing lots of belaying" as an obvious statement. Then add a full stop after the parenthetical.
done
done
  • "edging", and softer delete the comma
done
  • particularly where the falling lead climber is flipped over. where -> when
done
Misc equipment
  • This is the only section without an intro sentence. Recommend adding one for consistency.
done
  • , which could cause ankle or back injuries. -> leading to injury.
done
  • that has been dangerously worn down delete "dangerously" as editorializing
done
  • Nut tools should be singular or "are" should be used
done, made singular
  • climbers even use toothbrushes to clean the smallest holds without damaging them -> toothbrushes may be used to clean the smallest holds without damaging them
done
Training equipment
  • A narrow flexible (e.g. it can be rolled up) all-metal, or PVC/webbing, ladder that, too many consecutive adjectives. Reword to something like A narrow and flexible ladder, typically capable of being rolled up, made from metal, PVC or webbing that
done
  • that may be climbed up and down without the aid of the feet. replace "may" with "is typically"
done
  • the "hangboard" is focused on change to "was developed to focus on"
done, re-worded the two sentences to say "is related to the campus board and was developed to focus on building static arm and finger strength;"
See also
  • The Wikimedia commons box goes in the "External links" section per its documentation
done
Images
  • All photos are appropriately licensed, captioned and have alt text. All do a good job of helping the article.

Nice work! Aszx5000 Please ping me when you are ready. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Gonzo fan2007 - only just back from my travels over the last few weeks but will get to work on the above shortly. Much appreciated! Aszx5000 (talk) 10:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007:. Thanks for all your great input and comments listed above, all of which I have now hopefully incorporated into the article. Aszx5000 (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, really nice work on what is an atypical and challenging list Aszx5000. I made two small copyedits in the article, hope that they are ok with you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those changes are great and your support is very much appreciated! Aszx5000 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 21:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [39].[reply]

List of BBC National Short Story Award winners

Nominator(s): Il lupa (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a comprehensive list of writers shortlisted for the annual BBC National Short Story Award. It's the first list article that I've made but, as far as I can tell, it meets all the criteria for a featured list. Il lupa (talk) 13:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "(previously known as the National Short Story Award, 2006-2007)" - I think "(known as the National Short Story Award in 2006 and 2007)" would work better
  • "It is an annual short story contest in the United Kingdom which is open to UK residents and nationals" - I would move it to the first sentence i.e. "The BBC National Short Story Award is an annual....." and then move the bit about it being prestigious into the second sentence
  • "the winners receives" - this should be easier "the winner receives" or "the winners receive" but not what you have currently
  • Both notes need a full stop
  • That's all I got - great first nom! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback, I've made all the improvements you suggested Il lupa (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:54, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824
  • Sorting the results column should put the runner-ups between the winners and the short-listed candidates.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • 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. | 2001 becomes !scope=row | 2001 (on its own line). If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have fixed the results column sorting and added column and row scopes. I'm pretty sure I've done it correctly but please let me know if I'm wrong! Il lupa (talk) 13:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your changes look good. Another issue: The last column in every table sometimes has multiple references. You can use the {{Ref.}} template for each of the column headers to take care of this. Please ping me here when you are done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 I have updated the headers. Il lupa (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - BennyOnTheLoose

Happy to discuss any of these points. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose Thanks for all your feedback! I've gone through and updated everything apart from two small things:
  • I agree that it would be better to change "Each year, the winner receives £15,000 and four shortlisted writers receive £600 each..." to "As of 2017..." but I don't technically have a source for the year, I can just tell by looking at past winners. Given that, I'm not sure if I should change the sentence?
  • I do not have a 2024 source for Sarah Hall.
If I've missed anything or made any mistakes, let me know. Il lupa (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Il lupa: Thanks, just a couple of points pending. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the two points you've mentioned above, I think MOS:NOW gives some helpful advice about rewording.
  • Lead has the BBC quote ""the most prestigious [award] for a single short story", but the more independent (London Met) has "one of the most prestigious for a single short story". I think it would be better to add the "one of" qualification, unless there is another good source.
  • "As of 2018, the BBC National Short Story Award has not had an all-male shortlist" - I think it should be "As of 2018, the BBC National Short Story Award had not had an all-male shortlist"

Source review

  • I made some changes suggested by scripts, including one for consistency in how dates appear. Please review to see if there are any issues with those changes.
  • ISSN is not required for newspapers, but if you are including it then it should be there for all citations, for consistency.
  • Some inconsistency in how sources are shown, e.g. first ref has BBC, but "Fifteenth BBC National Short Story Award shortlist revealed" has www.bbc.co.uk.
  • publisher=The Globe and Mail location=Toronto - inconsistent with other cite news templates used here. I think it's best to just use work (or newspaper).
  • Similarly, Belfast Telegraph should be either work or newspaper, not "publisher"
  • WP:RSN has "no consensus" for reliability of The Spectator. I think for what it's supporting here, it's fine to use that publication.
  • No concerns with the reliability and suitability of the other sources used, for the topic and the information supported.
  • The info in the Notes is cited in the lead. Personally I'd prefer that the sources were added to the footnotes too, but it wouldn't be grounds for a source review failure if they were not.
  • I think that the text Includes full text of story after the Creamer & Wood citation is fine, as there is no suitable parameter in the cite news template that I can see.
  • What makes the BBC itself a suitable source for "It has been described as 'the most prestigious [award] for a single short story"?
  • The quote in the previous bullet should be in double quotion marks. (MOS:DOUBLE)
  • Spot check on "the richest prize in the world for a single short story" - no issues (except "Richard Lea" should appear as "Lea, Richard")
  • "Rosemary Westwood" should appear as Rosemary "Westwood, Rosemary"
  • Spot check on "Each year, the winner receives £15,000 and four shortlisted writers receive £600 each" - supported by the source; but I wonder if it would be better to phrase this with something like "As of 2024..." given that later we find out that originally "while runners up received £3,000 and shortlisted writers £500 each". Also, the prizes might not always be the same amounts in future.
  • "£500 each.[5][4]" - some editors prefer citations in numerical order. Not necessary to swap the five and four, but you could if you wanted to. (Same with "[4][1]" and "[16][1]")
  • Spot check on "It was founded in 2005 and announced at the Edinburgh International Book Festival the same year" - no issues
  • Optionally, you could add an author-link= parameter for Aida Edemariam.
  • Spot check on "The BBC National Short Story Award has never had an all-male shortlist" - source is from 2018 so cannot support "never"
  • Spot check on " In 2009, only women were featured on the shortlist" - no issues
  • Spot check on "Sarah Hall, who won the award in 2013 and 2020, is the only writer to have won the award twice" - source is from 2020 so can't support info from after that. It's perhaps fair to argue that it is supported by the fully cited tables later in the article, but is there a 2024 source that confirms this?

General comments

  • Per MOS:£, £ should only be wikilinked, if at all, at the first instance.
  • "Canadian writer D. W. Wilson became the youngest ever recipient of the award in 2011" - consider adding the author's age at time of winning.
  • I think that If a book is locked there's probably a good reason for that, don't you think? and And the moon descends on the temple that was might need some extra capitals - please review MOS:TITLECAPS and let me know what you think.
@Il lupa: Just making sure you're aware that feedback has been provided. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tagging me! Il lupa (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose I believe I've fixed all the issues except for the fact that I don't have a source for when the prize amounts changed so I can't see how to reword it to be clearer Il lupa (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Il lupa: How about something like "Naomi Wood won the 2023 award for Comorbidities and received £15,000. The other four shortlisted writers received £600 each." ? (I realised that Wood wasn't mentioned in the intro.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose Does Wood need to be mentioned in the intro? If not, I would probably be inclined to leave the lead as it is. Il lupa (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Il lupa: no, so how about something like "In 2023 the winner received £15,000 and the other four shortlisted writers received £600 each."? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BennyOnTheLoose I've switched up the wording and references slightly so it should now be clear and address your original concern. Let me know what you think! Il lupa (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Il lupa: Thanks! All looks good now. Great work. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 14:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 20:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [40].[reply]

List of Seattle Kraken draft picks

Nominator(s): XR228 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have gotten the lead of the article to a level that I think meets the criteria. Everything else should be good too. Thanks. XR228 (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

MPGuy2824
  • 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.
  • One cell in every row should be the header cell and it should begin with a "!" instead of a "|". You can also use rowspan for the years, since a lot of them are in common. You should change the scope to "rowgroup" if you do this. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

  • Since their creation, the Kraken have drafted 28 players, the 2023 NHL entry draft being the third in which they participated. – The juxtaposition from picks to the 2023 being their third draft is choppy and needs rewording.
  • You switch back and forth calling them Seattle and Kraken in the lead, pick one and stick with it.
  • Down case 2021 NHL Entry Draft to 2021 NHL entry draft
  • There's a lot of info that could be helpful that's not included in the second paragraph and I think it needs to be expanded to better explain the draft process a bit. A high level overview obviously, but this isn't as clear as I think it could be.
  • After the end of his rookie 2022–23 season, Beniers won the Calder Memorial Trophy as the League’s best rookie – Remove "end of his rookie" from the first part of the sentence. The second part explains the award clearly enough that this information is redundant.
  • ...managing 24 goals and 33 assists in 80 games. – Probably improved by replacing "managing" with "having accumulated".
  • The Kraken's second overall draft pick in 2021 was the highest they have ever drafted. – Could be reworded to be better I think. Something like, "The highest the Kraken have ever drafted was in 2021, when they had the second overall pick." or "The Kraken have never selected higher than in 2021, when they had the second overall pick."
  • Don't switch between using "second" in the lead and then using "1st-round pick" at the end. Be consistent, at least in prose, with the usage of words.
  • Ref 5 missing publisher date
  • Date format is inconsistent in sources
  • Usage of publishers not consistent in refs (Ref 1 and 2 use "National Hockey League" while ref 3 uses "NHL.com")
  • Inconsistent wikilinking of publishers, please wikilink publishers for consistency
  • Ref 4 needs to be marked as a subscription being required
  • The source uses combines the ties plus overtime losses columns. Is there a reason you've separate them out? It doesn't look like there's any sources linked that show these being counted separately.
  • Per MOS:NOTSEEALSO, the see also section should not be linking to their first draft.

