Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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

Source reviews needed

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

Nominations[edit]

International Film Music Critics Association Award for Best Original Score for a Video Game or Interactive Media[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 18:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it's a complete coverage of the award. I have split the table into individual tables, illustrated this article with pictures of the composers, and checked references. Thanks to User:TophatCounselor who built the first version of this article. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 18:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by A. C. Santacruz[edit]

Drive-by comments: Two quick things that stand out are the use of individual tables (a single large table with a year column is generally preferred) and the placement of winners (winners are generally placed before all other nominations in a given year). RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a discussion about the single table vs multiple tables? I went multiple tables because I've been told it screen readers to use rowspans and colspans (I actually was trying to find a way around it for citations...) as well as allow the article to be illustrated. Of course, I can convert it back.
As for the row winners, done. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 03:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The single table format has been the trend for a while; ChrisTheDude recently traced it at another FLC. I've also used single-table formats for most of my FLCs, and I've found it useful because it allows sorting to be added. I wouldn't mind something like the FL Academy Award for Best Actress, which splits by decade, but splitting by year just adds too much whitespace, in my opinion. As to the rowspan/colspan part, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but those should be added to the tables. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Wow, what an unwieldy title, but I guess there's nothing you can do about that :-)
  • For me, the single table format should definitely be used. Having 15 separate tables (which will only increase year on year) does not look good to me, and in at least one case it creates unnecessary whitespace as the image alongside the table is taller than the table.
  • The lead feels a little bit "thin" to me, is there no more that can be said? Have there been multiple-time winners? Multiple-time nominees?
  • "In the tables below, winners are marked by a light green background and a double-dagger symbol (double-dagger)." - I would place this under the "winners and nominees" header, not in the lead
  • Images captions which are not complete sentences (which is pretty much all of them) should not have full stops
  • Some of the refs list no work/publisher eg 1, 29, 30, 31, 32
  • There's no need to list the same group/body/whatever as both the work and publisher eg ref 8, 9, 10, etc
  • IMFCA is not the author of refs 2, 3, 5, etc, because IMFCA is not a person
  • Kinetophone is not the author of ref 14, 16 or 18 because Kinetophone is not a person. Also, Wordpress is not the publisher, because that is just a website hosting platform.
  • Also, if it's "only" a Wordpress site, can you confirm what makes it a reliable source?
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

58th Academy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 08:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 1986 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1979, 1984, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, and 2021 ceremonies were written. Birdienest81talk 08:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Daddy Yankee[edit]

Nominator(s): Brankestein (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it wasn't promoted in 2017 and I have since followed the comments made by the reviewer in order to improve the list. Comparing it to that version, I think it now meets the criteria. Brankestein (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment
Thanks for your comment. Is there a discussion about the format's change? I would like to read it.--Brankestein (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know, but I will take a look around. I do know, though, that every "awards and nominations" list promoted to FL for at least the last three years has used the "one table" format..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the change can be traced to this FLC from 2018..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much!--Brankestein (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
  • "80....28....nine" - as these are all in the same sentence and directly comparable, they should all be written as numbers
  • "eight Billboard Music Awards—the most by any Latin artist—," - that "-," looks really weird, is there a way to avoid that? It also occurs a bit further on
  • Wikilink reggaeton
  • "garnering his first and only recipient" - recipient is not the right word here. Probably just say "his first and only win"
  • "Daddy Yankee received the Latin Songwriter of the Year award by the" => "Daddy Yankee received the Latin Songwriter of the Year award from the"
  • In the table, all the entries starting with a " sort at the top followed by everything else. They should all sort based on the first actual letter(s), ignoring punctuation marks
  • The Big Boss Tour should sort under B
  • As the table is sortable, anything that is linked should be linked every time
  • Notes d and e should not have full stops as they are not complete sentences
  • "As of April 2018, the stream count for "Despacito" is 7.5 billion" - that was nearly four years ago, is there not a more up to date figure? If not, change "is" to "was"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your input! :) I have followed your comments, but is there a quick way to link everything? Also, I'm not managing to sort "¿Qué Tengo Que Hacer?" correctly, possibly due to the "¿". (EDIT: Nevermind, I just kind of sorted that song successfully). --Brankestein (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bunch of links for you. Usually when I need to add a load of links to the same thing, I open the page to edit, copy the appropriate chunk into WordPad and then do a search and replace. So I copied the whole of the table then did a s+r to replace "|Daddy Yankee" with "|[[Daddy Yankee]]" and it linked them all in one go -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! :) --Brankestein (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also fixed the sorting for "Despacito" but the other song titles still need doing so that they sort based on just the words, not including the inverted commas..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I sorted the rest of the songs but "El Amante" and "Problema", since they don't have Wikipedia pages, are automatically linked to wrong articles. Also, other songs with no Wikipages appear red and I can't add inverted commas without messing up the sorting. (EDIT: Nevermind, I resolved that). --Brankestein (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by AJona1992
  • Latin music should be wikilinked
  • Article is riddled with weak prose: "all of them", "but none of them won", "as the only one to receive a", "his non-album singles"
  • "without wins." - unnecessary
  • "his singles" - he is not part of any group, not sure why emphasis is needed here.
  • Didn't know they gave out awards for songs that earned the title "Latin Song of the Decade". This is a list compiled by Billboard using MRC data, it's not a separate award that is voted on, but a distinguished feat.
  • Not sure why Time magazine's annual list of most influential people is even mentioned here.
  • Since when are hall of fame inductions included in the list of awards articles? – jona ✉ 18:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Do you suggest to remove Billboard's "Latin Song of the Decade" award? Also, the Hall of Fame induction is included because Daddy Yankee received a physical award for it (the same goes for the Latin Song of the Decade award). --Brankestein (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with any FL lists that contain that information. It is usually found in the artist's main article, that is why I found it strange. Unless any FL moderator or guideline suggest it is fine, then I'd suggest to remove it. – jona ✉ 16:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I don't know how to change "his singles". Maybe "the singles" or "the albums' singles"? --Brankestein (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Book of Boba Fett characters[edit]

Nominator(s): ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 15:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is list of characters from the Star Wars show The Book of Boba Fett. I created and worked on this list a lot because I really liked the show and know a lot about Star Wars as it is my favorite film franchise. I’m nominating it as a featured list because it looks like it passes the criteria, but just know there might be some grammar problems. I have looked over the sections of this list way to much now to the point where my brain just corrects the grammar mistakes automatically without me seeing it. I formatted and based this list off List of The Mandalorian characters, which was raised to FL by Hunter Kahn who based the list off List of Alien (film series) characters, which was raised to FL by DarthBotto so kudos to them. I have the same goal as Hunter Kahn, which is to have this as the anchor of a good topic on this subject.― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 15:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Ann Santos filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Judy Ann Santos is a Filipino actress whose career started as a child, and appeared in a starring role on a TV series at age 10. In the last three decades, she has enjoyed success in independent films and blockbusters, as well as multiple lead roles in soap operas/TV series. The late 80s to the early 90s (considered to be the golden era of Philippine cinema) saw her appear in numerous films each year, while concurrently doing television shows. I think her work is worthy of the bronze star so I am nominating this article for featured list.

In the past few days, I re-worked the existing page. I’ve added a substantive lead, fixed the tables, and included citations. I’ve tried my best to thoroughly search for RS (publications, newspapers, etc.) that are available online, since information dating back in the 80s and 90s has been a challenge to find, especially for Filipino subject(s). Happy to address your comments and thanks to all who take the time to review the list. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • For this sentence, The show became the longest running Filipino television series at that time., do you think it would be beneficial to be more specific with the dates (i.e. when it was no longer the longest running Filipino television show)? It is likely irrelevant to this list, but the "at that time" phrasing did make me question the timing. Maybe something like, The show was one of the longest running Filipino television series., would avoid that?
  • That was actually my initial phrasing/structure, which was to include the show that surpassed the record, but found it's mention irrelevant which I agree with you, and this only happened in 2020, so it was quite a longstanding record. I've followed your latter suggestion.
  • For this part, and the namesake anthology series, I would drop namesake. I know what you mean by this word choice, but it reads awkwardly to me and it is not entirely necessary as the reader already knows she is the lead in this show by context.
  • Done
  • The "while" transition for this part, while she received a Star Award for Best Actress, does not really make sense in this context. This is a viable transition, but "while" is used either to describe multiple events occurring at the same time or to indicate contrasting ideas. I would use a different transition.
  • I have reworded and clustered all the roles, adding the award for the latter as separate sentence.
  • Since almost every sentence has a citation, I would also include one for this sentence, The following year, she reprised her role in the sequel Sakal, Sakali, Saklolo (2007)., for consistency. I know that this information is supported by the table and the citation there, but it looks odd to have one sentence without a citation in my opinion.
  • Added
  • I believe this part, high-profile directors', should be high-profile directors's as other instances in the list use s's and not s'. I do not have a strong preference either way, but I would be consistent with one choice or the other.
  • You're right, fixed to be consistent. I was unsure as to whether I should or should not, as I've only been using it for proper nouns.
  • I am a little confused by the departure from playing "emotionally troubled and oppressed women" as I would imagine an abused wife would also fall into this category. Could you clarify this for me? This source makes it seems like she is more so playing against her more wholesome image.
  • I did want to highlight her shift from being type casted, so I included that phrasing. I do realize that it in context, including the word "abused" would still fall into that description, however, I did want to emphasize the part where she sought revenge, as the abused wife role was the character's foundation from the initial episodes, while the core of the show explored the latter strong-willed character who learned how to do krav maga, (loosely based on the film Enough by Jennifer Lopez :-D). As for the latter source, further down the article it does mention that "the character is very dark ... the hatred and pain in her heart are fueling her need to wreak havoc as a way to avenge her mother." Classic 'antihero' qualities for a lead character. Sorry this got too lengthy.
  • @Pseud 14: Thank you for the response. On a somewhat related note, I actually really enjoyed Enough, and I think it is a solid example of how under-rated Jennifer Lopez is as an actress. Anyway, I am still confused by this part. As I have already said above, one of the articles says that Santos was type-cast with a more wholesome image and it looks like that both of these roles are leaning more into playing "emotionally troubled and oppressed women" rather than going against it as the list currently says. The citation in question even says that Santos is exploring "her dark side" in the title so again to seems like she is shifting more from wholesome roles to darker, edgier roles. Aoba47 (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: I have completely removed the phrasing instead in order to avoid confusion. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with the list as always. You have done a wonderful job with succinctly providing an overview of her acting career. I have honestly never heard of this individual before, and I very much enjoyed reading about her. Once all of my above comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aoba47 for providing your review and commentaries, I have addressed all points you raised, including a not-so-brief but hopefully clarifying rationale for the last point. Let me know if these are satisfactory or if there are things that remain unaddressed. Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: Thank you for the responses. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. If you have the time or interest, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: much appreciate your support. I intended to do a review of your FAC at some point this week, you just beat me to reviewing my FLC first. I'll be happy to have a look, I saw Frankie put in a place holder as well, so I'll be on board when his is complete so I don't overlap. Hope your week is going well too! Congrats on your new job! Pseud 14 (talk) 01:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lady Lotus[edit]

I don't have many comments as this is a great list :)

  • The "row" scope needs to be in the first column for year per MOS:DTAB
Fixed
  • I would take the "center" style out of the year as that's not common for year to be centered plus it's not a wide enough column to make a big difference
Fixed
  • There need to be sorts with last name first - example Angelina Kalinisan Orteza needs to have the sort under Orteza.
Fixed
  • "several high-profile directors' projects" - what makes them high-profile? ref to back the "high profile" part?
I've added references to support her work with these directors.
  • "The show became one of the longest running Filipino television series" - maybe add how long is ran for or the year span it ran.
Added year to clarify
  • "Santos's film roles have also garnered praise from critics." - what critics and what films, refs to back?
The succeeding films after the above sentence were the intended reference that received notable praise and recognition (Sabel and Kasal, Kasali, Kasalo), so I've placed/added the citations after each films to support it (e.g. reviews, coverage)

Great work :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 22:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Lotus: thank you for your review. I have addressed the above points raised. Do let me know if there's anything else I may have missed. Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 01:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lady Lotus: much appreciate your support! Thanks Pseud 14 (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maile66[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates#Scope row - year vs. Scope title - filmographies, discographies. I wanted a second opinion before I posted here. Please either move the year to the second unscoped column, or move the Scoperow to the title in the second column. For someone using a screen reader, it would seem the film titles are the important column. I've actually gone through some of my old lists and moved the Scope Row to the second column where I had the film titles, but I never took those through FLC.— Maile (talk) 17:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: could you confirm that this version is what you meant? This was originally how I sorted my tables, but at the advice/comments above per MOS:DTAB, it should have been otherwise. I would like some clarity before having to do the changes again. Thanks Pseud 14 (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14: Yes, I think that would take care of the issue. — Maile (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: should be fixed now. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Good job on both the scope, and the list overall. — Maile (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gallup's most admired man and woman poll[edit]

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the past few days, I completely re-worked this list, and feel that it meets the FL criteria. The list illustrates that even politicians can be "most admired" people (they are!) My other FLC, List of operettas by John Philip Sousa has two supports, no oppose, and a reasonable time has passed. Over to the community for their constructive feedback. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wasted Time R[edit]