That's what I've got for now, though I think on a re-pass over I'll probably find more. Please ping me when you respond. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You missed a few, but this is the feedback I have:
  • Ref 4 – add |subscription=required
  • The source used combines the ties plus overtime losses columns. Is there a reason you've separate them out? It doesn't look like there's any sources linked that show these being counted separately.
  • Paragraph two could be improved, there's information that could be useful, such as the fact that, based on the source, it doesn't seem as simple as just being 18 to be drafted. There's also more info I'm sure those unfamiliar with hockey could find useful.
  • The images need alt text added for accessibility
  • ...Ryker Evans, Ryan Winterton, and 2022 fourth overall pick Shane Wright. – Remove the part about his pick. It's not specified for others so it's not necessary for Shane Wright.
  • General ref 2 – Add <code>|website=[[Hockey-Reference.com]]</code>, publisher can stay since they're the parent company
  • The table currently has a table title of "caption text"
  • Second image uses "first" and "4th", switch it to "fourth" for consistency.
  • This page is pretty light on SIGCOV, with only 7 sources, three of which are from the NHL and two of which are from sports databases. This could be improved upon.
  • Use "background-color" instead of just "background" for the column headers. If you do not do so, the sorting icon is missing, which makes the page below what we expect for accessibility. You also have an extra exclamation point in the column text, just before "scope", that should be removed.
  • If this is meant to be THE entirety of the team's picks, why are the picks from the 2021 NHL expansion draft not included?
That's what I've got for now. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the changes. The 2021 expansion draft was selecting players from 30 of the already existing teams, so it isn't the same as an entry draft. XR228 (talk) 02:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XR228: There's a number of points you have failed to address, some of which this is the third time I'm mentioning:
  • Ref 4 – For the third time, add |subscription=required to the reference, as a subscription is required to access the source
  • The source used combines the ties plus overtime losses columns. Is there a reason you've separate them out? It doesn't look like there's any sources linked that show these being counted separately. Needs to be called out or explained in some way.
  • Paragraph two could be improved, there's information that could be useful, such as the fact that, based on the source, it doesn't seem as simple as just being 18 to be drafted. There's also more info I'm sure those unfamiliar with hockey could find useful.
  • This page is pretty light on SIGCOV, with only 7 sources, three of which are from the NFL and two of which are from sports databases. This could be improved upon.
Further feedback:
  • General ref 1 – Change from publisher = |publisher=The Internet Hockey Database to |website=HockeyDB, based on the fact the Wiki page is called that
  • Draft picks are draft picks. I don't see a reason not to include other players that were drafted by this team.
  • Add the {{Use mdy dates|June 2024}} template to the top of the article under the short description for consistent date formatting
As mentioned, ping me when you respond. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I've made the changes. Also, there is a difference between an ENTRY draft and an EXPANSION draft. The FL List of Atlanta Thrashers draft picks does not have any selections from Atlanta's expansion draft. XR228 (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XR228: I understand there's a difference between entry and expansion drafts. I'm heavily involved with NFL articles, particularly draft list promotions, and we have had expansion drafts as well. @The Kip: has discussed the issue of the expansion draft with me at his nomination for the Vegas Golden Knights. I don't love the exclusion of it, and I genuinely believe it's relevant, but I'm willing to let it slide and not use that as a reason to oppose promotion of these lists.
  • Prior to the 2005–06 season, the NHL instituted a penalty shootout for regular season games that remained tied after a five-minute overtime period, which prevented ties – Close, but might be a bit too wordy. What about something like "As of the 2005–06 season, the NHL implemented new tiebreaker procedures, making ties no longer possible."?
  • "Entry Drafts" should be lowercased.
  • Row scopes need to be declared with an exclamation point (! scope="row") to be accessible. | scope="row" is not acceptable for accessibility reasons.
I fixed the general reference myself. Again, please ping me when you respond. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 06:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh, @PresN, any other changes that need to be made? XR228 (talk) 07:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh I have made the requested changes. XR228 (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MrLinkinPark333 (verification and copyvio check)

  • Table:
    • Individual references for Beniers, Evans, Winterton and Wright are needed to show their entire NHL career was with the Kraken.
    • Janicke (2021) was Left Winger.
    • Jackson (2022) was Centre.
    • Needs a reference to show the nationality of all of the players.
  • Lead:
    • The entire first paragraph is uncited. All of the content should be cited like at List of Atlanta Thrashers draft picks.
    • "Kraken have participated in three drafts and selected 28 players." -> four drafts and selected 36 players.
    • "The NHL entry draft is held each June" - not mentioned at the NHL guidelines.
    • "exceptions being players...age 18, 19, or 20." - this long sentence copies and closely paraphrases the four points from NHL operations. This quoted part should all be removed.
    • "order determined by the number of points earned by each team" - this part should be reworded a bit to meet WP:LIMITED to avoid similar wording at Entry Draft Order points at NHL operations.
    • "weighted lottery for the 16 non-playoff teams" - new updated source needed as the 2013 NHL Draft lottery source has 14 teams, not 16.
    • "four of the Kraken's draft picks have gone on to play with the Kraken" - Condor 2024 doesn't mention Shane Wright. Need an extra citation here.
    • "The team with the fewest points has the best chance of winning the lottery," - New source needed as the NHL operations guidelines don't mention a lottery.

Oppose Based on the copyvio from NHL operations, I will have to oppose for now. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @XR228. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Hey man im josh. I didn't see this. My bad. I'll get to this as soon as I can. XR228 (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrLinkinPark333, I have made the requested changes. XR228 (talk) 19:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. There's a few leftover points to go through:
  • The entire first paragraph in the lead needs citations.
  • order determined by the number of points earned by each team" - needs rewording to avoid close paraphrasing of NHL Operations.
  • allowing the winner to move up to the first overall pick" - This isn't 100% correct. Only the top 11 teams can win the #1 pick (#1 can't move up anymore, #2-#11 can move up 10 spots to #1) per NHL.
  • Table references for Benier, Evans, Winerton and Wright neeeded to show they only played with the Kraken. Otherwise, the shades and key can be removed
MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:52, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrLinkinPark333, I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 14:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kraken compete in the National Hockey League (NHL) as a member of the Pacific Division of the Western Conference and began play during the league's 2021–22 season," - Not verified by NHL 2018 as the team was not named yet, that they competed in the Western Conference/Pacific Division nor their first season was in 2021. An overall source about the Kraken's playing history and division/conference can work here.
  • making them the second newest team in the NHL" - The 2018 NHL source says they were scheduled to debut in 2021, while the 2024 NHL source does not mention Seattle was the 2nd newest. A different source is needed that shows the 2 newest teams are Seattle (2021) and Utah (scheduled 2024).
  • "Since their creation, the Kraken have participated in four drafts and selected 36 players" - Thank you for rewriting. This now needs a source.
  • "any of the top 11 teams to move up to the first overall pick" -> " any of the top 11 teams to win the first overall pick" (since the #1 team can't move up anymore)
MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrLinkinPark333, I have made the changes. XR228 (talk) 08:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost there. "as a member of the Pacific Division of the Western Conference" -> "as a member of the Pacific Division" (as HockeyDB doesn't say Western). Once that's adjusted, you'll be good to go verification wise! MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrLinkinPark333, I have made the change. XR228 (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MrLinkinPark333 can you change this to "Support" XR228 (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thank you for the changes! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Staraction

  • All images relevant to the article - perhaps include more if appropriate? Please ping me if you do.
  • All images have proper licenses
  • All images have alt text - perhaps change them to specify a particular format of image? ie. "Photograph of the Kraken's first ever draft pick, Matty Berniers"
  • All images have captions

Support on images. Thanks for your work @XR228! Staraction (talk | contribs) 20:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Support! XR228 (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting. --PresN 01:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [41].[reply]

1986–87 snooker world rankings

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you've seen any of the earlier Snooker world rankings articles and wondered how they could make the system even more complicated and unfair, the answers lie within. Ranking points, comparison of performances in the most recent year, merit points, "A" points and frames won are all in the mix. Steve Davis topped the list once again, by a considerable margin. As always, extracts from relevant sources are available on request to reviewers. All improvement suggestions are welcome. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "He noted that WPBSA chairman Rex Williams was ranked 16th instead of John Parrott who had the same number of ranking points as Williams but more merit points," => "He noted that WPBSA chairman Rex Williams was ranked 16th instead of John Parrott, who had the same number of ranking points as Williams but more merit points,"
  • "in the 1985/1986 season top 16 players were" => "in the 1985/1986 season the top 16 players were"
  • "Williams has been ranked 27th the previous season" => "Williams had been ranked 27th the previous season"
  • "Other Ranking Tournaments" => "Other ranking tournaments"
  • "If player were still equal" -> "If players were still equal" (in three places) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

  • Neal Foulds, ranked in the top 16 for the first time for 1986/1987, moving up to 13th from 23rd place. -- I think it should be a verb here as in moved up to 13th from 23rd place following a supplementary information in between.
  • That's all from me. Great addition to your series. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

  • Images have alt text.
  • Images are appropriately licensed (AGF on self-published work)
  • Images have succinct captions and are relevant to the article. Suggest italicizing "(pictured in [year])" in the captions. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a review, unrelated comment

@BennyOnTheLoose:: Just noting that I've renamed and tweaked the nomination based on the recent move discussion for this series. Hopefully you don't mind, and I apologize in advance if I've overstepped. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh all good. I copyedited this one so the body is consistent with the new title format. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

Source review: Passed

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

Assumed good faith on the sources that were inaccessible to me. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [42].[reply]

List of Johnson solids

Nominator(s): Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first time nominating FL, and I hope this meets all the criteria of FL. One reason I am nominating this for the featured list is because it is a complete list of Johnson solids, along with the surface area and volume, as well as the symmetry. As for the background for someone who does not comprehend mathematics, especially in geometry, the Johnson solids were in the list proposed by Norman Johnson, and he conjectured that there were no other solids, after which was proved by Victor Zalgaller. I think I can give three examples for the exhibition:

There are actually 92 of them, but I would not exhibit them a lot here. I hope this could be the next FL of WP:WPM, and it could be the first FL of sister WikiProject, WP:3TOPE. Anyone, including someone interested in it, can review this. Many thanks for the comments and suggestions. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remsense

Claiming a spot here, since I think it's a great article and I still want to properly go through it like I promised. Remsense诉 07:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo

@Sgubaldo. I think I have complete all of the suggestions above. Let me know if there are any remaining missing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, I'll have a full read-through later. In the meantime, I've added some urls/other missing author links myself. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and made some copyedits. Feel free to revert an edit you're not happy with it.
Here are some more commments:
  • The passage
    These solids may be used to construct another polyhedron with the same properties, a process known as augmentation; attaching a prism or antiprism to those is known as elongation or gyroelongation respectively. Some others are constructed by diminishment, the removal of those from the component of polyhedra, or by snubification, a construction by cutting loose the edges, lifting the faces and rotate in certain angle, after which adding the equilateral triangles between them.
is a bit confusing to read because I'm not sure what 'those' is referring to. I'm reading it as you attach the prism/antiprism to any of the first six Johnson solids, but it's not very clear.
  • Is defining area and volume necessary? I'm specifically taking about the sentences "An area is a two-dimensional measurement calculated by the product of length and width, and the surface area is the overall area of all faces of polyhedra that is measured by summing all of them. A volume is a measurement of the region in three-dimensional space." I understand you have to consider WP:TECHNICAL but perhaps you could just include how the volume and surface area are calculated for a polyhedron and remove the definitions themselves.
  • Is the sentence "one case that preserves the symmetry by one full rotation and one reflection horizontal plane is of order 2, or simply denoted as " also necessary? You already explain the group and this is just one example
Sgubaldo (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "defining area and volume necessary": This is on purpose to make readers (for non-mathematicians, students, or anyone who is interested in it) recap the meaning of area and volume. If it does not exist, readers may search them on the previous wikilinked. I am aware that one problem here is our articles is somewhat technical, making readers even much more confused. Take an example of Surface area, stating that "a measure of the total area that the surface of the object occupies". This is not only to help readers to understand the definition, but rather to give the meaning of the object specifically. Here, I wrote the surface area of a polyhedron specifically as the total area of all polygona faces. So to put it plain, this is intended to summarize them specifically about the polyhedron's characteristics. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern was more whether the sentences "An area is a two-dimensional measurement calculated by the product of length and width" and "A volume is a measurement of the region in three-dimensional space." were necessary, but if you think they are per WP:TECHNICAL, then I'm fine with their inclusion. Sgubaldo (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr Anyways, final comment on this part: "The volume of a polyhedron is determined by involving its base and height (as in pyramids and prisms), slicing it off into pieces after which summing them up...." – I'm slightly unsure as to what 'involving its base and height' means here. Could you clarify? Sgubaldo (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is just like saying that volume of a prism and pyramid is the product of height and its base, with an exception that pyramid is one-third of it. The inside bracket is meant to show the merely examples. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr, could you rewrite the sentence a little to clarify that? I think it's still hard to understand in its current state. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm trying to say that volume of a polyhedron can be calculated in different way. Take examples as in the prism and the pyramid. The volume of a prism is the product of base and height . The volume of a pyramid is one-third of the product of base and height . From all of these examples, their calculation only involves the base and height . Dedhert.Jr (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr. Thank you, I understand now; these will be my final comments then, after which I can support.
  • What do you think about tweaking the relevant part of the sentence mentioned above to something like: "The volume of a polyhedron may be ascertained in different ways: either by decomposing it into smaller pieces, such as pyramids and prisms, calculating the volume of each component, and then computing their sum, or......"
  • When you say "meaning their construction does not involve both Archimedean and Platonic solids", is that intending that it doesn't involve both Archimedean and Platonic solids at the same time or that it involves neither of the two. If it's the former, then it's fine. If it's the latter, I think it should be changed to "meaning their construction does not involve neither Archimedean nor Platonic solids"
Sgubaldo (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "tweaking": What? This means something different. My interpretation is that you pointed the polyhedrons such as pyramids and prisms can be defined their volume by decomposing it into smaller pieces.
What I meant about those facts is that every polyhedron's volume is different to finding them. One example that I already explained is involving the produvt of base and height. However, not all the volume of polyhedrons can be done in that way. We can see an example of Triaugmented triangular prism in which constructed from a triangular prism by attaching three equilateral square pyramids onto its square faces. To find its volume, we need to slice it off into a triangular prism and three equilateral square pyramids again. Finding their volume, and then add up the volume again, and the volume of a triaugmanted triangular prism is total of those. But this method is not working for sphenomegacorona, and the alternative way is by using root of polynomial, as described in OEIS. That is what I meant also in the previous copyedit. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "elementar": The definition by not involving Platonic and Archimedean solids was copyedited from the previous meaning in several articles of Johnson solids. However, Cromwell and Johnson gives different meaning, so I'm going to copyedited the rest of them. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sgubaldo Update. This was already discussed after I changing the definition; you can see my talk page. Feel free to ask. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel really silly, I was misreading the sentence about finding the volume and couldn't see there were three different methods. The changes to the definition look good. There were a couple of minor prose issues I had, but to not enter a WP:FIXLOOP, I tried making the changes myself. Please do check and revert if you disagree with anything.
Support promotion, I hope this becomes one of the few mathematics-related FLs. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "": Not expert in symmetry here. As far as I'm concerned, the symmetry is explicitly stated in the source [43], consisting of identity and mirror plane, and this can be denoted as . Is there something wrong? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert either. What I was trying to say was that you explain the symmetry group with the sentence "The symmetry group of order preserves the symmetry by rotation around the axis of symmetry and reflection on horizontal plane", but then also go into specific detail about , which seems to be a specific case of . My concern was whether this was necessary, since no other examples of a symmetry group are explored in the article. Is it because it needs to be shown that is denoted as ? Sgubaldo. It is a mirror symmetry, merely. (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Our articles says it is involution group symmetry, as it is shown in List of spherical symmetry groups,. The notation is in Schoenflies notation. If it's possible, let me ask this in WP:WPM to gain more precise meaning ensurely. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm happy with this part now. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re "these solids". It means that the first six Johnson solids can be used to construct more new Johnson solids by attaching the uniform polyhedrons (as it is included in the article), and those constructions are already mentioned above, with some exceptions that snubification does not need them basically. Some of the Johnson solids cannot be constructed without them. I think I will fix this one, but I have to be careful my writing. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I've made some minor edits here too and I'm happy with this part now. Sgubaldo (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • 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. ! Solid name becomes !scope=col | Solid name. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1 becomes !scope=row | 1. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 21:26, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Implemented them all. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder

This is already 20 days, almost three weeks, and there are no responses from the reviewer. Pinging @Sgubaldo, @Remsense, and @PresN. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ping you with my last reply, but I supported above. Sgubaldo (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will have remarks by the end of tomorrow, apologies. Remsense诉 14:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense: Just pinging to see if you're still planning to follow up with a review. Ideally, a source review would be very much appreciated if you're at all familiar with the subject matter. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sending a ping again to @Remsense. Please at least just let us know if you're no longer interested in doing a review. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll withdraw, as I don't think I'm presently qualified for this. Deep apologies. Remsense诉 15:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense. That's fine. I merely waited for someone reviewed the article; otherwise, the nomination would start over again because of inactivity by reviewers. @Hey man im josh. Do you mind if you can review the article? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this isn't an area I'd be comfortable reviewing. One thing not to clear me, at a passing glance, is what verifies what's actually in the table? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh. Sorry, I can't comperehend your words. Can you clarify? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind @Dedhert.Jr. I was asking what verifies the formulas in the last column, but I missed that there was a reference in the column header. Though, if you were referring to the first part of the comment, I'm not comfortable enough with the subject matter to review it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh Well, I'm now worried that this nomination will expire. I am tired of repeating nominations in the same situation. I already saw this when I looked up the FAC. Should I ping members on related topics WikiProject, or are there alternative ways? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to share your nomination at a relevant WikiProject, but we're pretty patient with nominations. There are currently 8 people nominations that are older than yours and I promoted one yesterday that was over two months old. For a source review, I think someone from a relevant WikiProject would be excellent. Perhaps a message asking if anybody is a subject matter expert and could provide a source review at the nomination? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh That's a good idea. Thank you. But how long does the nomination will be expired? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hard established hard deadline. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. I have invited the members, but I doubt that some of them will ignore it. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dantheanimator