  • The most glaring problem I see is that the two women who are singled out at the top for the most appearances, Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Rodham Clinton, are only described by the article as first ladies. Yes, they were that, but they were/are so much more. Roosevelt became world-famous for her role in the United Nations, on the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and for her presence in civil rights and women's rights in general. Indeed, all of Roosevelt's appearances on this list come after her time as first lady had ended. As for Clinton, she has been no normal first lady either, having been a twice-elected U.S. Senator, a U.S. Secretary of State, and a two-time presidential candidate, once getting a major party nomination. And the majority of her appearances on the list have come after her time as first lady ended. The article needs to give the information necessary for readers to understand why these two have the most appearances.
  • The layout, with the large image sizes, may lead to false visual clues about comparative frequency of appearance. For instance, the blocks for JFK and LBJ are the same size, even though one was on the list two times and the other four times. And the block for Pat Nixon is also the same size, and she was only on the list once.
    • How does this version look? I made all the blocks equal in size, so it fixes the issue you mention. However, I am concerned about the large empty space in the Hillary Clinton column. Nevertheless, it all fixes once you sort the table. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2020, 11% chose a male friend or relative and 16% chose a female friend ... – I think these should be written as 'percent' not '%'.
  • That no poll was conducted in 2021 is stated twice.
  • Trump has been the most recent most admired man, and Michelle Obama has been the most admired woman. – I don't see the value in including this, especially since the 'honor' is currently vacant.
  • As an aside, I have the feeling that Gallup may have given up on this somewhat dubious enterprise, and that's why no list appeared for 2021. We will see. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wasted Time R: Thanks for the comments. How does it look now? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those changes all look okay. But another big issue to me is that the article should have more analysis regarding the significance (or lack thereof) of this poll. I only see three sources – fns 4, 6, 14 – that might fit that bill, and they don't seem to be used much. The large majority of the sources are from December/January/February of whatever year and are just reporting on who was named in the poll. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, @Wasted Time R: Aside from the sources you mention, there are many other sources which are present in the lead that discuss not just the winner, but other statistics and impact of the polls. I think the article provides well context to a non-expert reader about the stats and significance of the poll. Is there any particular source which you want me to incorporate, because I wasn't able to find anything better than all that is in the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think we're on the same wavelength here – there is a difference between the statistics of the poll and whether the polls have actually meant anything in practice – but I will drop the point and Support. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the support and your review, and all your previous work on the article!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "Dwight D. Eisenhower and Barack Obama both have been" => "Dwight D. Eisenhower and Barack Obama have both been"
  • "Queen Elizabeth II with 52 till 2020" - I think the last two word are redundant
  • "Although never winning" => "Despite never winning"
  • "Oprah Winfrey has finished in the top-10 a total of 33 times till 2020" - again, last two words not needed
  • "including finishing the second 14 times" => "including finishing second 14 times"
  • That's what I got on a first pass. Interesting to see that the president is always so admired. I strongly suspect that if such a poll existed in my country (the UK) the incumbent Prime Minister would very rarely be the most admired person ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I just clarify - when you say Among women, the poll has shown Eleanor Roosevelt[3] and Hillary Clinton as the first ladies with the most appearances on the list., are you saying that they have appeared in the top 10 more than any other first lady? Appeared in the top 10 more than any other woman at all? They seem to be the two women who have appeared at number one more than any other, so maybe just focus on that? Does that make sense.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that is what I intended to write (for 1st position, not top 10). Regardless, Queen has been on top-10 list 52 times, more that Hillary Clinton and Eleanor Roosevelt combined, so the current statement is factually misleading. Fixed now. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • What I meant is, if they are the two women with the most appearances at number one, then just say "Eleanor Roosevelt[3] and Hillary Clinton are the women with most appearances as the most admired woman" (or something better worded than that), because saying they are the "first ladies with most appearances" makes it sound like there is also someone who wasn't first lady with more appearances. Does that make sense.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:05, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I though of this earlier and was reluctant for "most appearances as the most admired woman" because of the repetition. I now changed it to "Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton are the women having top two appearances as the most admired woman". Does that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:24, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs written by Alexandru Cotoi[edit]

Nominator(s): Sebbirrrr (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it as an extensive list of the songs he has (co-)written which are referenced. Even though he mostly wrote for Romanian singers, he did write songs for some internationally known artists as well. I have used the other "list of songs written by..." FLs as reference. Sebbirrrr (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the lead
  • Image caption is not a complete sentence so does not need a full stop
  • "and has been releasing music" => "and has released music"
  • "Cotoi became a registered composer in 2003" - what does it mean to be a "registered composer"? Never heard of such a thing before
  • "In 2015, he contributed on" => "In 2015, he contributed to"
  • "for which he won a Grammy Award for Best Latin Rock, Urban or Alternative Album" - Cotoi did not win this award
  • "at number seven in Bulgaria as well" - last two words are not needed
  • "The album's lead single "Flashbacks"," => "The album's lead single, "Flashbacks","
  • "was the most played song in 2021 in the country" - which country? Two countries were mentioned in the first half of the sentence
  • "The Motans's and Emaa's "Insula"" => ""Insula" by the Motans and Emaa" is better IMO
  • I will look at the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Hi there, thanks for reviewing the lead. I edited the lead accordingly except for your third point. By "registered composer" I meant that that was when he became a member of the Romanian union for composers and songwriters, which would allow him to legally publish songs and earn the rights to whatever song would have him as one of the composers. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, never heard of that as a thing. I would just say that he published his first songs in 2003. Also, I would remove the reference to the Grammy Award for Best Latin Rock, Urban or Alternative Album completely. Cotoi was one of seven credited co-writers of one song on a 12-track album, so his contribution to the whole album was relatively small and it's UNDUE to talk about the award the album won -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on image captions
  • "Cotoi was one of Baddest Girl in Town's songwriters, which appears on Pitbull's (pictured) studio album Dale." => "Cotoi was one of the writers of Baddest Girl in Town, which appears on Pitbull's (pictured) studio album Dale." Again, I would remove the mention of the album's Grammy, as it isn't really relevant to Cotoi.
  • "He further co-wrote her 2021 single "Up"." => "He also co-wrote her 2021 single "Up"." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the table
  • Anything that starts with the word "The" should sort based on the next word
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed! Sebbirrrr (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • The ALT text for double-dagger should not be 'dagger', but what it represents, in this case: 'single release'
I'm a bit confused since I'm using a dagger (not a double-dagger) and the alt text for it is 'Song released as a single'. Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per [1], only one dagger has ALT text "Song released as a single". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The image was not uploaded nor received by me though. Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I mistaken "uploaded" with "nominator". Though I can WP:AGF on its licencing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that archived link does not verifies the licencing ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the image to File:Pitbull,_2012_(2).jpg whose licensing is verified.Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Kavyansh
  • Add a short-description for the page
Done. Sebbirrrr (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is 'Sickotoy' bolded twice in the lead?
Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are any of "Radu Dumitriu, Răzvan Gorcinski, and Victor Bourosu" notable enough to red-link?
Bourosu is still an active songwriter, two of the songs he wrote are "Amnesia" and "Rampampam" but I don't know if that's notable enough. The other two not really. Sebbirrrr (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check if it meets WP:NSINGER, but that is not an important point here. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Russia," — linking Russia appears over-linking; CIS and Romania links are probably fine
Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Minelli" is linked twice in the lead.
Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is it! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. Any comments for this nomination would be appreciated. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Most Played Juke Box Race Records number ones of 1946[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the latest of my US number one songs lists, covering a year in the life of what is now the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart - 75 years before the chart was topped by the likes of Lil Nas X and Drake, the longest uninterrupted run of the year at number one was by a guy playing the vibraphone. That's the evolution of popular music for you...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:58, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

Missing caption, you know the drill. --PresN 19:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody hell!!
Now sorted :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment(s) from Maile66[edit]

Notes section a. - Might be good to add a citation for "a time when Billboard published only one R&B chart" . — Maile (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh[edit]

Image review

Image licencing looks good. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review
  • Joel Whitburn's Top R & B Singles, 1942-1995 — the hyphen needs to be en-dash
  • Top R&B/Hip-Hop Singles: 1942-2004. — the hyphen (between years) needs to be en-dash.
  • Ref#4, #6, #8, #61 are the same book. They need to be merged. Use either {{Sfn}} or {{Rp}} for page numbers
  • Suggesting to hyphenate ISBNs using this tool.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for source review – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • ""Race records" was a term" — try not to start a sentence by a quote
  • "group the Ink Spots" — I think 'T' should be capitalized
  • Maybe add a short description for the article.

That is it! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:37, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: - all done except:
I don't know what a "short description" is, can you advise?
Per MOS:THEBAND, when a band name starting with "the" is used mid-sentence, the T should not be capitalised -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I did the short description thing. Happy to support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support All looks good. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)Ojorojo[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • This is not necessary for the FLC, but I would encourage you to archive your web citations to avoid any future headaches with link rot and death.
  • I am not the best editor when it comes to images so take this with an entire mountain of salt. The source links for File:Lionel Hampton.JPG are no longer active. They were tied to an eBay entry so it is likely the product was either sold or the seller pulled it from their account so it is no longer available through the links. I just wanted to bring this to your attention.
  • For this part, The record would also be equalled by Drake in 2016, shouldn't Drake's song be named since both "Choo Choo Ch'Boogie" and "Old Town Road" are named in the prose?
  • I would link R&B in this part, the magazine's multimetric R&B chart, as I believe it would be beneficial to readers. It would also be consistent with another music genre (i.e. rock and roll) getting a link in the lead.
  • For the Billboard citations, I would include more information, specifically the volume and issue number and the ISSN. Apologies in advance as I know it is a pain to go back through all the citations for this, but I think it is important to include all the information here.

Wonderful work with the list as always. My comments are relatively minor, and once they are all addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC. I hope you are having a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 04:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: all done apart from the last one. Can you advise what parameters to use for the volume and issue numbers? I can't figure it out. There is no "issue" parameter........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for addressing everything so far. Instead of using the cite book template, I would use the cite journal template for magazines as it has the parameters for volume and issues numbers as well as ISSN. I hope that clears it up, but let me know if you have any further questions about this. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 20:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the update. I think either the magazine or journal templates would be appropriate in this case. The list looks great to me, and I support it for promotion. If you have the time or interest, I would greatly appreciate any help with my current FAC about a much more modern piece of R&B music. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholic bishops of Mostar-Duvno[edit]

Nominator(s): Governor Sheng (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets all of the FL criteria... Governor Sheng (talk) 15:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • As a quick comment, you could add the photos of the bishops to the table. Reywas92Talk 18:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reader has to wait until midway through the second sentence of paragraph 2 before you mention which country we are discussing here. That should be right in the very first sentence.
  • Wikilink "suffragan" to somewhere appropriate?
  • Same with "ordinary"?
  • "and on its place" => "and in its place"
  • "during the World War I and the first years of the World War II" => "during World War I and the first years of World War II"
  • "He served as the bishop during the World War II" => "He served as the bishop during World War II"
  • Is it really necessary to say "Serving as Bishop of Mostar-Duvno, he was also Apostolic Administrator of Trebinje-Mrkan" for every single one? Could that not be covered by a sentence in the lead saying that the bishop automatically (I presume) also holds the other post rather than repeating it over and over again in the table?
  • There is no hyphen in the word websites
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments. I adjusted the article accordingly. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !style="background-color: #d54974; color: white;" |{{abbr|No.|Number}} becomes !scope=col style="background-color: #d54974; color: white;" |{{abbr|No.|Number}}.
  • 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. ![[Paškal Buconjić]] becomes !scope=row | [[Paškal Buconjić]].
  • 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 19:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PresN (talk · contribs) I think I've got it. Thank you! --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker world rankings 2020/2021[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After the recent promotion of Snooker world rankings 2019/2020, I thought I'd have another crack at it. Trump held the number one spot all season, winning five ranking events, ahead of Mark Selby who won the world championship. Let me know what you think. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
  • "Judd Trump began the season as the world number one and retaining the position throughout the season" => "Judd Trump began the season as the world number one and retained the position throughout the season"
  • "Trump began the season with over a 500,000 point lead" => "Trump began the season with a lead of over 500,000 points"
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • ALT text could be bit better than just "Photo".
  • Licencing fine; just a full stop needed for the caption.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have made all of the changes above @Kavyansh.Singh and ChrisTheDude:. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for image review. Would appreciate if you could just do an image review for this nomination (just 1 image) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of lagomorphs[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 23:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another animal list! This one is a capstone list, summarizing the genera of the two families in the mammal order Lagomorpha and sitting on top of list of leporids (FL) and list of ochotonids (FLC). In this, it follows the prior FLs for list of carnivorans (which was the capstone to the 9 sublists of Carnivora) and list of artiodactyls (which was the capstone to the 4 sublists of Artiodactyla) (and unlike list of perissodactyls, which was too small for sublists). Lagomorpha, aka "things that are like rabbits", has 73 species all over the world, though the two families look a little lopsided here since all of the ochotonids (pikas) are in a single genus and the rabbits are more spread out with 11. This should be the last capstone list for a while- after this it'll be mostly single-list orders, since most of the remaining larger orders are really gigantic. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 23:44, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - try as I might I couldn't find anything to quibble about :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I also have no issues, very nice. Reywas92Talk 17:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations[edit]

Territorial evolution of Colorado[edit]