  • "The points, lines, and polygons of a polyhedron are referred to as its vertices, edges, and faces[,] respectively" <- add in comma (shown in brackets)
  • "they do not share the same plane, and do not "lie flat"." <- I think the comma here can be removed
  • "the faces are regular and they are vertex-transitivity" <- from my non-expert understanding/reading of this sentence, I'm guessing it probably should be reworded as "the faces are regular and the vertices have vertex-transitivity"
  • "they are the Platonic solids and Archimedean solids, as well as prisms and antiprisms" <- the way I read it, it sounds like these are examples/types of uniform polyhedra right? If that is the case, I think a better way to word this sentence would be "A uniform polyhedron is a polyhedron in which the faces are regular and have vertex-transitivity; examples include Platonic and Archimedean solids as well as prisms and antiprisms."
  • Since the nationality of Zalgaller is mentioned, for consistency, "after mathematician Norman Johnson (1930–2017)" should be reworded as "after American mathematician Norman Johnson (1930–2017)"
  • "create two small convex polyhedrons" <- shouldn't it be "create two small convex polyhedra" since its plural?
  • "The Johnson solids satisfying this criteria are the first six—equilateral square pyramid, pentagonal pyramid, triangular cupola, square cupola, pentagonal cupola, and pentagonal rotunda—as well as the tridiminished icosahedron, parabidiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, tridiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, snub disphenoid, snub square antiprism, sphenocorona, sphenomegacorona, hebesphenomegacorona, disphenocingulum, bilunabirotunda, and triangular hebesphenorotunda." <- this should probably be divided up into at least a few sentences (e.g. keep it as "The Johnson solids satisfying this criteria are the first six—equilateral square pyramid, pentagonal pyramid, triangular cupola, square cupola, pentagonal cupola, and pentagonal rotunda" and then have the next sentence saying something like "The criteria is also satisfied by eleven other Johnson solids, specifically the tridiminished icosahedron, parabidiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, tridiminished rhombicosidodecahedron, snub disphenoid, snub square antiprism, sphenocorona, sphenomegacorona, hebesphenomegacorona, disphenocingulum, bilunabirotunda, and triangular hebesphenorotunda." (would be great to divide this second sentence more but I'm not sure what the best way to do that would be (maybe group them up by their Johnson numbers (e.g. "satisfied by eleven other Johnson solids, with [insert name] and [insert name] in the Johnson number range 60 to 70, [insert name], [insert name], and [insert name] in the Johnson number range 70 to 80, ..." (I didn't actually check the numbers for how many elementary polyhedra there are in each Johnson number range so don't copy my sample verbatim)
  • also, just a note, the reason I think some additional, probably not too helpful, text should be added to the above sentence is due to MOS:SEAOFBLUE
  • "in various processes" <- this might be completely wrong but would "through various mathematical procedures" be a better way to phrase this?
  • "Augmentation involves attaching them onto one or more faces of polyhedra" <- for clarity, recommend replacing "them" with "the Johnson solids"
  • "prism or antiprism respectively" -> "prism or antiprism[,] respectively" (add in comma)
  • "may be composed in a group, alongside the number of elements, known as the order" <- not sure if this is necessary/beneficial but would it be a good idea to rewrite this as: "may be composed in a group, alongside the group's number of elements, known as the order"
  • "In two-dimensional space, these transformations include rotating around the center of a polygon and reflecting an object around the perpendicular bisector of a polygon." <- also not sure if this is needed but might help to clarify whether the rotation and reflection are based on same polygon or they can be different polygons
  • "known as the axis of symmetry, and reflection relative to perpendicular planes passing through the bisector of a base" -> "known as the axis of symmetry, and the reflection relative to perpendicular planes passing through the bisector of a base" (add "the")
  • Consider adding a See also section with links to similar lists/articles (maybe Table of polyhedron dihedral angles?)

Well that's everything I have! The table looks perfect and the article is just overall really well done! Thanks for bringing this to FL Dedhert.Jr and excited to see this get promoted! :) Dan the Animator 21:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dantheanimator I have accomplished most of your comments, but not of them.
  • Re "in various process": to be honest, what I meant that is those Johnson solids can be constructed by literally attaching them. I think there is no guidance procedure of how to construct by attaching mathematically unless it describes the construction with Cartesian coordinates.
  • Re "in two-dimensional space": it was intended to describe the cyclic group and dihedral group in two-dimensional space, to understand the analogy symmetry in three-dimensional space.
  • Re "See also": I don't mind that, but I'm aware that the table has already had many problems if I looked at it. Will think about it later.
Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dedhert.Jr! Everything looks great now though for the See also, don't worry about choosing that article! I just spotted it from a cursory glance of Category:Polyhedra and thought it look/sounded similar to Johnson solids. Feel free to chose any article/list you know of with an English wiki article that isn't already linked in the article that you think would be helpful for readers interested in Johnson solids. If it helps, here's the link to the guidelines with tips for making see also sections. Many thanks again for your work on this list! Dan the Animator 06:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, almost forgot... I now fully support promoting this nom and think once its source review is completed, it should be ready for FL! Dan the Animator 06:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 09:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

support

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [44].[reply]

List of Line of Duty episodes

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Second and final stop at FLC for a good topic I'm working towards. Still waiting on quite a few GA reviews before I can get there (plus two articles I still need to do some expansion on), so I thought I'd get this FLC going in the meantime. This is the episodes page for a popular UK television series. It has set quite a few records in terms of viewership so there were enough sources to write a pretty engaging lead so I spent a few hours tonight expanding it. I look forward and thank you all in advance for any reviews! :) TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "directed towards BBC Two[3] which" - I would recommend a comma after Two
  • "in over ten years[12] leading" - also a comma after years
  • "The series has been nominated for several awards[29] also gaining" - comma after awards
  • "Additionally, Craig Parkinson,[45] Jessica Raine,[46] Jason Watkins,[47] and Anna Maxwell Martin[48] also star" - I don't think you need to say both "additionally" and "also". Is there a way to reword this?
  • "special mini-episode written by the Dawson Brothers" - our article says the group is called Dawson Bros.
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You strike again as my first reviewer!
    I fixed the first four comments.
    For the fifth: I considered listing them as Bros. based on our article, but the source I cited the credit to lists them as the Brothers (specifically "The virtual pantomime has been written by the Dawson Brothers, the comedy writers behind this year’s hilarious Line Of Duty Sport Relief Special [...]") The mini-episode didn't actually have any credits, which is what we list ours from most of the time. That said, I don't have any objection whatsoever to changing it if you still think it should be changed, I just wanted to mention my thought process first?
    Thanks again, TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MPGuy2824

Dantheanimator

  • For all the Series tables, I think a ref should be included in the Directed by and Original air date column headers
  • The Line of Duty image next to the lead has no caption/borders/anything. Not sure if this standard but thought I'd comment on it just in case
  • Consider adding a See also section with links to similar lists/articles (maybe List of police television dramas?)

Just a quick pass for now, probably will put any additional suggestions later today if I'm feeling up for it... Dan the Animator 21:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Series three surpassed viewership of the first series" -> "Series three surpassed [the] viewership of the first series" (add "the")
  • "Around this time, a restructuring of BBC television networks occurred causing BBC One and BBC Two to now be controlled by the same person." is "this time" referring to around the commissioning of the new series in April? (would help to specify for clarity imo) who's the "same person" who gained control of both BBCs? (would be helpful to name them, especially if they have a wikipage); also would recommend rewording the sentence in general to something like "Around the time of the commissioning of the new series, a restructuring of BBC television networks occurred, causing ownership over BBC One and BBC Two to become consolidated under [businessman/insert profession name] [insert person's name]."
  • "The decision was made to promote" -> for better flow imo: "Following these changes, the decision was made to promote"
  • The article for Sport Relief has it italicized but here its left in normal text. Would recommend italicizing it in all instances if that's how it should be
  • "The series has been nominated for several awards, also gaining a cult following and becoming the subject of critical acclaim" -> one way it can be reworded: "The series has since been the subject of critical acclaim, receiving nominations for several awards and gaining a large cult following"
  • "as AC-12 officers Steve Arnott and Kate Fleming" -> "as AC-12 officers Steve Arnott and Kate Fleming[, respectively]"
  • "be in a large conspiracy" -> "be [involved] in a large conspiracy"
  • Optional: For the Line of Duty : UK viewers per episode (millions) table near the bottom, add a note/footnote/something briefly indicating what "–" means (I think its fine as-is tbh but I thought it was kinda helpful having a note about it in another FL I looked over recently)
  • For ref #73, I'm getting a: Cite error: The named reference Sport Relief Dates was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  • If it's possible, I recommend trying to consolidate refs #31-34 (next to "subject of critical acclaim") into one reference similar to how ref #55 is a "multi ref" reference; check out Mission: Impossible – Fallout for lots of good examples of how this is done using the note template (see the notes section in that article)

That's everything I got! Awesome work TheDoctorWho (talk)!! :) Dan the Animator 07:44, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference for the air date columns. I also added a border for the image in the article. The directors are credited within the episodes via on-screen credits, so I believe that this would semi-fall under the same guidelines as MOS:PLOTSOURCE (in that the information is sourced to the work itself). I can probably still put together for sources for it if it's absolutely necessary to gain your support. I do also question how well that link would serve readers in a see also section. In the parent article possibly, but from the list of episode page it doesn't quite feel as necessary. Similar to the last point though, I'd also compromise and add it if necessary for a support !vote. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and don't worry about it! I think the changes help but its perfectly fine not having the ref for the credits column! For see also, its completely optional so up to you if you want to add it! I like to suggest it though since most articles usually have other articles that aren't linked in the body but would be interesting for readers (also feel free to choose any relevant articles... definitely doesn't have to be List of police television dramas which I found through a quick browse in the categories). Please ping if I can help with anything and great work Gallifreyan! ;) Dan the Animator 07:51, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dantheanimator: I've addressed everything you left in your full review, bar the optional one. The "–" denotes that an episode with that number doesn't exist within the series (some series have more episodes than others). I started to add a note attempting to explain that, but it seemed to get confusing quickly when I say that episodes don't "exist" when they were never planned to be created in the first place. Thank you so much for the review! TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that was quick! Might as well reply now before I head to sleep... I support this being promoted and strongly believe its ready for FL! Thanks again Doctor for your great work (both on wiki and across the realm of timey wimey stuff :) Dan the Animator 08:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Hey man im josh via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC) [45].[reply]

List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2017)

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Explicit (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third Inkigayo list that I am nominating to become a featured list. The format of this list is similar to the previous two lists. Appreciate any feedback. -- EN-Jungwon 16:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

MPGuy2824
  • "since July, 2016" remove the comma.
  • Does Korea use the mdy system of writing dates?
  • Their singles "Knock Knock", "Signal" and "Likey" ranked number one for three weeks each and achieved a triple crowns in 2017, while "Heart Shaker" went on to achieve a triple crown the following year.
  • You can remove the row stating that '"—" denotes an episode did not air that week.' since this info appears in the 'key' table. Alternatively, you can make sure that it always sorts at the bottom.
  • 'Prior to her official debut, Minseo took her first award win for "Yes".' This is begging for more explanation.
  • That's all I got. Please ping me here after you are done. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 all done. Majority of Korea related articles use mdy format. From what I can tell this seems to be the accepted format. For Minseo, there is a detailed explanation at Minseo_(singer)#2015–2017:_Pre-debut:_Superstar_K_7,_"Monthly_Yoon_Jong-shin" (last paragraph). It is also mentioned in the source. -- EN-Jungwon 16:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find anything specific in the MOS for dates in Korea-related articles. The date formatting seems consistent throughout the article, so ok.
  • Minseo's pre-debut debut: If you can manage to put the explanation in a few words and incorporate it in that the sentence, it would be great. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Korea uses YMD (e.g. 2024년 6월 6일 -> 2024 June 6). There is no established preference in the English language in Korea for MDY or DMY, although you'll often see MDY because Korea leans closer to the American side of the Anglosphere.
    My understanding is that we follow MOS:DATERET for articles without strong MOS:DATETIES (e.g. if the article is about UK–Korea ties then maybe DMY is more appropriate?). Whichever style the primary contributer to the article uses, we follow. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824 I couldn't think of a good way to put an explanation there so I removed the mention of Minseo's pre-debut. I don't think it's that relevant to this list so it shouldn't become a big issue. Thanks for the review and sorry for taking so long to reply. -- EN-Jungwon 18:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MPGuy2824, in the Music Bank 2023 FLC you suggested that the date is the unique cell of every row and should be made into the header cell, instead of the episode number. I was thinking about it and wondered if something like this would be acceptable to make the column sort correctly. -- EN-Jungwon 10:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO somebody looking at the wikicode would be able to understand why those particular numbers are used. So, yes, your linked diff would be acceptable. Visually, (and for screen readers) the emdashes being the header cell in rows still seems weird to me. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I did some minor copyediting; feel free to revert. I checked sorting on all sortable nonnumeric columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The UPSD tool isn't indicating any significant problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, and it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find).
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Since all the sources are in Korean, which I can't read, I'll have to wait for a source review, but I'm expecting to support at that point. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Staraction

  • All images have alt text except for the one with Sunmi.
  • All images relevant to the text
  • All images captioned appropriately
  • All images sourced under appropriate licenses

Thanks for your work @Jungwon and @Explicit. Staraction (talk | contribs) 22:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Staraction, added alt text to Sunmi's image. Thanks for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 12:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support on images. Staraction (talk | contribs) 23:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh

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

Note that I assumed good faith on machine translations and made some changes to some of the references. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [46].[reply]

List of music released by Romanian artists that has charted in major music markets

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it offers a well-written and well-sourced overview over the most successful Romanian music released. It is the first list of its kind here on Wikipedia, but I believe it meets the required criteria. I am happy for any comment. Greets, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment - alt text is needed for the images in the article. Staraction (talk | contribs) 02:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Staraction: Done. Cartoon network freak (talk) 07:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Unusual and very interesting topic for an article. Here are my comments:

  • "Over the years, several songs and albums released by" - first three words are a bit vague. Maybe "Since the 1970s".....?
  • "The first documented instance are the works of nai player Gheorghe Zamfir." - I doubt that there any instances which are not documented, so I would change this to "The first Romanian artist to chart in such markets was the nai player Gheorghe Zamfir."
  • "soprano opera singer Angela Gheorghiu started charting multiple albums" => "soprano opera singer Angela Gheorghiu charted multiple albums"
  • "and in a few other European countries" => "and in European countries"
  • "both of which stand as two of the " => "which stand as two of the "
  • ""Musica" (2011) by group Fly Project " => ""Musica" (2011) by the group Fly Project "
  • "as well as "I Need Your Love" " => "and "I Need Your Love" "
  • Notes: "This article lists all music releases, where there is at least one Romanian artist or act credited among the lead or featured artist(s)." => "This article lists all charting releases, where there is at least one Romanian artist or act credited among the lead or featured artist(s)."
  • "has annualy published" => "has annually published"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Many thanks for your comments! I solved them. Let me know if you support the nomination. Greets, Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

  • This is fairly nitpick-y, but I do not think "several" in this part, (several songs and albums released by), is needed. It comes across more as a filler word in this context and in my opinion, it does not add that much for the reader.
Removed
  • I would remove the links for studio albums and singles as I believe that they are examples of overlinking. The rest of the links look good to me so these are the only two that I would unlink as most readers would be familiar with both of these concepts.
Removed
  • I am uncertain about the wording for this part, (the only documented Romanian song to chart in Brazil). The "documented" part makes it seem like there are gaps in information about Brazil's music charts and that there may be other Romanian songs that could have appeared on the Brazilian, but they are just not "documented". Is that the intended meaning? Would anything be lost or changed by removing "documented" from this part?
"Documented" is needed here since Brazil is not a country that has an easily searchable chart archive. "Stereo Love" is the only song we can prove charted there, but my personal opinion is that at least the other big international hit "Mr. Saxobeat" charted there too (it's just we don't have the archives).

I am glad to see you back on Wikipedia! Great work with this list. This is an interesting topic, and I do not think that I have seen a similar type of list in the FLC space (although I have not been particularly active in the FLC process or with FLs or lists in general for some time now). I only have three comments, and they are rather nitpick-y. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this list for promotion. Hopefully, this review will encourage others to take a look at this FLC. Have a great rest of your day and/or night (whichever it is when you are reading this lol). Aoba47 (talk) 15:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you very much for your comments :) I'm here more rarely now and only for special projects. Thank you so much for your words as well :) Done everything, except for one comment I left. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad that I was able to help out with this FLC. Your reply about the Brazil chart makes sense to me. Best of luck with your future work on here. I hope everything is going well for you overall. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments & thoughts

  • There's a dynamic list template at the top of the article. Per #6 Stability at WP:FLCR, not sure if this is allowed but worth pointing out
I have seen other dynamic lists being promoted to FLC status, including my own List of certified albums in Romania. In my opinion, the status of being a dynamic list doesn't affect the stability. Even if this list is probably not complete (since I occasionally add entries I find out about), I would say the "content does not change significantly from day to day" since it already covers the majority of works that have charted.
  • "were certified multiple times platinum by Music Canada" -> should this be: "were certified platinum multiple times by Music Canada"?
This is how you refer to music recording certifications. For example, you would also say "It was certified two times/double platinum" rather than "It was certified platinum twice".
  • "in selected regions" -> maybe use different word (maybe "in a number of regions"?)
I ended up using "some"; "in a number of regions" implies it was successful in several regions, which is not the case.
  • For reference #47: "Dance Club Songs". Billboard. 3 October 2015. Archived from the original on 21 April 2022. Retrieved 4 July 2024.(subscription required), there's a parameter in the {{cite web}} template for source access level so a separate subscription template shouldn't have to be used
Done
  • Apply the above for any other refs if there are any other and in general go through the refs to make sure everything's consistently formatted, no unused params, etc. (I'm not too familiar with the way these refs are done so the final say with that's probably best left for the source reviewer
Unused parameters give off a warning when you try to edit the article; in this case, no warning appears, so this indicates there are no parameter problems. There was one more ref with a subscription template, which I have fixed.
  • Completely optional but I think it'd be good to add in the Inter-language links ({{ILL}}s) for the album and song titles where there isn't an English wikipage for the album/song already
Done
  • "She would go on to have two more top ten hits in Italy around the same time as group Akcent experienced moderate success in some European countries with their single "Kylie" (2005)." -> "She went on to have two more top ten hits in Italy at around the same time as the group Akcent" (personally, I also think the tone here might be slightly too informal but I'll leave it to others to decide on that)
Done
  • "would establish itself as part of the international mainstream over the course of the next few years" -> "established itself as part of the..."
Done
  • Go through lead and make sure that it uses the past tense when talking about the past (e.g. take out "would go on to")
Done. No other instance found.
  • "which stand as two of the most" -> maybe just say "which are two of the most"
Done
  • "Furthermore, Inna would go on to score two top ten hits" -> "Inna also scored two top ten hits" ("furthermore" isn't really necessary and doesn't fit with the tone imo)
Done
  • "The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI) has annually [...] throughout the years." and "West Germany until 1990" should have in-line refs like the rest of the notes
I don't think references are needed here. In the first note, I link to the List of largest recorded music markets, in which all the IFPI reports that have been published yet are sourced. In the second note, I link to West Germany, which sources the fact that Germany was "West Germany" until 1990.
Done

Well that's everything I have. Interesting list and many thanks for nominating it! :) Ping me on reply if I'm needed. Cheers, Dan the Animator 00:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dantheanimator: Hi there Dan. First of all, many thanks for spending time reviewing my nominee. I have answered all your comments. Let me know what you think. Greets, Cartoon network freak (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cartoon network freak!!! :) Everything looks good except for the references on the IFPI & West Germany notes, which only needs a ref that verifies "annually published the ten largest recorded music markets...[since] 1996" and a ref that verifies West Germany became Germany in 1990.
In general, while it's true that many readers would just click on the links if they wanted to verify the info, I think in the spirit of WP:V, it's always better to make it as easy as possible for a reader to verify non-obvious info (especially specific details like years which most people don't know/remember), which is easiest when that source is linked in a footnote next to the claim and which is why a lot of FA and FL articles will duplicate refs throughout the article to backup different info and data (so a reader doesn't have to sift through to figure out which ref is backing up which source).
Also, its best imo to assume the average reader doesn't know any specific details like years or data. Really recommend taking a look at WP:ORIENT which although a wiki essay, does a much better job than me explaining why adding footnotes for these things is a good idea. Once the refs are added, I'll add my support for promoting this to FL. Cheers, Dan the Animator 01:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dantheanimator: Thank you again for your further comments. I have in the first case linked to the 1996 and 2024 IFPI reports, while in the second case, I have linked to the 1990 treaty that united West and East Germany to what is now Germany. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cartoon network freak! The refs work great and it looks like that covers the last of it! Support promotion to FL status. Awesome work! :) Dan the Animator 00:24, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 20:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC) [47].[reply]