Nominator(s):  Buaidh  talk e-mail 02:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the Territorial evolution of Colorado for featured list because this list has been vastly improved with extensive documentation and references. I appreciate all comments and suggestions for improvement.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 02:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – I did not comment during the first FLC discussion for this article, but I recall one of the main concerns being the lack of sourcing, and that still seems to be an issue here. For instance, the very first section is completely unsourced. Even if it seems fairly uncontroversial, a featured list should very rarely, if ever, include unsourced statements. Additionally, I think large portions of this list shouldn't even be included. For many early European colonizers, they technically claimed ownership of the land that is now Colorado, but they weren't really claiming control of Colorado directly – it's pretty hard to do that when you have no real understanding of what "Colorado" is. Unless there are sources discussing the control of Colorado specifically, most of the early information fails to demonstrate notability and feels close to synthesis to me. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've augmented the lead paragraph with 17 references and seven notes. I'm working on documenting the Indigenous peoples. These are described in the the Prehistory of Colorado.
I've followed the precedent of the Territorial evolution of the United States with regard to European territorial claims. I documented these conflicting claims to show the evolution of historical president. All European claims in Colorado prior to 1739 were nothing more than claims, although Spain did routinely patrol the region and did arrest Zebulon Pike 1806. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 04:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I did a poor job explaining that second part. My point was that it's hard to say that Colorado's borders evolved over time when there was no such thing as Colorado at the time. To compare to the Territorial evolution of the United States article, that list only starts when the United States became a country – in other words, when there were actual borders to the country that could evolve. When early colonizers didn't have specific administrative divisions for their territory and didn't have anything to call "Colorado", I don't think it makes sense to discuss them unless there are secondary sources that directly discuss the evolution of Colorado specifically during this time period (not just the lands that would become Colorado). To make an analogy, an article about the territorial evolution of Germany should start from the formation of Germany in 1871, and it shouldn't trace back through the preceding millennia to discuss the groups that controlled the territory before then (as is indeed the case for that article). Of course, if other reviews disagree, they are welcome to add their thoughts; this is just my perspective.
Regarding the Indigenous peoples section, the implication seems to be that their presence is verified by the Prehistory of Colorado article, but you can't use other articles as implicit citations per WP:CIRCULAR. To quote from the aforementioned policy, if there are sources in that article that support the information, "Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly." RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've documented the Indigenous peoples section with 26 references and two notes. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 05:52, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A follow-up: The early information about the region that is now Colorado might be better suited for the existing History of Colorado article. The difference in starting dates (prehistory versus the actual formation of the state/country/territory) seems to be the existing consensus; compare History of the United States to Territorial evolution of the United States. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13 U.S. states have articles entitled "Territorial evolution of state", each modeled after the Territorial evolution of the United States. The "History of state" articles are all in normal article form while these 13 lists are in outline form. These 13 lists only deal with territorial claims and designations and not general history.
Your points are well taken though. Unlike most other U.S. states, the external boundaries of Colorado have not appreciably changed since the Territory of Colorado was created in 1861. The name "Colorado" wasn't even in use prior to 1861. The area was only briefly known as the "Pike's Peak Region". The internal county boundaries have changed, but an article about these would be entitled something like "County evolution of Colorado". A pretty good article about this is located at Colorado County Evolution, but I would hate to duplicate that article.
The region defined by the current boundaries of a state has a historic and prehistoric relevance going back to the very first occupants.
I don't really know where the 13 "Territorial evolution of state" articles belong. Perhaps better names would be "Outline of the historical evolution of state". I've spent a couple hundred hours on this article, and I guess similar time has been devoted to the other 12. These contain valuable information about how each state came to be, even if they don't fit the definition of territorial evolution. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 06:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, I think that "Territorial evolution of ..." articles tend to focus on the borders of the specific territory, not the people who have claimed the region in the past. I know there are 12 other "Territorial evolution of state" articles, but since it appears they were all created by you and seem to have been largely maintained by you as well, I hesitate to use them as any indication for the community's consensus on the format of these articles. I'm not trying to denigrate your contributions – clearly you've put a lot of work into these articles – but I would prefer to follow the format on other "Territorial evolution of ..." articles that have been edited by a larger swath of the community. If there isn't enough discussion of Colorado's borders and their changes to warrant an article, we shouldn't force one into existence, in my opinion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me. I had forgotten that I created these 13 articles 13 years ago. Other editors have contributed to these articles. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving. --PresN 16:26, 9 March 2022 (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.

List of female 24 Hours of Le Mans drivers[edit]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following the successful promotion of the List of 24 Hours of Le Mans winners to featured list status, I hereby present to you a list of all the women and all-women teams who have competed in the iconic French automobile endurance motor race. I welcome all comments for this review. MWright96 (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*Check for image captions which are complete sentences and therefore need full stops
  • "There have been six countries who" => "There have been six countries which"
  • "Of every crew that has started the event since the first race in 1923, 28 were composed of entirely women drivers" - this reads oddly, as obviously the 28 female crews are a subset of every crew ever to race
    • Reworded MWright96 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • It still read weirdly IMO. WHy not just "Since the first race in 1923, there have been 28 all-women squads"? I can't see any benefit in the "Of every crew that has started the event since the first race...." part, as it's completely obvious that the 28 all-female squads are a subset of "every squad ever"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The highest overall finish achieved by an individual woman at Le Mans was Siko" => "The highest overall finish by an individual woman at Le Mans was achieved by Siko"
  • "Small number in the best finish column denotes a driver's highest finish" - I don't see any small numbers in that column, just regular-sized ones
  • "Odette Siko was one of first two women" => "Odette Siko was one of the first two women"
  • Vanina Ickx is not linked in her image caption
  • Miss D. Champney is linked in the team column of the second table, but the earlier instances of the team name being that of one of the drivers are not
  • "Gilberte Thirion was barred from competing for Equipe Gordini in the 1954 race because she was a woman." - the lead says that women were only banned after a disaster in 1955. SO why was Thirion banned earlier than that?
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You have it on the "by name" table, but they're missing on the "by country" table.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 00:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • Is it "female" drivers or "woman" drivers?
  • "were officially not permitted to enter the event until the restriction was lifted" what provoked the change that led to banning women?
  • "1954 race" in note [a], make race part of the link.
  • "in 2021.[7]" overlinked.
  • "all-women squads" first mention of squad here, worth noting to the readers that not one single driver competes for the whole drive.
  • "the 1974 edition" edition inside link.
  • Same for the following three.
  • Best Finish -> Best finish
  • Class Wins -> Class wins
  • "Société Esso" you linked Esso in other names, not here?
  • " pp. page 1, page 2" you don't need those two "page"s.

That's it for a first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:42, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support my primary concerns addressed, one comment above but not critical. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Duvall filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a well sourced and complete list of Robert Duvall's film and television work. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*"since he first appeared in an episode of Armstrong Circle Theater" - our article on this show spells the last word the correct British way - which is correct?
    • Lol done ;)
  • "His television work during the 1960's" - no need for apostrophe in 1960s (in a couple of places)
    • Done, I literally never know which way to do it lol
  • "He then was cast" - while not technically wrong, I think "He was then cast" reads a bit better
    • Done
  • "In the 2000's" - as before
    • Done
  • "where he played Judge Joseph Palmer, and Downey's father" - are these two separate characters or the same person?
    • Comment: Same character, is there a better way to write it?
      • I'd suggest "he co-starred with Robert Downey Jr. in the legal drama film The Judge where he played Judge Joseph Palmer, the father of Downey's character" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who he co-starred with" => "with whom he co-starred"
    • Done
  • If you sort the film table in chronological order, the two TBA entries go first. They should go last.
    • Comment: I'm not sure I've ever had to do that - mind pointing me in the right direction of how to do that? :D
  • As it's a sortable table, any role which appears more than once and is linked needs to be linked every time (Tom Hagen is one I spotted, might be the only one)
    • Done
  • Roles beginning with The should sort on the next word as with film titles
    • Comment: This should have already been done prior to nomination so let me know if there are any I missed :)
      • All roles starting with The ("The Apostle" etc) sort under T...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • My bad, I misread that as titles :

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 00:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:PresN - Great recommendation, see the latest change for the addition of screen reader caption to the 2 tables. Let me know if that wasn't what you meant lol Thanks for the review! LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

Placeholder Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "American actor, director and producer" — If the article is in American English, I'll suggest using Oxford comma after 'director'
  • "as General Dwight D. Eisenhower" — pipe 'General' out of the link
  • "in the epic Western adventure" — avoid linking multiple adjacent words
  • "in MASH (1970)" should be "M*A*S*H (1970)"
  • "Dr. John H. Watson" — just "Dr. Watson" would suffice
  • "In 1983, he was cast" — at start of every paragraph, replace 'he' or other pronouns with 'Duvall'
  • "Western" and "Christian Bale" are linked multiple times in the lead.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pershing House[edit]

Nominator(s): — Maile (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for Featured List because this is an iconic historic structure in San Antonio, Texas, that dates back to the post-Civil War era of Reconstruction. When it was originally built, it was called "Quarters No. 6, Staff Post". After General John J. Pershing lived there for only a few months, it bore his name. I first wrote this article in 2012, and have recently worked to bring it to FL quality. The issue of the remaining redlinks was addressed at Peer Review. — Maile (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments
  • "The Department of Texas continued to be an official military department until 1917." - source?
✓ - I've changed it to "early 20th Century" and that is sourced at the end of the sentence.
  • "two-story house" - in BrEng this would be "two-storey house", but maybe the spelling you have is valid in AmEng, can you confirm?
✓ Merriam-Webster.dictionary It's American English.
  • "has eleven rooms and six-and-a-half baths" - six and a half bathROOMS surely? Also, is this in addition to the 11 or included therein? In American, it's referred to as baths. Also, in America, when describing how many rooms a house has, the count doesn't include bathrooms.
✓ The NRHP registration form says, "eleven (ll ) rooms and six and one half baths" - American real estate terminology. I've changed it slightly to be identical to the form.
  • "but the names on plaque were completed" => "but the names on the plaque were completed"
✓
  • Can't see a compelling reason to have one of the two keys in a smaller font
 Comment: This is a browser view issue, depending on specific browser and specific zoom/no zoom. I get different looks on my different browsers, with no zooming in place. Zooming also changes it. I can get many different looks on my end. Maybe the shorter answer is that the Military ranks are just a straight bulleted list. But there are so many cemeteries, that it necessitated a table style for ease of use. It would have taken up unnecessary length to just bullet-point list all those cemeteries.
  • Image column in the table should not be sortable
✓ Fixed - thanks.
  • Can't really see a reason to have brackets round the birth/death dates
✓ Maybe this is American style. Women in Aviation International Pioneer Hall of Fame, Arizona Women's Hall of Fame Texas Women's Hall of Fame
  • "Commissioner of Police of New York City. (1895–1897)" - full stop is in the wrong place
✓
  • "1911 Commander of the Department of the Lakes." - not a complete sentence, doesn't need a full stop
✓
  • "Commanding officer at the capture of Mount Dajo, Philippine Islands, 6–8 Mar 1906." - same here. Check for other examples
✓
  • Summeralll note has a random line break in it
✓
  • The second half of the table feels like it has a lot fewer wikilinks and it seems like some valid ones are missing, almost like the linking just peters out. Harry S Truman isn't linked, for example, neither is George C Marshall.
✓ Yeah, it was more than a few. I added. — Maile (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

I gave it a review at peer review, and am happy to give it another read:

  • Try to keep the lead section not more than 4 paragraphs.
✓
  • "the residence of 16 commanding officers ." — erroneous space
✓
  • "Those who called it home were some of the most accomplished leaders in the United States Army prior to their being given charge of the base." — "Those who called it home" reads a bit odd.
✓ shortened it to simply "They were some of ...".
  • "only John J. Pershing and George Washington ever held this rank" — do we need to mention George Washington again in the key?
✓ removed.
  • "1881–83" v. "1902–1904" — consistency needed. There are several other similar inconsistencies in the dashes.
✓
  • Is the Facebook link in "External links" section useful?
✓ removed.
  • We still have few instances of "WW I", that should be changed to "World War I"
✓ but I know found one.
  • "Spanish–American Warr" — I think 'Warr' is 'War'
✓ Done with the above issues. — Maile (talk) 12:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good overall. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support the list for promotion as a FL. Would appreciate if you could review this FLC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
reference info for Pershing House
unnamed refs 75
named refs 10
self closed 9
cs1 refs 107
cs1 templates 118
cs1|2 dmy dates 20
cs1|2 mdy dates 7
cs1|2 last/first 10
cs1|2 author 1
List of cs1 templates
  • cite book (7)
  • cite news (15)
  • cite web (96)
explanations
This citation template misuses |location=. That parameter is to hold the publisher's location (city usually) when the source was published; does not usually apply to on-line sources.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Removed - thanks for catching this. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • "were initially created 1953–1955 by Julia Cotton White": I don't know what the source means by "wife of the Fourth Army commander, 1953-55 made a gift", and I don't know what the other sources say. "created by 1955" or "created in the 1950s" would work if the sources are a little fuzzy on this point.
"Fourth Army" is just one of those military designations, by geographic location I think. It's all the US Army, but he was in charge of the Fourth Army part of it.— Maile (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed for consistency. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no problem with the alpha-order sorting of the "Rank" column.
  • Some of the links to the generals are redirects; this isn't a problem per se, but make sure the links and link text that you've got are what you want.
OK. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. On image issues, I'll defer.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support - for your review, and suggestions. I just now saw this, as RL took priority yesterday. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Summer Olympics medal table[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 09:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After successfully promoting the 2012 Summer Olympics medal table to featured list status and rescuing the 1984 Summer Olympics medal table from demotion of featured list status, I felt that I could greatly contribute to help improve the 2020 Summer Olympics medal table to featured list status as well. This was also inspired by RunningTiger123's commendation of my first non-film FLC promotion. Anyways, I've followed the 1984 and 2012 Summer Games medal table for guidance. I will gladly take comments on how to improve this table. Birdienest81talk 09:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AryKun
  • "Olympiad, were a" → "Olympiad, was a"
  • "summer multi-sport" → Summer here is redundant and unhelpful (what is a summer sport? does it differ from a spring sport or fall sport?), best to just replace with "international" as used in the main article
  • "the Japan" → "the" unnecessary (I also question the need to state that Tokyo is the capital of Japan at all, since Tokyo is one of the world's megacities)
  • "The games were scheduled one year from its original date due to the COVID-19 pandemic." → "The games were postponed by one year due to the COVID-19 pandemic."
  • "making it the most successful Olympics performance" → " making it their most successful Olympics performance"
  • "and The Philippines" → Should "The" be capitalized here?
  • "their nation's first Olympic medal" → "their nation's first Olympic medals"
  • "[12][13][b]" → I'd move the footnote ahead of the citations since otherwise it's kind of hard to see and likely to be missed.
  • "medals for the" → "medals used for the"
  • Use the lang template for the romanji words.
  • Link "Japanese ash" instead of "ash wood"?
  • The alt texts shouldn't have periods.
  • Haven't checked the refs or image licenses. AryKun (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although not required, a review at my FLC would be appreciated.
  • @AryKun: I think I have done everything you've mentioned above. I am not sure if I did the template for the Japanese words correctly. I've never done an article that involved Japanese words before.
--Birdienest81talk 10:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nothing else I could find. AryKun (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review/comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear that my compliment inspired this work! I'll go ahead and do the source review, since it should be fairly straightforward.
  • Ref. 1 has typos in title and name
  • Ref. 4 does not support the preceding statement
  • Ref. 8 should wikilink CBS Sports
  • Ref. 9 should be tagged as url-access=limited
  • Ref. 15 overstates details (no mention of ichimatsu moyo or kasane no irome in the article)
  • Ref. 30 could probably be replaced with this link from the IOC (I'm not an expert on the reliability of Olympedia)
  • For either the existing or new link used in ref. 30, the corresponding external link at the end should be removed