United States congressional delegations from Arizona

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

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

Comments

  • "Each state elects two senators to serve for six years, and varying members of the House" - obviously each state elects varying members, they don't all elect the same ones. I think what you mean is "Each state elects two senators to serve for six years, and varying numbers of members of the House"
  • "The current dean, or longest serving member, of the Arizona delegation is" => "The current dean, or longest serving member, of the Arizona delegation, is"
  • "of its two senators, one Democrat and one independent, and its nine representatives: 6 Republicans and 3 Democrats." - odd that you write all the numbers as words and then suddenly switch to digits at the end......
  • "Of those, Martha McSally and Kyrsten Sinema have been the first and only women" - I think "the only women" would suffice, as if they are the only ones than by definition they were also the first
  • "such that each election, around one-third of the seats in the Senate are up for election" => "such that at each election around one-third of the seats in the Senate are up for election"
  • "Following 1940 census" => "Following the 1940 census"
  • "Following 1960 census" => "Following the 1960 census" (and so on for all the others)
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! Thanks for your feedback! I've done everything except for the second bullet point. Wouldn't "or longest serving member" be a parenthetical clause; thus removing it leaves "The current dean of the Arizona delegation is" vs. "The current dean of the Arizona delegation, is"? I feel like the first option makes more grammatical sense. Let me know if I'm missing something or if there's more. Thanks again for reviewing! Staraction (talk | contribs) 04:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, ignore that one, I don't know what I was thinking there. One thing I didn't pick up on before, though: "Seven women have served Arizona in the House, including Kyrsten Sinema and Martha McSally, who are the only women who have served Arizona in the Senate" - doesn't that sentence contradict itself? Seven women have served in the House, including two who served in the Senate? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It was a little bit weird to phrase and I don't think it came out properly. Sinema and McSally both served in the House prior to serving in the Senate, and they are the only women to have ever served in the Senate. Is there a better way to phrase that? Thanks! Staraction (talk | contribs) 14:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


MPGuy2824
  • "The first woman to serve Arizona in the Senate was Isabella Greenway." - House of Representatives, not Senate.
  • the current senator table is missing colscopes. Also its first header needs to be made into a table caption
  • In the full senate table, you don't need to bold the Congress since that is a header cell in every row. This should be checked for the other tables as well.
  • There is also no need of setting the height. The height anyway expands to more than 2em when there is less space. This probably holds true for other tables as well. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 Hi, thanks for your feedback! All should be fixed. Staraction (talk | contribs) 03:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support on prose and table accessibility. I fixed a few minor accessibility issues in some of the tables. You can keep those in mind when you prep your next FL. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @MPGuy2824 @Staraction Sorry, I reverted these edits because the table wasn't displaying terms right. In my experience the 2ems are needed because otherwise mid-term changes don't show correctly, though I don't know if there's a better way to fix them. I'll put the other changes back once I have more time though. Emk9 (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support

Some suggestions...

  • "the Cook Partisan Voting Index, a determination of how strongly partisan a state is" -> recommend replacing "determination" with "measure"
  • "14 people have served as a U.S. Senator from Arizona." -> Could expand this to say "Since its first congressional delegation in 1913, 14 people have served as a U.S. Senator for Arizona" (make sure to also copy the citation from the lead for the 1913 claim)
  • "rotating through each class such that [in] each election[,] around one-third of the seats in the Senate are up for election" <- add in the stuff in the brackets
  • "One member of the House of Representatives is sent from each district via a popular vote." -> this should be reworded (ex: "Each district uses a popular vote to elect a member of Arizona's delegation in the House of Representatives.")
  • "Arizona has had nine congressional districts since districts were redrawn in 2013 as a result of the 2010 United States Census." -> this should be reworded (ex: "Since its districts were redrawn in 2013 according to the results of the 2010 census, Arizona has had nine congressional districts")
  • "For six years, the seats were elected at-large statewide on a general ticket." <- doesn't at-large and statewide mean the same thing? (recommend taking out at-large if possible or rewording for concision)
  • 1912–1943: 1 seat, 1943–1963: 2 seats, 1963–1973: 3 seats, 1973–1983: 4 seats, 1983–1993: 5 seats, 1993–2003: 6 seats, 2003–2013: 8 seats, & 2013–present: 9 seats <- make sure all the prose-text in those subsections have in-line references
  • All the tables under the United States House of Representatives section are missing refs and should have some sort of ref/citation added either in the column/row headers or as a table footnote
  • For the 2022 U.S. representatives from Arizona table, the "Incumbent since" column should have a ref in the header if possible (like CPVI (2022) header next to it already does)
  • "Arizona's current congressional delegation in the 118th Congress consists of its two senators, one Democrat and one independent, and its nine representatives, six Republicans and three Democrats." should also have an in-line ref
  • "Senator Kyl was appointed by governor Doug Ducey to fill the seat of John McCain, who died in office." -> recommend rewording to "Senator Kyl was appointed by governor Doug Ducey to fill the seat of John McCain after McCain's death in office."
  • Not completely sure whether this is required per MOS:DTAB but I'd recommend adding |+{{sronly|}} for each of the tables (this template is used by screenreaders as a sort of title/caption for the table to my knowledge)
  • Just a thought but I feel like this sort of list would benefit from a brief infobox where the current map & caption are kept and additional basic info (e.g. year of first delegation, current number of districts (as of which census), numerical party control/distribution of the delegation, dean of the delegation, etc.)

I'm not particularly familiar with these types of lists so not sure what's considered standard or not but I'd strongly recommend adding at least some refs to the tables imo. Otherwise, this is a great list for a great state! :) Many thanks Staraction for nominating this! Please ping on reply if needed. Cheers, Dan the Animator 22:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like most of the suggestions were applied and after taking another quick read through of the page and making one very minor edit, I think it's ready to be promoted. Support for FL status and thanks Staraction for the quick followup! Dan the Animator 20:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for the comments & the fast response! I was unable to reply to you yesterday before I had to attend to something important in real life but your comments are very appreciated :D Staraction (talk | contribs) 00:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

EN-Jungwon
  • Archive all references
  • Ref 1, 6, 12news.com → 12News
  • Ref 16 add date July 12, 2022
  • Ref 33 requires subscription
  • Ref 38 link author Alden Whitman
  • Ref 39 add via=Newspapers.com
  • Ref 41 requires subscription, link author Nicholas Fandos
  • Link websites for the following. If you don't want to link the same article in multiple sources you don't have to. For example "Ref 8, 10, 22, 23 link United States Senate" you can just link the first instance which would be ref 8. I'm fine with it either way.
Extended content
  • Copyvios shows no major issues.

-- EN-Jungwon 14:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you so much for the review! I believe I've fixed all the issues you've pointed out; if there are more please let me know! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EN-Jungwon pinging for convenience! Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- EN-Jungwon 08:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted. --PresN 14:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 6 August 2024 (UTC) [48].[reply]