Other comments:

  • Agree with comments by AryKun
  • "23 July−8 August 2021" → "23 July to 8 August 2021"

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @RunningTiger123: I've done essentially all the corrections based on your comments. However, there are two things though:
  • The only article or website that could confirm that the 65 nations that won gold medals during this edition is were a record is from Olympedia. Actually, Olympedia is a spin-off of a sports database website called Sports Reference which is maintained by a dozen or so researches, statisticians, and journalists who have worked with sports media. You can read about the profile here. Between 2008 and 2020, they also kept data and records pertaining to the Olympic Games. That data was collected by a group called the OlyMADMen who have special permission from the IOC to collect data and keep track of Olympic records. You also can read about them here. During that 12 year period, they licensed their data for Sports Reference. However, after the license expired, they transferred their data to a new spinoff website called Olympedia. Here is an announcement of the opening of that website. Like Sports Reference, this website cannot be edited by anybody like here on Wikipedia or similar fandom website. Rather only researchers granted permission by the IOC are allowed to report on the data. In fact, many of the reserachers are accredited by the International Society of Olympic Historians. The website has been recognized by credible organizations and media outlets like Swimming World (here), The Washington Post (here), and Slate (here).
  • The second thing is that since I've nominated this list for featured list, British sprinter CJ Ujah was apparently stripped of his silver medal and therefore disqualifying the entire Team GB sprinting relay team of their medals as well. However the IOC website has not updated his info based on his profile seen here, nor is his profile on Olympedia seen here. Also the medal count table on either Olympedia or the IOC website reflect's this change. However, there are articles (1 2 3) reporting that Ujah's silver medal has been stripped, though they have yet to reallocate the respective silver and bronze to the 3rd and 4th place finishers. So I was wondering in regarding the "Changes in medal standings" section below, should this be considered a violation of Wikipedia:CRYSTAL or Wikipedia:No original research policies. What changes or adjustments need to be made regarding this information?
Anyways, I've done pretty much everything you asked.
--Birdienest81talk 02:09, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The CBS Sports link and limited url-access status for The New York Times still need to be added. Regarding Olympedia, it seems to be a reliable source, so I'm fine with using it here (though I think the updated link for the medal table from the IOC itself is still better, so keep that link for the main table). Regarding Ujah, I would note that his medal has been stripped, but I would not reallocate the medals (in other words, keep that section how it is right now). One more note: the new ref. 34 should include the publisher or website name and the author's name. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RunningTiger123: Done: I have made all the appropriate corrections based on the comments.
--Birdienest81talk 09:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed and happy to support this list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Comments
  • National Stadium photo caption is not a complete sentence so doesn't need a full stop
  • Japan is linked twice in the lead
  • "or each other, in case of team winners" => "or each other, in the case of team winners"
  • Plus all the above..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: I've done your corrections plus the above (though there are pending issues awaiting to be resolved).
--Birdienest81talk 02:11, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by MWright96
  • "Japan National Stadium during the 2020 Summer Olympics." - the word "The" is missing from the start of this sentence that is present in the image caption in the infobox
  • "the latter one" - consider replacing the word denoted in bold with another word
  • "Two gold medals (and no silver) were awarded for a first-place tie in the men's high jump athletics event" - consider adding the names of the athletes who received these gold medals
  • "Two bronze medals were awarded for a third-place tie in the women's floor gymnastics event." - same as above
  • The ruling date in the List of official changes in medal standings is incorrect
  • "a team of Great Britain was disqualified" - the Great Britain team
  • References 4, 16, 32, 33, 34 have not yet had an archive link added to them

That's all I have MWright96 (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MWright96: Done - Everything has been corrected based on your comments.
--Birdienest81talk 09:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from SNUGGUMS

That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SNUGGUMS: Done: I've Replaced the two images in question with ones that (hopefully) do not have any copyright violations. The first one is claimed as own work by the uploader author. The second one has a "Some Rights Reserved" on its Flickr source.
--Birdienest81talk 02:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problems with the replacement image added :). My only qualm with the prose is how it feels monotonous to have almost every sentence under "Medals" start with "the", but that's not enough to prevent me from giving my support to this nomination. Just reword it for more word diversity and it'll be good to go. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Dil Chahta Hai[edit]

Nominator(s): —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this because I believe this list is comprehensive enough... —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
  • "Dil Chahta Hai premiered at theatres 10 August 2001" => "Dil Chahta Hai premiered at theatres on 10 August 2001"
  • "Although succeeded commercially in metropolitan areas" => "Although the film succeeded commercially in metropolitan areas"
  • "and won seven of which" => "and won seven"
  • "that include Best Supporting Actor" => "including Best Supporting Actor"
  • Shaan and most (but not all) of the uses of Shankar–Ehsaan–Loy sort at the top of the recipients column, can't figure out why but it's definitely wrong
  • Some uses of Saif Ali Khan sort under A (other sort under K). I am pretty sure that his surname is just Khan, so it should sort under K
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You missed the full stop on the image caption but I added that and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:49, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 14:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Nathan Lyon[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Lyon is an Aussie cricketer who is more interestingly known as Gary the Goat. This list was more or less complete when I found it and one of the few among this type of list to not be FL, so I thought I'd take it through. AryKun (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Don't need commas round his name in the image caption
Removed.
  • "As of August 2019, he is yet to....." - August 2019 was well over two years ago, is this sentence actually up to date?
He hasn't played any T20Is since, so still his only wicket. Updated the as of template.
One use of "as of August 2019" remains..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checked that, he doesn't have any ODI fifers yet and those remain his best figures, so updated.
  • I don't believe the Test ten-wicket hauls table is needed, as all the info is already clearly marked in the main table
The ten-wicket haul table is worth keeping, it doesn't actually duplicate any information. It's certainly quicker to peruse for someone specifically looking for Lyon's ten-wicket hauls than digging through the main table.

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with the row scopes you have lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! style="width:5%;"|No. becomes !scope=col style="width:5%;"|No..
  • I think I've added this to all the column headers, could you check? AryKun (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 14:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

  • "Lyon has taken 18 five-wicket hauls for his country across 105 Tests, 29 ODIs, and 2 T20Is as of February 2022." — should be "As of February 2022, Lyon has taken 18 five-wicket hauls for his country across 105 Tests, 29 ODIs, and 2 T20Is."
Done.
  • "at the Galle International Stadium, Galle" — Do we need to repeat 'Galle'? Same with "the Adelaide Oval, Adelaide on", and various other stadiums.
removed the name of the city for stadiums where the stadium name indicates the city.
  • "at the M. Chinnaswamy Stadium, Bengaluru on" — Missing MOS:GEOCOMMA
Added.
  • "on 8 March 2012", "29 January 2016" v. "4 March, 2017" — be consistent on whether to put comma after month or not. Same in the table.
Added in the text per DATECOMMA, but the ones in the tables are in templates and can't have commas added.
  • !scope=col Symbol should be !scope=col | Symbol Same with !scope=col Meaning, and in the "Test ten-wicket hauls" section table.
Done.
  • I think 'Lost' or 'Won' cells could be colored in red or green respectively. For example, current FLC: this
I'm not good with tables and can't figure out how to do this, could you help?
I did it! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks!

That is it. Would appreciate if you could take a look at this FLC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look soon. AryKun (talk) 13:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melon Music Award for Album of the Year[edit]

Nominator(s): ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because the Melon Music Awards is one of the biggest K-pop award ceremonies, and the Album of the Year category consists of one of the top prizes at the event. This list contains many quality sources and I believe it satisfies the criteria for featured lists. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "Beginning in 2009, it consists of one of the daesang" => "Since 2009, it has comprised one of the daesang"
  • "although there was no album accolade given in 2007–08" => "although there was no album accolade given in 2007 or 2008"
  • "Album of the Year consisting of one of the ceremony's grand prizes" => "Album of the Year being one of the ceremony's grand prizes"
  • "The criteria for the accolade currently consists" => "The criteria for the accolade currently consist" (criteria is a plural word, the plural of criterion)
  • "having won four times in 2016 and 2018–20" => "having won four times in 2016, 2018, 2019 and 2020"
  • In the table, why is 2009 designated as the 1st awards when it was actually the 5th?
  • That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copyediting done, the reason why 2009 is listed 1st is that the awards were not well recognized in its online period, and many South Korean sources refer to 2009 as the first award ceremony as it was the first time it was held in a traditional format. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude Are you able to take a look again? Are there additional concerns? ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of ochotonids[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 03:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To no one's surprise, the train continues with another animal list! We continue our long journey through the mammals; we've finished the orders Carnivora (10 lists), aka "meat-eaters"; Artiodactyla (4 lists), aka "hooved animals that aren't like horses"; and Perissodactyla (1 list), aka "hooved animals that are like horses", and here we are in Lagomorpha, aka "things that are like rabbits", with the sister list to list of leporids, aka rabbits, which is also at FLC. Here we have the other half of Lagomorpha, the pika family, with list of ochotonids: they're not rodents, but actually tiny rabbit-cousins. Like so many of the lists already done, this is a unique one: all 34 species are in a single genus, so we don't get an interesting cladogram or really anything besides one big table. There are subgenera, but they're not universally used... because of the second odd thing: a good chunk of the family has recently been revamped. Research out of China in the last decade has determined that a lot of species should be split, generally on old subspecies lines, basically because the pika lives in high elevations so the population in every mountain range has diverged from each other. A few books have caught up to these splits, so we have data for the table, but in some cases we don't have articles, much less an IUCN rating or pretty pictures/range maps. Which is a shame, because it turns out pikas are adorable; it's not part of this list, but I don't mind telling you that most species build "haystacks" of plants to burrow next to for the winter, popping out occasionally for a snack, which is probably why that little guy is carrying a flower in his mouth in the lead picture instead of just eating it. In any case, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 03:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Suggest wikilinking forbs, as this is not a well-known word
  • Also possibly legumes and sedge
  • That's all I could find! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: Whoops, knew I forgot something. Done! --PresN 12:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - fantastic work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass[edit]

  • File:LagomysRufescens.jpg — "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States."
  • Done, published 1876, copyright holder died 1905
  • File:Ochotona pusilla.tif — source link, how do we know if it is CC-by-attr-SA-4.0? And if it is "between 1700 and 1880", then would be better tags available.
  • Agreed, given that the source was published in 1881–1883, "CC-anything" is clearly wrong. Switched to pd-old (and PD-US-expired).

That it is. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Done. --PresN 22:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for image review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • "Diet: ... bird brains": unexpected.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose and made-to-order table coding seem fine. There are no sortable columns. I 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 article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 11:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 2021[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk), DanTheMusicMan2 (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With 2021 out of the way, it's time to nominate this list ready to (hopefully) add it to the Featured Topic. This time round, I have added DanTheMusicMan2 as a co-nom, as he did the legwork of adding each week's number ones as they were announced. Hope that's OK, Dan! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Source review[edit]

  • Passes my source review as well! On first read, I got nothing that could be an issue with the sources. On second read, the only thing I could get was that you can change the link target of Vulture in Ref#6 from [[New York (magazine)|Vulture]] to [[Vulture (magazine)|Vulture]] (a redirect page) just so that if redirects to a particular section. Ref#12 to Ref#113 — all good, as always! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose and the table coding seem fine. I checked sorting on all sortable 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 article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • I thought we'd gotten into the mindset of linking "chart" in these articles?
  • "began being published" this seems awkward, could "began publication" or ", published since ..." work?
  • "number one on the Country Airplay chart, having previously been number one for the chart dated December 19, 2020,[2] while "I Hope" by Gabby Barrett held the number one " -> "number one" used thrice in a single sentence...!
  • In fact "number one" appears 17 times in the lead, and yes I know it's about number ones, but you could use alternatives to mix it up a little?
  • "give former American Idol contestant" we sometimes get told which season they were from for context.
  • I don't seem to be able to access ref 1 without a subscription.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - all address, I think. And can I say how good it is to see you back :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, welcome back. - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support my primary concerns addressed. And thank you both for your kind words. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Gigi Riva[edit]

Nominator(s): Dr Salvus 09:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a good lead and is understable, the content is sourced, it has never had any edit war recently. The article is stable (I only made many changes on the last two days to improve it and it's been edited less than 50 times and has existed for 5,5 years). The table is accessible. Dr Salvus 09:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*Photo caption needs a full stop

 Done

  • "Since debuting for Italy against Hungary on 27 June 1965, Riva has scored 35 goals in 42 appearances" - this tense makes it sound like he is still playing. Suggest "After debuting for Italy against Hungary on 27 June 1965, Riva scored 35 goals in 42 appearances"

 Done

  • "His first international goal came on 1 November 1967, in his fourth appearance for his country against Cyprus," - this reads as if it was the fourth time he had played against Cyprus. Suggest "His first international goal came in his fourth appearance for his country on 1 November 1967, against Cyprus,"

 Done

  • "where he scored a hat-trick" => "when he scored a hat-trick"

 Done

  • "Riva also scored three goals for his national team in a 4–1 win" => "Riva scored a second hat-trick for his national team in a 4–1 win"

 Done

  • "He has scored six times against Luxembourg" => "He scored six times against Luxembourg"

 Done

  • "On 31 March 1973, he scored against them four goals" => "On 31 March 1973, he scored four goals against them"

 Done

  • "He has also scored seven braces" => "He also scored seven braces"

 Done

  • You also need to explain/link what a "brace" is, as this is not a common term

 Done

  • "Riva has scored one goal at the UEFA European Championship" => "Riva scored one goal at the UEFA European Championship"

 Done

  • In the table you link countries every time they appear but only link stadiums and competitions the first time. As the table is sortable you should link everything every time.

 Done

  • The table says that he scored a goal at the Cardiff City Stadium in 1968, which is impossible as that stadium was built in 2009

 Done

  • Date format in refs 1 and 6 does not match the others

 Done

  • Refs 2 and 5 are the same

 Done

@ChrisTheDude:  Done Dr Salvus 12:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MWright96[edit]

Resolved comments from MWright96 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* "Gigi Riva is an Italian former association football forward who represented the Italy national football team. He is the country's all-time top goalscorer." - perhaps these two sentences could be merged together?

 Done

  • Wikilink hat-trick only on the first mention of the phrase

 Done

  • "he scored four goals against them during a 1974 FIFA World Cup qualifier." - clarify that this is Luxembourg

 Done

  • "where he scored the opening goal in the replay of the final helping Italy to a 2–0 win." - please state which team Italy beat to win the UEFA Euro 1968 Final 2-0

 Done

  • Wikilink the sole mention of West Germany in the prose to the relevant article

 Done

  • The image in the lede should ideally have alt text per MOS:ALT and it should be upright per MOS:UPRIGHT

 Done

  • "Riva scored one goal at the UEFA European Championship,[2] three goals at the FIFA World Cup, eight goals in friendly matches,[2] nine goals in UEFA European Championship qualifiers[2] and 14 goals in FIFA World Cup qualifiers.[2]" - try not to indicate the reference is verifying all the information in this sentence like this

 Done

  • Use the Abbr template on the No. column in the main table to indict to the reader hovering over it that it means number

 Done

  • Consider adding an extra column in the main table stating the cap in which the goal(s) were scored as its common with other "List of international goals scored by xxxxxxxx" that are featured lists

 Done

  • "Friedrich-Ludwig-Jahn-Sportpark, Ost-Berlin, East Germany" - please change the name of the city in bold to its English name (East Berlin)

 Done

  • "Stadio Municipale, Torino, Italy" - same issue as above (Turin)

 Done

  • All of the references might want to be archived for future-proofing

 Done That is all I have for this review MWright96 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MWright96:  Done Dr Salvus 20:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Support - Nothing further from yours truly MWright96 (talk) 13:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Detroit Lions in the Pro Football Hall of Fame[edit]

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because it follows fairly closely to the level of detail and information on another featured list, List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for for your response. On the one hand, you're right, a stripped down version is already included at Detroit_Lions#Pro_Football_Hall_of_Famers. On the other hand, I personally like to see the accolades of those who made it to the hall of fame from a specific team and the additional details that can be included that are not already in the List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees page. I acknowledge what I like may not be the same as what others like, but I do believe there is a case that can be made for the usefulness of this article when compared to the other two lists. People like to learn more about their team, and a dedicated page about their guys is something a lot of them like to read more about. Based on some feedback I've received I have work to do, but I hope you'll at least consider it if I flush this page out further. Please be blunt and let me know if you think it won't be worth re-nominating, even after improvements. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think this same list of people should be listed three times, and all of these lists should be merged/redirected with further data fitting fine in the main page. However I'm not the only reviewer so if others have positive feedback I'll be glad to see this improved. Reywas92Talk 00:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (ec with the above)
  • Opening sentence is very weird, starting with "The team" as if the subject had already been introduced. Find a way to reword.
  • Done
  • Refs go after punctuation, not before, also there shouldn't be a space between the punctuation and the ref
  • Sorry, could you clarify this for me? Are you referring to reference 2, which is in the middle of a sentence?
  • "The Lions organization is [....] and compete" - singular/plural disagreement
  • Done
  • "The franchise has won 4 NFL championships." - write the number as a word
  • Done
  • The lead generally feels very thin, there must surely be more to say. The lead on the Green Bay list linked above is far longer.
  • "Dick "Night Train" Lane, a defensive back who played 6 seasons for the Lions" => "Dick "Night Train" Lane, a defensive back who played six seasons for the Lions"
  • Done
  • Running back isn't one word
  • Done - You're right, I should have realized that was just a redirect going to the main page.
  • In the Doak Walker caption, the & should be written as a word
  • Done
  • Names should sort based on surname, not forename
  • "All-Pros" heading needs some sort of explanation (or at the very least a wikilink to somewhere appropriate) as I for one haven't got a clue what it means
  • Done
  • Same for "Pro Bowls", whatever that is
  • Done
  • Dashes in the career span column are different to those in the next column
  • Done
  • All the notes are, frankly, redundant. The table clearly shows that Culp played for 14 years, only two of which were with Detroit. There really is no need for a footnote to say that he only spent a minor portion of his career with Detroit.
  • You don't need to link to List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees in two different places
  • Done
  • In the refs you show the same publisher three different ways - "ProFootballHOF.com. NFL Enterprises.", just "www.profootballhof.com" and "Pro Football Hall of Fame". Pick one and use it throughout.
  • All images need alt text
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You gave a lot of great feedback. I appreciate it. I marked a lot of them as done and the rest of them I'll work on further when I get a chance. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: - just wondering.....are you still working on this? Some of the points I raised approximately a month ago are still outstanding....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ChrisTheDude:, you made a lot of great points that I genuinely appreciated. In all honesty, I am not at this point in time. It's something I hope to come back to at some point but I realized there was just so much work that needed to be done that I felt it better to come back to later on, when I've become better at editing on Wikipedia. One of the big things was the accessibility. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !|Class becomes !scope=col | Class.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | style=" color:white;" | 1963 becomes !scope=row style="color:white;" | 1963.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 03:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I hadn't considered accessibility before your post. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Angelic Layer episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): ISD (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having recently promoted the List of Yuri on Ice episodes to FL, I thought I would use what I have learned during the previous nomination to promote another list of anime episodes to FL as well. I have tried my best to follow the same guidelines with this list, having added a considerable amount of information to it recently. I just hope that this time the process, whether the list gets promoted or not, takes less than five months. ISD (talk) 07:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment
  • Some/all of the episode descriptions are identical to those on this other Wiki. Were they copied from there to here? From here to there? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: I've had a look at their history pages, I think the Wikipedia list came first (here to there), as I can see episode descriptions here before the creation of such articles in the Angelic Layer Wiki which only dates back to September 2015. ISD (talk) 10:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd suggest rewriting the summaries from a more neutral point of view.Tintor2 (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK. Should I withdraw the nomination for now while I do this, or leave it here? ISD (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would definitely suggest that at least some of the summaries need rewriting. Sentences like "Who will claim victory in this epic battle of the ages?" sound like something that would be included in the blurb on the back of a DVD, but for an encyclopedia they need to be more of a straightforward statement of facts i.e. this happens, then this happens, then this happens. Hope that makes sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. This may take me a while, but I'll see what I can do. ISD (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! width="8%" | # !! English Title becomes !scope=col width="8%" | # <line break> !scope=col | English Title.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 03:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the 2020 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains the timeline of all tropical cyclones during the 2020 Pacific hurricane season. Thank you in advance for your review. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 01:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Kavyansh — Pass[edit]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

  • "The season officially started on May 15" — What does "officially" mean here? Who determines it?
  • "Accumulated Cyclone Energy" — our article does not capitalize it
  • "Four time zones are utilized in the basin ... and dissipations during the season." — I wonder is this information necessary for the lead? I'll move it to the "Timeline" section instead, just below that graph
  • "35 mph (55 km/h)" v. "111 miles per hour (179 km/h)" — be consistent on whether both units should be in abbreviation or not.
  • "of a kelvin wave" — our article capitalizes 'K'
  • "According to the NHC's protocol" — spell 'NHC'
  • That is it; nice work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Kavyansh.Singh, I have addressed your comments. Thanks. :) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 03:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that image review comments are not addressed; particularly that does File:2020 Pacific hurricane season summary map.png needs to be updated? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops sorry Kavyansh.Singh, I completely forgot about that part. Added alt text to the season track map. The file itself does not need to be updated at this point--all data is finalized. That notice is just there to encompass the time before seasonal data is finalized (which occurs a few months after the season ends). TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 18:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No issues. Looks good; Supporting! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "in the Central Pacific—the region between the International Date Line and 140°W, and ended" - the clause starts with a dash but ends with a hyphen
  • "The season officially started on May 15 [....] The season began with the formation of Tropical Depression One-E, which developed on April 25" - do these two sentences not contradict each other......?
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, ChrisTheDude, I believe I have addressed these comments. Thanks for the review! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 21:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Timothée Chalamet[edit]

Nominator(s): Brojam (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because Timothée Chalamet is a critically acclaimed actor that has garnered numerous accolades and I believe this list meets the criteria for a featured list. This list is thoroughly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements for a featured list similar in quality to other actors' accolades lists. Look forward to your comments! Brojam (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Refs after 1939 are not in the correct order
  • None of the notes are full sentences, so they don't need full stops
  • When you sort the Result column, it goes Winner > Runner-up > Nominated > 15th > 4th > 3rd > 2nd. If winner is the "top" outcome then surely 2nd should rank higher than 3rd, 3rd higher than 4th, etc?
  • Critics' Choice Movie Awards 2021 row has the columns the wrong way round
  • That's what I got on a first pass -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ChrisTheDude: I've addressed your comments. For the results column sorting, it is sorting based on the label itself and not the order of importance so makes sense how it is sorting with the 2nd–15th places grouped together at the top in ascending sort while runner-up and won are at the bottom. - Brojam (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, let's see what other editors think. IMO if a column contains data of this type then it should sort essentially from top to bottom in terms of how close the person came to winning, so coming 2nd would be closer to winning than 15th, not further away, but I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Source from The New York Times should be tagged as "url-access=limited"
  • Link to 12th Academy Awards from "youngest" in the lead is not logical; suggest removing the link or moving it somewhere else
  • "Los Angeles Film Critics Association and National Board of Review" → "Los Angeles Film Critics Association, and National Board of Review" (consistent use of serial commas)
  • Footnote a indicates that the year refers to when the ceremony was held, but it actually refers to the year the ceremony is recognizing films/shows/plays from – would suggest rewording that note accordingly
    • I've correct the years so that they all do indeed indicate the year when the ceremony was held. They were previously a mix of both. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge duplicated nominated works for International Cinephile Society, Online Film Critics Society, and San Diego Film Critics Society
  • Remove all links for categories at Dorian Awards, Hollywood Film Awards, IFTA Awards, and Teen Choice Awards (they don't link to a page for that specific category as expected, and linking to the main awards page duplicates the first column)
  • Suggest renaming Critics' Choice Movie Award categories from "Best Movie X" to "Best X"
  • The King should sort by "King", not "The"
  • "List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees – Youngest nominees for Best Actor in a Leading Role" should be removed from the "See also" section, as the link is used in the lead
  • "List of Timothée Chalamet performances" should also be removed from "See also", as the page redirects to Timothée Chalamet, which is already linked

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I made a small tweak to the years, but everything else looks good to go! RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of commanders of the British 4th Division[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next up in a series of lists about general officers commanding British divisions, is those for the 4th Division. It was raised for the first time in 1809 for service in the Napoleonic Wars, and then again for service in the Crimean and the Second Boer Wars. In the early 1900s, new 4th Divisions were formed, renumbered, and formed again. It served in the First World War and the Second World Wars, and was raised, disbanded, and renamed a whole bunch of times through to its final disbanding. Three of the individuals listed were killed in action, five were wounded, and one was captured.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "The 4th Division was an infantry division of the British Army and was first formed in 1809 and disbanded for the final time in 2012" - "The 4th Division was an infantry division of the British Army which was first formed in 1809 and disbanded for the final time in 2012" reads better, I think
    Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink Napoleonic Wars
    Already linked in the infobox, table, and in the lede: "As the British military grew in size during...". Am I missing somewhere a link should go?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No column does not sort correctly - if you sort on another column and then sort on No, all the Acting/Temporary/Vacant rows go to the bottom
    Do you have any advice on how to get the table to sort correctly?
  • You've got a "vacant" row after Colville, but not after Alexander Campbell, even though the note suggests that the post was vacant for three months
    Good point. Vacant line removed, and expanded upon Colville note to explainEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 11 April 1815, the division was reformed in Southern Netherlands" => "On 11 April 1815, the division was reformed in the Southern Netherlands"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, no vacant row after the many Inkerman commanders, even though there seems to have been no commander for seven months. Either have vacant rows whenever there was a vacancy or just dispense with them and let the notes deal with it
    I have tweaked the note as Campbell held command (as a temporary appointment) through to the next year.
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address your concerns, and have left comments and questions above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • I see Chris has looked at column one ... I didn't really follow what's going on there, but I'll defer on that.
  • In the "Notes" column, you're sorting "The division" under "T" and "A new" under "A". I don't have a problem with this ... I get that it's really not all that important to sort this column correctly. For this reason, the way that columns like these are usually handled at FLC is just to not sort them at all, but maybe this is a picky objection, so it's your call, you can leave it as is if you like.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I'll piggyback on Chris's prose review. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable 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 article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the one image seems fine ... I see there's some disagreement over the license, but I'm not the guy to ask about that.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 01:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the review and comments. I have made one change to the article, by removing the ability to sort by the notes column, after you highlighted that above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of female chess grandmasters[edit]

Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a list of all of the chess grandmasters who have spent the last year being called the "real-life Beth Harmon". Not anyone can be called a "Grandmaster". FIDE formally established the Grandmaster (GM) title in 1950, and not long after, set up formal criteria for how a player can obtain the title. To be awarded the title today, players need to be rated at a GM level, and to have a GM performance at three tournaments. A disproportionate number of featured lists seem to be on various sport topics, but none of them are on chess. Feedback is welcome! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 12:45, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • Lead says that winners of the Women's World Championship have become Grandmasters since "no later than 2003", but the body says this happened "at some point before 2006" – which is it?
  • Judit Polgar should not be linked twice in the lead
  • Suggest moving links in birth date column to references for consistency across all individuals; this also allows the information to source other cells in that row
  • Peak rating links can stay where they are
  • Split WWC column into two columns (start and end) – if needed, place "WWC" in a separate row above the two, like so:
WWC
Start End
1962 1978