List of cities in Donetsk Oblast

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

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

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

Comments

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

Comments

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

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

Yup, the Next Ukrainian census doesn't seem like it's happening anytime soon and with the current war, I don't think the statistics would be as useful anyways since they've been changing a lot frequently. Let me know if there's anything else I can do and many thanks Mattximus for all the comments!!! :D Dan the Animator 05:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, just two outstanding issues. First, it is critical to have a citation for the 2001 census populations, it cannot pass without this. Second, I do like your change to alphabetize the list (that makes it easier to update when the next census actually comes out), but I think the table should not include the number column as it doesn't serve the purpose beyond a count. Since it is a list of cities, the cities column should be the same colour as the headings. Mattximus (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still working on the 2001 census citation but for the number column, I removed it. About the cities column shading, I haven't seen any table in a "List of cities" article that has it like that. I've looked through at least a dozen varied similar articles (also highly recommend checking out this to see how other articles do it) and they all use the same general shading (the only column that gets fully shaded in any of the tables I've seen is the number column (which I removed from this article per above) and not the cities column. Also don't think it would conceptually make sense to have that shading since both the English and Ukrainian name columns are both "cities columns" imo (and they both are exactly the same in functionality/formatting). Let me know though if I'm missing something and thanks again with the comments! :) Dan the Animator 21:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is a requirement for the nomination, I just checked all featured lists of cities have it. I clicked on one at random: Cantons of Costa Rica which was one I put up for promotion. I know this is a requirement because I was asked to do it many times. Mattximus (talk) 15:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mattximus can you post a link to other, more recent past FLs of cities (as many as you know of)? I don't think the article for Cantons of Costa Rica is a good comparison to this article since the Ukrainian equivalent of that article would be List of hromadas of Ukraine (or Raions of Ukraine depending how you look at it). Would help to see maybe some of the other FLs tho, especially if they're more recent (I noticed your FLN for Costa Rica is from 2016 but was wondering if they'd changed it since then). Thanks!!! Dan the Animator 17:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this has been a policy for at least 8 years (it's in the MOS somewhere), common format for all featured lists in general. You can check out User:Mattximus and click on any of the 45 featured lists of cities/municipalities (the ones with a star beside them), there is also a more comprehensive list when you click on featured lists and scroll to find the cities lists. I clicked randomly to a whole bunch, and can't find any that didn't fit this standard, so I think it is a necessary change. Mattximus (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose just for now based on missing citation for the entire 2001 census column (the link failed verification as it has similar but not identical numbers as the table here). And the format for the table seems to be incorrect. Specifically ,city name should be same colour as headings, and tables needs captions (|+ <caption_text>, or |+ <caption_text> if that text would duplicate a nearby section header). Table captions allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables, without having to read all prior text to provide context.). Mattximus (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Completely fixed the table/formatting issues. For the citation, would either of these sources (source A, source B) be acceptable? It's alright if not but given the complete 2001 census data increasingly seems like its not available online (and thus would probably be a book citation) and the Ukrainian language wiki page (which has recognized article status) uses the former source (the mashke.org one) in their version of the list, I wanted to ask. Many thanks again with everything and let me know if there's any other issues I can fix (and if the formatting for the table is alright now). Cheers, Dan the Animator 15:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table is completely fixed, good work, but the one last citation problem remains. Is there anyone who can help find where these numbers come from? The links you provided give different numbers, and don't seem to come from any official document. But surely this document exists. Maybe another user has an idea? 19:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
@HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith, Ymblanter, Mupper-san, Shwabb1, Yulia Romero, and Микола Василечко: pinging in case y'all have any advice about this (wasn't sure who to ping so sorry in advance for the bother!!!) Dan the Animator 00:41, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly well-versed in the discussion, so do forgive if this isn't what is being talked about, but given the fact that mashke.org has an unclear source and (at least according to Firefox for me) has an unsafe connection, I would personally use the numbers included alongside the currently-used sources, as they're official documentation. As citypopulation.de cites mashke.org, I also wouldn't include it.
Perhaps, it would be possible to e-mail Mr. Bespyatov (the owner of mashke.org, judging by the copyright at the bottom) and ask him for a source? Although I'm not quite sure.
Mupper-san (talk) 01:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mupper-san! :) I agree with the concerns for the two sources though the only official Ukrainian government source I could find lists the 2001 census results for only 28 of the 50+ cities in the oblast. Also, although my guess is he got the numbers from the physical records in Kyiv, I think contacting Mr. Bespyatov is a great idea! I'll send him an email in a moment and reply here if he follows up. Dan the Animator 04:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the 2001 census website. Go to Publications, download the file kl_2001.rar under "Кількість та територіальне розміщення населення України" (The number and territorial distribution of the population of Ukraine). Open the file 5.xls, you'll see the breakdown of population by raion/city/urban-type settlement. The data for Donetsk Oblast starts on row 552. Be aware that the names are before the decommunization laws (e.g., Artemivsk instead of Bakhmut). Shwabb1 (talk) 05:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Shwabb1!!!!! :D It worked perfectly and I accessed all the stats (only one of the numbers was off on the article thankfully tho). @Mattximus: I think that about finishes everything? Take a look and let me know if there's anything else to do. Dan the Animator 17:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overall looks good, I only see two small mistakes: Krasnoarmiysk should be Krasnoarmiisk using official romanization (per WP:UAPLACE), and in the first citation "urban-type settlements" are mistranslated as "towns". Shwabb1 (talk) 01:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now I will strike the oppose. I think there should be a heading "notes" just like references below and the note can go there instead of floating kind of below the table. I think the format of the reference needs a bit of work (I believe you need filetype for something like a rar?), but nothing here to oppose over. Nice work! Mattximus (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mattximus and Shwabb1!!!! :) I think I fixed basically all the above suggestions! For the new reference's formatting tho, I wasn't sure exactly how much needed changing but I added the |format= parameter in with a link to RAR which hopefully helps (feel free to let me know if there's anything else I can do tho). Dan the Animator 01:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! [[City|City name]] becomes !scope=col | [[City|City name]]. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, 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. |[[Amvrosiivka]] becomes !scope=row |[[Amvrosiivka]], on its own line. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @PresN: Done! The table should be completely fixed now. Let me know if there's any other formatting/other issues that I can fix. Cheers, Dan the Animator 15:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mattximus and PresN: after going through the article meticulously (with sourcing, formatting, and everything in between), completely addressing all the comments here and applying the feedback from my other related FLN for cities in Luhansk Oblast to this article as well, and considering that this list was nominated a month ago and hasn't received any new comments since June 11, I think it should be finally ready to pass. If there are any remaining issues with this article, please let me know but otherwise, I think its time to take this article out of the queue and promote it! Also pinging FL director for their insight @Giants2008:. Apologies all for the bother and many thanks for all the support! :) Dan the Animator 00:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the box at the top of WP:FLC: "The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegate, PresN, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will typically last at least twenty days, but may last longer if changes are ongoing or insufficient discussion or analysis has occurred. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The directors determine whether there is consensus." This nomination currently has only a single support, which is not typically considered a consensus to promote. Unlike FAC, we don't typically archive nominations that don't get a lot of attention but instead let them stay a little longer, so don't worry, but please do be patient. --PresN 03:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks PresN for the reply! I was hoping when I pinged that you and Mattximus would give supports to this nom, which would bring the support count up to 3 which I think is the minimum needed for consensus? That said, I'm not too much in a rush; rather, since I have to take a semi-Wikibreak not long from now (in July) where I'll be able to edit but not too much, I was hoping to get this list as thoroughly checked and improved as possible so that when I nominate the remaining lists for this series, I won't have to make any major edits on those articles (they're all relatively similar too so whatever change I make one list likely would have to be made on the others, which is easier to do before those articles are created). I understand you all are busy so no worries about promoting but it would help a lot to know if I should expect to make additional changes. Cheers, Dan the Animator 23:40, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still getting an error on the citation for the 2001 census, is it just me? One more small change:
Fixed? I think I accessed it using the link about a week ago but you're right! Don't know why both the archived and normal link stopped working. I switched it with the permanent, webpage link and added instructions on the ref of how to access the numbers. Let me know if its good now.
  • The image captions seem to be incorrect, the are not the largest or smallest cities, as no land area was given. They are the most populous, least populous, have the second largest population, wording like that is more correct.
Fixed
  • That's it!

Mattximus (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mattximus! :) Let me know if that fixes everything! Dan the Animator 16:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things look great, but I still can't access the source for the 2001 statistics. I do believe this article needs a source review so whoever does that will give the go ahead and I'll agree with them since I'm not an expert on sourcing. Mattximus (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Mattximus:! :) I saw that the Luhansk list is already in queue for a source review but not this one so not sure if there'll be a source review soon. About the source tho, how does it look on your end? Is it the link to the ukr gov stats website that doesn't work (it's an unsecure site so might help to check browser settings) or is it the RAR file download link that doesn't work (the instructions on the wikiref are supposed to help with this)? Dan the Animator 00:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Staraction

  • All images are relevant to the article
  • All images are usage tagged properly (AGF on own works)
  • All images have alt text except for the map in the infobox. Suggestion: the alt text has citation numbers (ie. [22]) for some images, those probably do not need to be in the alt text
  • All images have relevant captions

Thanks for your work @Dan the Animator! Staraction (talk | contribs) 17:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by FL nominator

  • @Mattximus, Steelkamp, Dajasj, and Chipmunkdavis: Many sorries for the bother but considering y'all's contribution to the other, very similar FLN for List of cities in Luhansk Oblast which got promoted a few days ago, and my completion of applying all the suggestions from that nom to this article, I thought I'd ping y'all in case any of y'all are interested taking (or retaking) a look at this list now and hopefully providing comments so the nom can advance. @PresN: thanks for doing the source review on the Luhansk list!!! :) Thought I'd ping here in case you're interested in doing this one too; also, they share about 70% of the same exact refs (plus a lot of shared content too) so most of the source review for this article you already technically did with the Luhansk review which I thought might make this one a lot easier/quicker to get through. Sorry again for any bothers and looking forward to any additional feedback and to getting this nom completed! Dan the Animator 03:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from CMD

As the nominator noted above, I made comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of cities in Luhansk Oblast/archive1 which appear to have already been actioned here.

  • Prose/lead.
    "...occupied all cities located..." might be clearer with a number, "...occupied all X cities located..."
    A number may also be helpful at "Additional cities were...", which may provide a route to reword/remove the "...while an additional two cities (Lyman and Sviatohirsk) have been recovered..." wording, as I am not sure "addition" is clear in meaning. Having numbers for both invasions and the counteroffensive means that there is no need for an "As of X date...", which might quickly appear dated.
    The final sentence is a tad confusing. Firstly, "occupation of the three reformed raions" is an odd pipe, all of the raions were reformed (removing "the" may solve this problem). Secondly, "including the cities of Bunhe, Chystiakove, Kalmiuske, and Khrestivka" is unclear, I assume those four are former cities of regional significance, but the preceding clause already states "reformed raions" so I would assume they are included by default. Lastly, "the three raions[b] and four cities' new names have only de jure status" seems to imply that the cities under Russian control outside of the 2015 occupation zone de facto use the new names, which would surprise me. It also reads oddly that the raion names are specifically pointed out, this list isn't about the raions and noting names specifically as de jure suggests that the raion otherwise operates de facto, which would also surprise me.
  • Comprehensiveness: Comprehensive.
  • Structure: Is one table, sortable.
  • Style: Not necessarily my strong point, but the decorative images are all licenced as is the locator map. There is a "Jump to table of cities" for mobile access. Alt text is present on all images bar the infobox, which does not seem to have the feature encoded.
  • Stability: Stable.