Overall, I really like this list – there's a lot of interesting context instead of simply listing the individuals. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this looks good, but I'm curious as to why the "Title app" column was added. Those links would be better as citations in the existing references column. (Placing them in citations also allows IABot to archive the links.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's useful to keep the applications separate from the other references. Otherwise, it's a lot harder to tell which players have their applications available and which do not. Besides being inline refs, they also have the information on each players' norms, which is directly associated with the information in the table, but wouldn't really fit directly in the table itself. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • There are some oddities to the table format. Some rows have refs in the last column, others do not. Some have the date of birth directly link to an external source, others do not, and some have both. Are the xlinks on the DOBs intended to serve as refs? If so, why not just put them in the refs column? Also, I checked the direct xlink on the DOB of Olga Girya and ironically it does not mention her date of birth anywhere, so that element of her row is unsourced..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the external links are also intended to serve as refs. RunningTiger123 commented on something similar. I replied there. Also, I added ref's for Girya's DOB and a few others that were missing. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • All tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You have them for the main table, but not the Key table, so you can just change e.g. |Name to !scope=row |Name
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 02:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick comment – The years listed for the books in refs 6 and 50 differ from the years in the full book cites. Keane & Levy is listed as 1976 in ref 6 and 1970 in the full cite, while Tanner is given as 2016 in ref 50 and the extended cite says it's from 1998. Those should be fixed. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:51, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "After missing a second GM norm by a ½ point in 1978, FIDE nonetheless decided" - it was not FIDE that missed the norm, so this should be worded as "After she missed a second GM norm by a ½ point in 1978, FIDE nonetheless decided"
  • "Koneru Humpy (right) was the first to break Judit Polgar's record as the youngest female GM." - she was the only one to break Polgar's record, not the first, as after that it wasn't Polgar's record to break any more
  • "Judit Polgar's record as the overall youngest GM had only lasted three years" - seems strange to mention this for the first time here and without any context as to exactly when/how she lost the record
  • "The Kosintseva sisters Tatiana and Nadezhda as well as the Muzychuk sisters Anna and Mariya both joined the Polgar sisters as pairs of sisters to both be awarded the Grandmaster title" - not technically accurate, as there are three Polgar sisters, not a pair
  • "While the number of female Grandmasters has continued to steadily increase, the rate of new women to achieve the title has thus far peaked around 2010" - I don't understand this. The number of new female GMs has both steadily increased and peaked? Is that not a contradiction in terms?
    • Changed to "While there have continued to be more female Grandmasters, the rate of new women to achieve the title has thus far peaked around 2010." Is that clearer? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Surely the peak year was 2008, when there were five awards.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I wasn't thinking about it in terms of a single year, but more like a range of five or six years from 2006 to 2011. The quote from the article is "...by the 1990s women were starting to reach grandmaster level. But by the end of the 2000s, this catching up seems to have plateaued". I didn't want to say it that way because I thought 2000s could be easy to confuse as the century not the decade. I had wrote "around 2010", but I just changed it to "approaching 2010" to better capture that it was towards the end of the decade. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

  • "a Soviet chess player from Georgia" — suggesting to link Georgia (country)
    • Generally, we don't link countries in the prose (see MOS:OVERLINK). It is linked in the list itself. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if you leave to link soviet Union, I'll still suggest Georgia to be linked. It is not a very widely known country, and may be confused with the US state of Georgia. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • link "Soviet Union" in the Background section as well.
  • "was not considered as she had already been killed in World War II" → "was not considered because of her death during World War II"
  • "FIDE first established formal criteria for the Grandmaster title in 1953. These criteria included" → "FIDE first established formal criteria for the Grandmaster title in 1953, which included"
    • I think the sentence would be too long (and have too many clauses) if I combine them. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Upto you, but I feel that these two sentenced don't flow particularly well, as 'criteria' is being repeated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No earlier than 1977," → In 1977
  • "established herself as the" → "became the"
    • I used "established" because it was something she had to prove over time, not so much a well-defined position. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • We should not be saying that in Wikipedia's voice. To me, 'established' reads bit like news articles. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to be competitive against" → "to be compete against"?
    • This doesn't mean the same thing. "competitive" means something "can win against" or "can get good results against", whereas "compete" just means that "she played against" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The epitome of her success" — according to whom? We'll need attribution as to who considers it her "epitome"
    • The book uses the phrase "zenith of her career". I think this is a widely held opinion. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if it is a widely held opinion, we should no be saying that in Wikipedia's voice. Something like "It is widely believed that the epitome of her success came in 1977 ..." would be better. But, for that, we'll need at-least 2-3 sources supporting that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added a link to her own interview, and rephrased to "Her most notable tournament result". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Changed this again to "At the 1977 Lone Pine International after about 15 years as Women's World Champion" Sportsfan77777 (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "midst more rule changes that may have made it more difficult for her to obtain the title in the future" — what change did they make in the rules?
    • The source doesn't say. It just says that the impending rule changes played a role. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and demonstrated that women could achieve GM norms from a very young age." — WP:POV ... we'll need attribution as to whose opinion is this
    • Which part do you think is POV? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The entire part. There are quite a few sentences in this article which have opinion written as facts in Wikipedia's voice. For instance, Polgar sisters winning GM title is a fact, but their success demonstrating "that women could achieve GM norms from a very young age" is an opinion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rephrased to "began fulfilling the requirements for the Grandmaster title from a relatively young age". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the age of 15 years, 4 months, and 28 days" — do we need to be so specific?
  • "the next century saw a substantial influx of new female Grandmasters" — suggesting to rephrase a bit more neutrally
  • "At some point by 2003, FIDE changed their" → "In 2003, FIDE changed their"
    • It's not necessarily 2003. It might have been 2003, or it might have been before. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elo rating system" — pipe 'system' in the link
  • "Name : Player's name", "Birth date : Player's birth date", "Age : Player's current age", etc. — I'd expect that reader already knows what those terms mean.
    • I agree, but it's just for completeness. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, of all those terms explaining the headers, only "Title date", "Peak rating", and "Title app" need to be explained. That doesn't need a separate table. Those 3/4 headers can have a footnote against them to be more specifically explained. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't agree. You also need to explain that "Federation" is the current one (plus an explanation for the notes), why "Award year" can have a different year than "Title date", that "Title age" is based on the title date and not the award year, and "WWC" wouldn't be clear without explanation (and same for the notes). That's 7/11 that need explanation. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references in the table should be center aligned
    • Is that a requirement? I don't think it would be consistent with the rest of the table. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know if there is any guideline, but this is a well established precedent among featured lists (1, 2, 3, etc.) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#6 and Ref#50 doesn't point to any citation
  • norms, Elo rating, FIDE rating, performance rating : these terms are linked twice in the prose.
    • These are confusing terms, and I feel like they are important enough that they need to be linked in the sections where the reader needs to understand them. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replies above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replied, thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the attempts made for fixing few of my comments. I stay neutral on promotion of this article as a featured list. There are yet few places where I think the prose should be more neutral. It is a really interesting topic, and thanks a lot for your work here. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Hopefully my comments are helpful. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sure thing, I just don't see what benefit the flag icons provide. In any case, image review passes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pinging Sportsfan77777 as a reminder to address the icons. If you insist on keeping those, then please elaborate on how exactly they would "aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you want to look at the information for all of the players from a specific country in the context of the list as a whole (sorted by a different column), the flags will help you find all of the players from that country. You could sort by federation, but then you lose the context of the rest of the list. You could switch back-and-forth, but I personally find that annoying and easy to lose track of things. Hence, it improves navigation (which in turn helps the reader's comprehension). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Very well. With no other issues found, I support this nomination for FL. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Music Bank Chart winners (2020)[edit]

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon 09:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article contains a list of winners of one of South Korea's music programs Music Bank in 2020. I have been working on this article for almost a year now. It has been copy edited and peer reviewed and I believe that it now meets the featured list criteria. This will be my first FL nomination so I hope to do well on this nomination.

Special thanks to Jonesey95 who copy edited this article and Kavyansh.Singh for participating in the peer review. EN-Jungwon 09:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass[edit]

  • Had taken a look at images and ALT text during the peer review. Nothing has changed since then. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment[edit]

Is there a reason why the title is List of Music Bank Chart winners rather than List of Music Bank Chart number ones? We wouldn't have an article entitled "List of Billboard Hot 100 winners", for example...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had followed the name of another similar article "List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2020)". I think it's mainly because the artist gets a trophy if their song is number one on the chart. EN-Jungwon 10:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
====Further comments====
  • "The score for domestic online music services is calculated using data from Melon, Bugs, Genie Music, Naver Vibe and Soribada. Starting in November, Soribada was replaced by Flo" - this doesn't seem quite right, as the first bit is in the present tense but includes Soribada, which you then go on to say is no longer used. Maybe try "The score for domestic online music services is calculated using data from a number of services including Melon, Bugs, Genie Music and Naver Vibe. Soribada was also used until November when it was replaced by Flo."
    • Replaced with "The score for domestic online music services is calculated using data from Melon, Bugs, Genie Music and Naver Vibe. Soribada was also used until November when it was replaced by Flo."
  • "despite the lack of promotional activities on music programs." - source?
    • Removed.
  • "Red Velvet's sub-unit Red Velvet – Irene & Seulgi received their first music show win" - source for it being their first?
    • Done.
  • "Girl group (G)I-dle received their first Music Bank trophy" - source for it being their first?
    • Done.
  • "NCT's sub-units NCT Dream and NCT U won their first Music Bank award" - awards should be plural, also sources for them being their first?
    • Removed as I could not find any sources, but checking back the the list of winners from the previos years confirms that this is their first wins on this show.
  • "SF9 (top) and NCT Dream (bottom) received their first broadcast channel music show wins" - source?
    • Source added for SF9. Removed NCT Dream per above.
  • "Zico of Block B (left) and Hwasa of Mamamoo (right) received their first Music Bank awards" - source?
    • Source added for Zico. Removed Hwasa.
  • I'm a bit confused by the August 7/14 situation. You say that episode 1040 was actually broadcast on August 14, but then you list a separate winner on the row below which you say was announced on the website. So were two winners announced for August 14? And no winner for August 7?
  • All the best, ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the August 7 14 situation. The episode 1040 was recorded on August 7 but due to some scheduling conflict it was broadcasted a week later on August 14. So during the show on August 14 the winner of August 7 was announced and the winner of August 14 was announced on their website later that day. I hope this made it a bit clear. EN-Jungwon 08:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude I have implemented the changes that you have requested. Thank you for reviewing this article. Happy editing and merry christmas. EN-Jungwon 14:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Kajol[edit]

Nominator(s): —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kajol is one of the most popular Indian actress in the 1990s. I am nominating the list because I think it covers completely all awards she received during her career. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • "one Stardust Awards." => "one Stardust Award."
  • "After made her debut" => "After making her debut"
  • "Kajol was honoured with Karamveer Puraskar" - no context as to what this is. Can you explain?
  • As the table is sortable, anything linked needs to be linked every time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't linked the categories each time they appear...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: I forgot that, done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 02:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

  • "Kajol received critical acclaim and the Bengal Film Journalists' Association Award for Best Actress for playing a granddaughter in Udhaar Ki Zindagi (1994)" - surely you can be a little more descriptive when writing about her role than "playing a granddaughter".
  • "In 1998, she was nominated for Best Actress at Filmfare for Pyaar To Hona Hi Tha, Dushman and Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, winning the award for the lattermost." The films were released in 1998. She was nominated the next year. How about "Kajol was nominated for Best Actress at Filmfare for her 1998 films: Pyaar To Hona Hi Tha, Dushman and Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, winning the award for the lattermost"?
  • "Her performance as a twin in Dushman also won her a first Screen Award for Best Actress" - she did not play "a" twin only. It's only logical that both of the roles (twin sisters) were played by her.
  • In the table of content, you don't have to list every alphabet but only the ones that start with the names of the awards she has received.

This looks otherwise good. FrB.TG (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good. FrB.TG (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of commanders of the British 3rd Division[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another list of British commanders, this time for the 3rd Division. This formation was initially raised in 1809, and has since been raised and disbanded on several occasions. During this time period, it has had 67 permanent commanders (including several temporary and acting commanders, who are also listed), with the most recent being appointed in 2021. This list used the previously promoted (FL) List of commanders of the British 2nd Division as a basis, so hopefully everything meets muster.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass[edit]

  • The only image in the article is appropriately licenced, and has ALT text. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your image reviewEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "In addition to directing the tactical battle the division is involved in" - "In addition to directing the tactical battle in which the division is involved"
  • "As of 18 October 2021" - that was nearly two months ago. Maybe just say "As of late 2021" rather than being as specific as a single day? Or just note the date since when he has been in charge?
  • "Craufurd's brigade was used to form the Light Division, which he took command of." => "Craufurd's brigade was used to form the Light Division, of which he took command."
  • "When Picton returned to the peninsular" => "When Picton returned to the peninsula"
  • "On returning to the peninsular" => "On returning to the peninsula"
  • "Kielmansegg took" - different spelling to the name column
  • "Ten days after taking command, Mackenzie was invalided back to the UK on 29 October 1914." - yet it says he was appointed on the 15th?
  • "As the 3rd Canadian Division would be working in close proxmitity" - typo on last word
  • Ah I now understand why the lead says "As of 18 October 2021". My earlier point stands :-)
  • That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments and review. I have worked through to address the various concerns that you raised (as for the ten-day comment, must have been a brain fart on my behalf!)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* "Picton, the commanding officer of the 3rd Division, for the majority of the Peninsular War" → "Thomas Picton, the commanding officer of the 3rd Division for the majority of the Peninsular War"
  • "The 3rd Division was an infantry division of the British Army, which was first formed in 1809." → "The 3rd Division was an infantry division of the British Army and was first formed in 1809." (current sentence implies British Army wasn't formed until 1809)
  • "20th Century" → "20th century" and "21st Century" → "21st century"
  • Table should probably have sorting capabilities for "No.", "Appointment date", "Rank", and "General officer commanding" (be sure to sort the last one by last name)
  • "Alten resumed command of the division once combat ended" can end with a period
    • Same for "During this period, no one held the title of divisional commander"; "The division was evacuated via Dunkirk to the UK, following the Allied defeat in the Battle of France"; "In February 1964, the division HQ was temporarily deployed to Cyprus"; and "By this point, the division was also known as the 3rd (UK) Mechanised Division"
  • Why is the note "The division was disbanded in Germany, on 1 December 1992" included for Wallace when Pike was the commander at that point?

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments and review. I have also tried to address all of your concerns (re the disbanding issue, I think that may have been a copy and paste error? I have updated, after re-reviewing the sources).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for forgetting about this for so long; more than happy to support this list for promotion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Washington ballot measures[edit]

Nominator(s): ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 19:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I've been working on it for a while and, after implementing some feedback from Reywas92 (talk · contribs) and SounderBruce (talk · contribs), I think it's ready for some more eyes on it. The list collects every ballot measure since Washington joined the union, everything is sourced directly to the results or to reliable secondary sources, and the previous formatting and inline citation issues with the list have been resolved. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 19:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !Measure Name becomes !scope=col | Measure Name.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |Constitutional Amendment Article I, Sec. 16 becomes !scope=row |Constitutional Amendment Article I, Sec. 16.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 19:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done - That was clear, thank you! ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 20:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Checking back in - Any other issues of note? ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
;Drive-by comments
  • No article should start with "This is a list...." Find a way to write a more engaging opening sentence
Done - Does that look any better? ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally think that, rather than having lots and lots of tables, some of which are tiny, it would look better if they were all merged into one table, with the year as a column
I remember considering this when I started, but I was concerned that with a very long table, readability/navigation might be impacted. I may wait to see if others have input there before making a bigger change like that. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With just one or two exceptions, the descriptions are not full sentences so should not have full stops -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done (I think, although it's been a while since I've had a formal English class) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Image review — Pass[edit]

It could, but that's a local proposition and not a larger ballot measure. I'll look around, and, if need be, can probably upload something. I could add more generic images next to the more historic ballot measures, maybe? Photo of a women's suffrage rally next to the initiative that granted them the right to vote? ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 08:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The image (File:Washington Equal Suffrage Association put up posters in Seattle in 1910.jpg) looks great! Thats fine, pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kavyansh (and thanks for tweaking the image settings, I'm not used to all the options there). What do you think about this image, of people celebrating after Ref 74 passed? ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Licence wise, its good. No issues if you add it, as long as it doesn't clutter any table. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
;Further comments
  • Washington is linked on the second mention rather than the first. I'd also be tempted to put "The US state of Washington" to avoid confusion with Washington DC
Done - I had linked on the second because I thought it would look weird to have the first word be a wikilink, but with the phrasing change it looks much more natural. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gather an number of signatures" => "gather a number of signatures"
Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "equal or greater to 8%" => "equal to or greater than 8%"
Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "approved by a majority of the people next general election" - think there are some words missing here
Changed to "approved by a majority of voters in the next general election." ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "initiatives and referendum have become" => "initiatives and referendums have become"
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "17 of his initiatives have made it" - any way to avoid starting a sentence with digits?
Changed to "He has had 17 initiatives be placed on the ballot as of 2021." ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An amendment legalizing and defining the state's power to use eminent domain" - is there an appropriate wikilink for "eminent domain"? I for one have absolutely no idea wat it is......
Wikilinked (it's the right of the government to seize private property, usually to make room for highways and the like). ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "requiring employers offer additional pay" => "requiring that employers offer additional pay"
Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An amendment requiring all voters be taxpayers" => "An amendment requiring that all voters be taxpayers"
Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "creating distinct areas for trolling" - is there an appropriate wikilink for "trolling", as in this context I presume it doesn't mean being rude to people on the internet :-)
Wikilinked (should've caught that earlier, it's a very boring method of fishing) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A measure requiring unions provide employers" => "A measure requiring that unions provide employers"
Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got as far as 1948, I will look at the rest later....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Chris! I know this one gets pretty boring with how mundane so many of these measures are :) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
  • "A measure to ban television advertising of alcoholic beverages between 8 AM and 10 PM" - isn't it more normal to write 8:00am?
Fixed - I'd always written time that way but I checked MOS and you're right. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "specific stretches of the Columbia River if it would interefere" - typo on last word
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "allowing them to sell spirituous liquor" - is "spirituous" a word?
Changed (it is a word but it's synonymous with "alcoholic") ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An amendment replacing the 40 mill property tax limit" - what does "40 mill" mean? $40 million?
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This measure was one of two options - The other option exempted some hazardous waste from taxation" - don't think "the" should be capitalised there as it's all one sentence (this one also does need a full stop at the end).
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Kavyansh.Singh[edit]

A fascinating list which has clearly taken a lot of effort. Few comments below:

  • The US state of Washington — Can link U.S. state
  • This section also required that details of the amendment should be published in newspapers across the state before election day. — uncited?
  • 8% of the votes in the lead v. at least eight percent of the voting population (emphasis mine)
  • Link Oregon
  • In the time since this amendment's passage, initiatives and referendums have become a prominent piece of Washington's electoral landscape. — uncited?
  • In 1910 the people → "In 1910, people"
  • making it the fifth state → "making Washington the fifth state"
  • Of those, only two have not since been overturned by the courts. — that means rest all are overturned?
  • Initiatives to the People are placed — why is P capitalized? Is "Initiatives to the People" a formal term. Same goes with "Initiatives to the Legislature"
  • They require a two-thirds vote in the state legislature before being placed on the ballot. — uncited?
  • 193,,686 — typo?
  • 180179 — no comma?
  • 574, 856 —Initiative to the People 49 extra space?
  • office of Governor — MOS:JOBTITLE says G shouldn't be capitalized. Check for all other instances.
  • $40,000,000 — will Template:Inflation be useful here?
  • in Grant, Adams, Chelan, and Douglas counties — do we have links for these counties
  • Side note: Initiative to the People 49 did not pass!
  • Production — why is P capitalized?
  • In these sortable tables, every thing which deserves a link should be linked every single time. WP:OL doesn't apply.
  • mounts to $1000 — missing a comma
  • Department of Social Security — do we have a link?
  • between 8:00am and 10 pm — why '8:00' but not '10:00'? Why no space between '8:00' and am? Also, add a non-breaking space
  • Daylight Savings Time — why capitalised?
  • What is the difference between "Initiative to the People 193" and "Initiative to the People 210"
  • More to come
Thanks for all this! I'm making notes of a lot of these things so that I don't run into them again in future articles. I fixed most of these, with a couple notes. With Tim Eyman, yes, his others have all been overturned or partially overturned by the courts. I switched the phrasing there to "overturned or modified," which should be clearer. As far as "Initiatives to the People" and "Legislature" goes, I couldn't find any formal guidance, but they are capitalized everywhere I could find on the state elections website. There might be some minor phrasing differences between 193 and 210, but if there were they weren't significant enough to change the description on the ballot - oftentimes the same measure appears in several different elections before passing or being abandoned. On the inflation template, I added that to measures that talk about taxation and budget allocations, not the very small amounts relating to people's pensions and salaries - let me know if you want me to add it there too! And I remember chuckling about Initiative to the People 49 for a while when I added that section! ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 19:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • equivalent to $83,444,206 in 2020 — can we round this off to nearest 1000, same goes with other equivalent templates.
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • replacing the $40 mill property tax — mill here is Mill or Million?
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - I used km2 for the conversion, I'm not sure what the metric standard would be besides that. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • thirty to fifty-five years v. 21 to 19 — consistency needed
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • adding term limits for governor, Lieutenant governor, State Legislature — why capiytalized?
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 911 system can be linked to 9-1-1
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the hunting — do we really need a link to hunting?
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • sodium fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide — do we have a link?
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • within 25 feet — convert to meter as-well
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • that contain GMOs to be — why not write the full form at the first instance
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add a short description to the page.
Added, although I think the page title is descriptive enough, hence why I had it set to "none" ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to set it back to "none". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even more comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "A measure requiring long-term care works receive background checks" - presumably that should be workers rather than works?
  • Wikilink GMOs?
  • "A measure authorizing courts to remove individual's access to firearms" => "A measure authorizing courts to remove individuals' access to firearms"
  • Notes B and F should not have full stops
  • Think that's me finally done :-) I'll wait and see what other people think about merging the little tables into larger ones, either by decade/era or overall...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Chris - Fixed those issues :) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Reywas92
  • Should include that initiatives to people have six months to collect signatures but to the legislature has ~ten. And referendums just ~three months after the legislative session.
  • Referendums require 4% signatures not 8 like the others (per Senate Joint Resolution 4)
  • Perhaps there can be some info about campaign finance and the need for paid signature gatherers.
  • "placed on the ballot by the legislature in order to gauge public interest" implies that it's nonbinding, but it would in fact adopt into law
  • I don't think the Ref 74 photo is very illustrative of the topic, the focus is on the street sign and you just see people sitting.
  • A second instance of daylight saving time should be fixed.
  • Template:Elections in Washington (state) sidebar/Category:Washington (state) ballot measures links a handful of measures that have articles; these should all be linked in the relevant tables.
  • I-776 and 747 were also overturned by the supreme court. Might be others as well.
  • House Joint Resolution 6: capitalize Supreme Court, link to Washington Supreme Court
  • Substitute Senate Joint Resolution 8210: specify that chief justice would be elected by members of the court not the public as I'd interpret that. It also allowed for reduction of the court's size but didn't require it.

Thanks again for your improvements to this unique list! Reywas92Talk 15:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Reywas92 - I believe I've fixed everything except the Ref 74 photo as I personally think the photo fits, but if anybody else has an issue with it I'll remove it. I added a paragraph talking about paid signature gathering but I'm not sure if there's anything unique to ballot measures to discuss for general campaign finance, other than the general criticisms that get applied to every electoral process. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think something like this would be more illustrative than a street sign. Otherwise support and any comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National preserve/archive1 would be appreciated as well. Reywas92Talk 17:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass[edit]

I'll try to take a look – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, 162 out of 189 sources are from "Office of the Secretary of State". I know that sourcing requirement for FLC is not that strong; we accept Billboard for Billboard lists, IUNC for species lists, etc., so this is not a major issue. But I just want to know your approach as for finding sources.
  • In which cases is "Office of the Secretary of State" italicized? In which cases is it not?
  • What makes HistoryLink a WP:RS? The particular piece used ([2]) has been authored by David Wilma and Kit Oldham. Are they both subject matter expert; they don't have Wikipedia articles, I guess.
    • I'm really confused why HistoryLink is being questioned, it's a well established and respected resource with comprehensive historical coverage of the state. Both authors are published historians (one being an editor) and this page even has nine sources itself! Reywas92Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not say that it is not reliable. I asked if the authors are "subject matter expert". As you say, if they are, I'm fine with using it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless, there is inconsistency in HistoryLink v. www.historylink.org v. History Link. Also, Ref#2 and #5 are same, should be merged.
  • "in American English" — why is this important to mention?
  • "June 8, 2018" v. "2012-12-06" — inconsistency in date style, this is just an example; there are various instances like thing throughout the article. You'l need to decide and be consistent whether to use "YYYY-MM-DD" or "Month DD, YYYY"
  • Ref#11: "Washington Secretary of State Blog" — what makes this different from a normal blog? Blogs are not WP:RS
    • That blanket statement is wrong. Blogs are just not necessarily RS when self-published by an unreliable author. Of course the Secretary of State is a reliable source when publishing things on its own website about things the Office oversees, and its presentation format is irrelevant. Reywas92Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BLOGS states: 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. It being published by SOS satisfies that it "reliable" publication, but that does not necessarily make it RS. Do we know who the author(s) is/are, and are they "subject-matter expert" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        It literally says the author is "Secretary Of State's Office" so yes I would expect whichever employee wrote this on behalf of and with oversight of the office is an expert at their own job and what the office does, just as any other content (likewise unsigned) on the site would be reliable. I do not think that name should even redirect to this section because nowadays many organizations and public agencies use the blog post format to publish information, but they are not self-published sources in the sense of an individual publishing it alone like a blogspot page. Reywas92Talk 20:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#12: "www.spokesman.com" — this should be The Spokesman-Review
  • There is inconsistency in linking of media outlets/websites — Oregon Public Broadcasting is linked. Reuters is not. Suggesting to be consistent
  • Ref#17: "Crosscut.com" — what makes it a WP:RS?
    • Huh? Why wouldn't it be??? Crosscut.com is the premier nonprofit news site in Washington, affiliated with the local PBS affiliate, with many highly respected reporters and editors. Reywas92Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your response. I asked "what makes it a WP:RS?", and am satisfied with your rationale. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#18: Washington Policy Center — This is a blog. Introduction of our article on Washington Policy Center says "The Washington Policy Center (WPC) is a conservative think tank based in the state of Washington. The organization's stated mission is 'to promote sound public policy based on free-market solutions.'" I am not confident if it is neutral or reliable source; even keeping aside that the particular piece used in a blog.
    • Just because a blog is a format that any random person can publish on a variety of websites doesn't mean that the concept of organizations posting pieces as a web log is suspect. The WPC clearly takes responsibility for the articles its employees write in this part of the site. Reywas92Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BLOGS states: 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. Can we verify if the author, Mariya Frost, is an "established subject-matter expert". Are there better sources available which can be used in place of this? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • This isn't self-published by Frost, it's published by the WRC. This section doesn't apply to the concept of blogs in general even if that's the shortcut name: Anyone can create a personal web page, self-publish a book, or claim to be an expert doesn't apply here. They do think she's enough of an expert to be their transportation director, but yes their ideological bent makes them suboptimal though, even as this is an anodyne statement to source. Reywas92Talk 20:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah; I'll still say if a better source is available, better use it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Various citations with titles like "Initiative and Referenda Handbook - 2021", "Elections Search Results - November 1908 General", "Elections Search Results - November 1993 General", etc., etc. — They need en-dash (–) in place of a normal hyphen.
  • Ref#129: "176 Wn.2d 808, LEAGUE OF EDUC. VOTERS V. STATE" — change to sentence case, and why is that source reliable? Same with Ref#162, #169
    • It's an opinion of the Washington State Supreme Court, why wouldn't it be reliable? Reywas92Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, didn't clearly noticed that. I am not questioning the opinion of Washington State Supreme Court, was a bit confused by seeing "MRSC" as website. It should be written as Municipal Research and Services Center, the way our Wikipedia article writes it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats mostly it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Reywas92, few responses above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite honestly, Reywas, we are selecting featured lists, which "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". I agree that our criteria about sources is not that strong, but I think if there are better sources available, one should prefer them. And as the source reviewer in this case, I think I should ask about it. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kavyansh.Singh: Logging that I have seen this, but am busy this weekend with a Wikimedia UK training event and an assessment deadline that I've been putting off. I will try and reply to everything by Tuesday. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Okay, 162 out of 189 sources are from "Office of the Secretary of State". I know that sourcing requirement for FLC is not that strong; we accept Billboard for Billboard lists, IUNC for species lists, etc., so this is not a major issue. But I just want to know your approach as for finding sources
I mean, this is just where the results are published. For something like election results I would much rather cite the actual results than a news article about them (and for ballot measures it's rare for them all to be reported on at the same time anyway), so this just streamlines the process a lot. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*In which cases is "Office of the Secretary of State" italicized? In which cases is it not?
The cite web automatically italicizes it as the name of the website. It doesn't italicize it when it's listed as a publisher in the cite book template. Presumably it is getting the proper format. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* What makes HistoryLink a WP:RS?
It's staffed and written by professional historians in Washington State and is chaired by a range of education, history, and museum professionals. Both Wilma and Oldham have published several books on Washington State history. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*Regardless, there is inconsistency in HistoryLink v. www.historylink.org v. History Link. Also, Ref#2 and #5 are same, should be merged.
Fixed - Thanks for pointing that out. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* "in American English" — why is this important to mention?
I don't see where this is? I searched the page for those words and could not find that appearing anywhere. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* "June 8, 2018" v. "2012-12-06" — inconsistency in date style, this is just an example; there are various instances like thing throughout the article. You'l need to decide and be consistent whether to use "YYYY-MM-DD" or "Month DD, YYYY"
This was a byproduct of only working on this page intermittently for a couple of years. They should all be fixed now (I opted for "Month DD, YYYY"). ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Ref#11: "Washington Secretary of State Blog" — what makes this different from a normal blog? Blogs are not WP:RS
Deferring to Reywas92 (talk · contribs) here - It's an official publication of the Secretary of State's office, not some rando. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Ref#12: "www.spokesman.com" — this should be The Spokesman-Review
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* There is inconsistency in linking of media outlets/websites — Oregon Public Broadcasting is linked. Reuters is not. Suggesting to be consistent
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Ref#17: "Crosscut.com" — what makes it a WP:RS?
Again deferring to Reywas92 (talk · contribs), it's an established news agency that meets WP:NEWSORG ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Ref#18: Washington Policy Center — This is a blog. Introduction of our article on Washington Policy Center says "The Washington Policy Center (WPC) is a conservative think tank based in the state of Washington. The organization's stated mission is 'to promote sound public policy based on free-market solutions.'" I am not confident if it is neutral or reliable source; even keeping aside that the particular piece used in a blog.
Looking at Reywas92 (talk · contribs) again, the format is sort of irrelevant because it's not random people, it's an official publication of an established think tank. WPC is as biased as any think tank, but I don't see any indication that they're not reliable. They're not being used to make a contentious statement, just a statement of fact (that Eyman's initiatives have mostly been overturned). ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Various citations with titles like "Initiative and Referenda Handbook - 2021", "Elections Search Results - November 1908 General", "Elections Search Results - November 1993 General", etc., etc. — They need en-dash (–) in place of a normal hyphen.
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Ref#129: "176 Wn.2d 808, LEAGUE OF EDUC. VOTERS V. STATE" — change to sentence case, and why is that source reliable? Same with Ref#162, #169
'Fixed sentence case ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I think that's everything! Let me know if I missed something, @Kavyansh.Singh: ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good! As a great Wikipedian once said: "In a few cases, had I been the author I may have done things differently, but so what? The article is a product of much research, gives a comprehensive account [...] and, in my view, is fully deserving of promotion." Passing the source review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman emperors[edit]