As with the previous review this is a novel interwiki usage, but I don't see how it affects the FLCR. I do think this article (and similar ones) would be served well by dropping the locator infobox and replacing it with a map of the Oblast showing the various city locations, but that is also not a FLCR requirement. In summary, questions for FLCR1/2 and no questions for the other FLCR. CMD (talk) 07:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @CMD: for the review! I think all the suggestions should be addressed. I applied some of the rewording and moved some of the other confusing content into efn notes. Also, thanks for the suggestion with the map! Added it and I think it turned out perfect! (props to Tone for their exceptional work on the UNESCO FL maps which helped a ton with creating this map)! :) I'll also apply these edits to the other lists if you think they're alright CMD but let me know if there's anything else I can do to improve these lists! Thanks again! Dan the Animator 04:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestions were addressed, the efn notes help and nice work finding relevant sources. Hopefully more secondary sources emerge on the topic, it is an area not currently well covered on en.wiki. I had a look and could not find a source linking the 2020 raions with the 2015 era occupation (the current primary source used does not support "by 2015"). However, I did find this source, which mentions the DPR and LPR continuing to use the old names (page 10), and has a list of renamed places and whether they are occupied (pages 84-89). It uses the old raions, but it has relevant dates and names that can supplement the existing sources for "by 2015" and those in the efn notes. CMD (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks CMD! I added in your source into the names efn together with some additional sources. I added a complementary source for the primary ref I think you're talking about (the "About the boundaries and list of raions...temporarily occupied" ref): journalist's David Gormezano France 24 piece characterizes the main Donbas war phase as "April 2014 – February 2015" and also says in that section "On February 12, 2015, the so-called Minsk II agreements formalised the de facto partition of Ukrainian territory...In the years that followed, and until the full-scale Russian attack on February 24, 2022, small-scale attacks and artillery fire hardly ever ceased, without the line of contact between the forces really moving." which should be enough imo to back up the 2015 year (most of the cities were actually occupied in 2014 but due to Debaltseve, I think the wording "by 2015" is more accurate. To sum up, the "About the boundaries" ref verifies which cities were occupied during the Donbas war while the France 24 piece backs up the claim that the occupations of cities during the Donbas war happened between April 2014 and February 2015.
About the use of the 2020 raions when talking about the 2014-2015 occupation: its mostly done out of concision than any actual connection between the two (technically, the new raions' boundaries were decided with consideration of what territories were occupied by DPR/LPR forces at the time so the area could be easier to govern (at least as far as I know) but aside from that, there isn't any actual meaningful connection between the new raions and what areas are occupied). Using the new raions saves on words and makes it easier to understand since there's no caveat to which cities in the raions are occupied and which aren't (for the older raions, since many of the cities are also municipalities, there'd be a need to either list all 21 cities occupied or separately list all the occupied city municipalities and raions, both of which would be unduly and more confusing imo). Let me know if it'd help to find a source mentioning/discussing this rationale for the boundaries for the new raions.
Let me know if there's anything I'm missing or anything else that can be improved and whether this list is ready for promotion! Thanks, Dan the Animator 23:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an issue using the new raions, just wish there was more research on the matter. More sources would help of course, surely someone somewhere has looked up how the de facto raions function in reality and what provisions are in place for the raions that don't exist in reality yet? But, for the purposes of this article the sources are now enough that the list is ready for promotion. CMD (talk) 01:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah got it. I definitely agree more research should be done regarding Ukrainian administrative laws and reforms. About the de facto/de jure raions, as far as I understand it, the de facto raions function as they've always had in the pre-2022 occupied territories while for newly occupied territories, my guess would be it mostly affects the number of Russia-appointed representatives certain administrative entities get, what sort of government websites/digital representation the Russian government gives those entities, how the areas subordinated to those entities are referred to in Russian law, and, at least on paper, how much money/funding goes to each district (although I think its fair to say a lot of that money gets siphoned off by those Russia-appointed representatives or by Russia itself). Probably also a few other miscellaneous things but those are the main "practical effects" of the de facto raions. For de jure raions, its mostly just having websites in some cases (I remember reading a law regarding Crimea's new raions which mandated creating representation of the raions, which would likely include websites), and how the territories subordinated to new raions are referred to in laws (both in Ukraine and by others).
I think one of the reasons why there hasn't really been any research into the "prospective" raions is because they didn't actually exist, either de jure or de facto, until relatively recently (the "occupied terr. admin. reform date" efn note elaborates on this caveat a bit more). And with the ongoing invasion and considerable budget strain of the Ukrainian government, I doubt they've been able to do anything meaningful in the way of these raions imo. Not sure if my reply really answers your question or helps too much but hope its interesting. Thanks again for the review and great suggestions (and the source)! :) Dan the Animator 02:37, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 19:57, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Nominations for removal

List of sister cities in Florida

Notified: ?

After browsing some of the featured lists, I did a bit of verification and found many errors. The list appears to be incomplete, does not match the official list, and I tried a few links and found unverified information. It also has old style of lead: very short and starts with "This is a list of ". It also has a paragraph explaining the list, but not in note form. So the entire body of text is a few sentences. Several entries have no citations whatsoever. I'm afraid this list based on citing alone is very very far from featured standards. Original user appears to have deleted account. Mattximus (talk) 20:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

30 Rock season 1

Notified: Jamie jca, WikiProject Television

Unfortunately I feel that several older 30 Rock items are failing modern standards. I am beginning here as I feel it is a clear cut example. I am nominating this for featured list removal because I feel that it fails criterias 3 and 5. It lacks a development section as detailed in MOS:TVPRODUCTION. The awards section features no prose and points to a separate list which covers other content in addition to season one. Adtionally neither a caption nor alt text is provided when needed. Lastly a possible style problem with the relevent episodes not being linked in the cast section. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:26, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove I've said a time or two that most season articles should actually be a process for WP:FAC and not FLC. I do understand that a large majority of these are were promoted quite a while ago, and that in recent times, they gone through the proper channels, but I also wouldn't be against a mass exodus of these articles as FL's. They tend to follow the format of a standard article more that of a list. Anyhow, within this "list" specifically: as the initial commenter stated, I'm largely noticing a lack of compliance with MOS:TV in the case of article layout, listing the number of episodes characters appeared in, and poorly written episode summaries that feel more like promotional taglines than they do summaries. There's also just a few general MOS failures, such as WP:BLUESEA violations and the use of {{Quote box}}. I'd be more inclined to leave a full review if I see progress being made here. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm... potential hot take but I don't see any major issues. Sourcing seems fine, so I'm assuming the nomination is discussing FLCR #3(a) more than 3(b), and 3(a) is focused on including all key items in the set the list covers (which this does – it lists all of the episodes). A production section would be nice, but I don't interpret MOS:TVPRODUCTION as requiring one and I suspect a large portion of the information would just reiterate the cast and crew sections. An awards section that would just duplicate information from the show's full list of awards may not be necessary, either – just a few sentences added to cover its major awards (Emmys, Golden Globes, major guilds...). As to FLCR #5, I think the only issue mentioned is the images per 5(b) and 5(c), which can be easily addressed. Basically, I think the page does its job as a list. Whether season articles should be considered as lists or articles is a bit out of scope for this, at least to me. Please correct me if I've misunderstood the issues raised in the nomination. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths at the Berlin Wall

Notified: WP:WikiProject Military history, WP:WikiProject Germany

There are significant citation issues here, including one section that's been tagged for citations since 2018. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The tagged "historical background" section wasn't in the original promoted FL. Nothing it says looks that controversial, but I think I'd be fine with expecting people to read the main Berlin Wall article first if they need background. I've chopped it down and added a basic ref (although not one that covers some of the minor details, but eh, it's probably in one of the longer works exclusively on the Berlin Wall). That said, as a procedural side note. Tastes differ and there will always be borderline tough calls... but... honestly this seems more like an article than a list anyway? Page size reports ~5,700 prose words ignoring the list itself, which is pretty significant and probably longer than the "main" list. This seems more like an article with an attached list than a list with some prose explanation, so possible it should be demoted on those grounds and moved to Deaths at the Berlin Wall or the like. SnowFire (talk) 10:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is trying to be an article rather than a list, I'd like to see some context/comparison with other causes of border deaths—for example, the Berlin Wall is often compared to the Mediterranean in terms of border deaths. (t · c) buidhe 14:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian Premier League captains

Notified: WP Cricket, WP IPL, Vensatry & Sahara4u (both involved in FL promotion comments), Razr Nation (promoted this to FL in 2013). Note, the nominator of this to FL is indef blocked, so not notified them.

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it fails many of the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria, particularly criteria 1, 2 and 3. The lead text has not been significantly updated since it became a FL in 2013, apart from the addition of mostly unsourced text that also includes random stats and trivia. In addition, the lead and table list captains by titles won, but the main stats source [49] does not have the titles mentioned. In the table, apart from the titles being unsourced, the use of unexplained blue background text, I presume to list current IPL captains as of 2024, violates MOS:COLOUR as it is the sole way of identifying these. It is also not needed, but if colour is kept, it needs to be added to the key section and also use a symbol as per the MOS. Sourcing of this article is also pretty weak in general, since most of the lead text is sourced just to the database stats table. All in all, nowhere near the current FL criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support for removal. I noticed that most of the information is unsourced and needed to be updated with reliable and independent sources. If It get improved in due date than at that time, I will change my comment. Best Regards! Fade258 (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302, @Fade258, I've realized now that the list has been updated by @Magentic Manifestations (who I wish would have commented as such here). Please let me know if your concerns have been addressed or you'd still like the article to be delisted. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302, @Fade258: Could you state whether @Magentic Manifestations has addressed all of your concerns? Hey man im josh (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. There is only 1072 characters of prose text (excluding text in tables), this is insufficient for a featured list, as it still fails points 2+3 of the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria. So I still support removal of FL status. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Magentic Manifestations: Do you have any interest in continuing to improve this list's lead any further? It's fine if not, just trying to wrap up some old nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Sorry for the late reply due to busy in my real life. Thank you for the ping Josh. I feel that my concerns was addressed but there isn't sufficient prose for maintaining it at featured list. Best Regards! Fade258 (talk) 14:08, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=1235432056"