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

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Seconding what ChrisTheDude said about color - {{dagger}} is an easy way to add a non-color indication.
I understand why this is necessary but I worry that the dagger symbol in particular could cause misunderstanding since this list deals with people (could perhaps be taken as an indication for a specific type of death) of different religions (could perhaps be misunderstood as marking them as Christians). Would something like § work just as well? Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
{{Hash-tag}} might be best, as it definitely meets accessibility requirements and I don't think would carry any other implications. Don't forget to add it to the key as well as the rows -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! width="17%" |Name becomes !scope=col width="17%" |Name.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |'''[[Augustus]]'''<br /><small>''Caesar Augustus''</small> becomes !scope=row |'''[[Augustus]]'''<br /><small>''Caesar Augustus''</small>. (Although it's the 2nd column, not the 1st, I'd go with making the name column primary since the image one isn't really "identifying" the row on its own.)
This has the side-effect of making all the text in the cell bold and making the background darker. Is there a way to add row scopes while avoiding this effect? I can't get it to work properly with the rows that already are darker in color either. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:33, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if you change the table's "class" from {| class="wikitable" to {| class="wikitable plainrowheaders" it should prevent the style change. --PresN 16:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Required some tweaking and experimentation but I succeeded; done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The images need alt text. There's already a name in the second column, so the alt text can be as simple as |alt=bust.
Added alt text to all images. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 15:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be all of these addressed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Are there more accessibility concerns or is the article as it is now fine from this standpoint? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:00, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Missing bibliography
  • Mathisen 1998 (citation 28) is missing a bibliography
  • Kienast, Eck & Heil, pp. 241–242; Grant, pp. 188–189; Watson 1999, pp. 110, 225, 250 (n. 46) (citation 91) Watson 1999 lacks a bibliography.
  • Kaegi 2003, p. 194. (citation 157) lacks a bibliography
Misc
  • Kent, J. P. C. (1959) is not used by any citation.
  • Standardize usage of location.
Titles needing translation
  • Kienast, Dietmar; Werner Eck & Matthäus Heil give translate title
  • Schreiner, Peter (1977) translate title
  • Trapp, Erich, ed. (2001) translate title.
  • Estiot, Sylviane (1996) translate title
  • Hartmann, Udo (2002) translate title
  • Rea, J. R. (1972)
  • Seibt, Werner (2018)
  • Stein, Arthur (1924
Notes
  • Hammond 1957 (citation 48) breaks when 1957 is included (it is manually cited to just Hammond with a ref= parameter), so I've removed the date from the cite.
    Same with Schreiner, pp. 157–159. (citation 209)
  • Cameron 1988 was given date of 1998 in bibliography incorrectly (citation was correct 1988 date); I've corrected it.
  • Schreiner, Peter (1977) and Trapp, Erich, ed. (2001) ISBNs were swapped, now fixed.
  • Wu, Chiang-Yuan (2016) the google book link gives publisher as Springer, WorldCat only gives multiple Palgrave Macmillan, not sure why this is the case.
Palgrave Macmillan is a subsidiary of Springer so that's probably why. In any event, previewing the book itself on Google Books and scrolling down shows that the book itself uses "Palgrave Macmillan" so I think that's what's best to use. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges I've added the missing bibliography, it looks to me that you yourself and Tintero21 handled the other issues. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Passing source review. User:Iazyges

More comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "absence of constitutional criterias" - criteria is already a plural word so shouldn't have an S added
  • "Imperial claimants whose power across the empire became, or from the beginning was, absolute and ruled undisputed" => "Imperial claimants whose power across the empire became, or from the beginning was, absolute and who ruled undisputed"
  • What's with the bar (for want of a better term) under Geta's entry (and in other places)?
  • "Brother of (more likely) half-brother of Tacitus" - think this should be "Brother or, more likely, half-brother of Tacitus"
  • "made emperor after their marriage following Romanos III' death" => "made emperor after their marriage following Romanos III's death"
  • "revolted against Michael VII on 2 July/October 1077" - what does this mean (the date)?
  • "it is customary among scholars of the later empire to only regard as emperors only those who actually ruled" - can lose one of those "only"s
  • I think that's all I got - fantastic work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The "bars" are meant to distinguish non-dynastic emperors. Maybe we should explain it somewhere, probably on "List structure" or in note. The alternative would be to make many more tables, even if they only have one emperor (like in the List of English monarchs). IMO it looks clean the way it is. About the 2 July/October question (I edited that section), it's mean to be “2 July or 2 October”. Tintero21 (talk) 21:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be all of these addressed. I've followed Tintero21's suggestion and added to the "List structure" section for what the bars represent - I don't think there is a cleaner way to represent dynastic breaks with non-dynastic rulers. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Lede
  • The Roman emperors were the rulers of the Roman Empire dating from the granting of the title Augustus to Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus by the Roman Senate in 27 BC,[1][2] after major roles played by the populist dictator and military leader Gaius Julius Caesar. "dating from" lends itself better to a "start-end" structure which this sentence lacks, finishing in past, rather than the actual end, perhaps change dating from to simply after?
Changed to "after". Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • regions of the empire were ruled by provincial governors answerable to and authorized by the Senate and People of Rome suggest the Senate and People of Rome authorized provincial governors, who answered only to them, to rule regions of the empire.
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • continued to be elected in the imperial period, but their authority was subservient to that of the emperor, who also controlled and determined their election may be worth mentioning briefly that often the emperors themselves were the consuls, perhaps Oftentimes, the emperors themselves, or close family, were selected as consul.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • dominus noster 'our lord' suggest dominus noster (our lord)
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depending on the author, the Dominate period of the empire is considered to have begun with either Diocletian or Constantine. author could mean primary or secondary source as written, perhaps Historians consider the Dominate period of the empire to have begun with either Diocletian or Constantine, depending on the author.
Yeah, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the division usually based in geographic terms suggest with the division usually based on geographic regions
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the centuries that followed, historians typically refer to the empire as the "Byzantine Empire", suggest Historians typically refer to the empire in the centuries that followed as the "Byzantine Empire". for clarity regarding timeline and primary/secondary sources.
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO the lede should mention Justinian re-conquered a good portion of the empire, perhaps a sentence or two before The seventh century saw much of the empire's eastern and southern territories lost permanently to Arab Muslim conquests.; maybe Under Justinian, in the sixth century, a large portion of the Western Empire was retaken, including Italy, Africa, and part of Spain. Most of this territory was soon lost, including Spain in 624, Africa in 698, and a large portion of Italy under his successor, Justin II, although Italy was not fully lost until 1071. The seventh century saw much of the empire's eastern and southern territories lost permanently to Arab Muslim conquests
Added in with some minor alterations. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article should also give a sentence or two to the fact that many pretenders continued the claim to be Roman emperors, and mention that nations such as the Ottomans also made this claim.
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Legitimacy
  • A vast majority of emperors also died by non-natural means suggest Very few emperors died of natural causes,
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • considered legitimate began their careers as usurpers suggest changing careers to rule
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • as demonstrated already in the suggest changing already to either soon or removing it =,
Removed it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • wrestle power away suggest seize
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion
  • I've removed the usurper tag from Basiliscus as I don't think he is really considered as such by the main body of sources; he was the legitimate emperor as recognized by the political, religious, and military establishments of the time, including the senate. He just pissed all of them off at such a prodigious pace he only lasted 19 months. While the PLRE does refer to Basiliscus as a usurper in places (sometimes for differentiation I think, given that there was a Basiliscus as an opposing caesar during his reign), in his own section he is recognized as Augustus.
Yeah, I think that's fair. I think a lot of authors are a bit inconsistent in who they deem to be a usurper or legitimate. Does not make a lot of sense that Saloninus appears to be counted more often than Procopius. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should have had a cooler name, I guess. User:Iazyges
Guess he should have ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no other issues with the article, great effort put in, other than some prose issues (and source issues, under a different cap), I think the article is ready for featured status. User:Iazyges
Thank you for taking the time to go through this. All of the comments above should be addressed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Reywas92[edit]

  • The fourth paragraph of the lead has more depth than necessary about the empire's borders, which seems undue since that's not what the article's about, and there was plenty of expansion and change in earlier centuries too.
I would argue that border changes are necessary information (and IIRC Iazyges also argued for this) - the changes described in the fourth paragraph are quite dramatic and what territory these rulers controlled can be construed to be relevant information. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there not anything similar to Territorial evolution of the United States for the Roman Empire? Agree that it's relevant, but when you're talking about many changes over an enormous area over hundreds of years, I'm not sure this is the best format.
Yes, I understand. There is Borders of the Roman Empire but it does not really fulfill that purpose (and doing so at the same level of detail as Territorial evolution of the United States would probably be impossible). I've tried shortening the border changes part considerably and put some of the detail in a note, does that work? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section "list structure" is not really about list structure, but rather inclusion criteria
I've renamed it and made it a subsection of the "legitimacy" section since it more or less follows on from that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are over 100 uses of "c." with a tooltip for circa; this seems excessive to have so many tooltips, especially in consecutive instances
Would it be more appropriate to remove all instances of the tooltip except for the first one, or to keep the first tooltip in each table but remove the rest? Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the first in each table would be fine. Reywas92Talk 19:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There inconsistency in unknown lifespan formatting, including (aged over 62?), (aged approx. 55), (aged approx. 76?), (aged c. 27)
Should be consistent now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reywas92Talk 16:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "after major roles played by the populist dictator and military leader Gaius Julius Caesar". This is vague and does not help the reader. I would delete.
Deleted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the position gradually grew more monarchical and authoritarian". A person can be authoritian, not a position.
replaced "the position" with "emperors". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the late third century, after the Crisis of the Third Century" Repetition of third century. I think you could delete "In the late third century".
Deleted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Diocletian formalized and embellished the recent manner of imperial rule. The period thereafter was characterized by the explicit increase of authority in the person of the emperor, and the use of the style dominus noster (our lord)." This is vague and wordy. How about "Diocletion increased the authority of the emperor and adopted the title dominus noster (our lord)".
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and there were no true objective legal criteria for imperial acclamation beyond proclamation or acceptance by the Roman army, the event that most often came to signify imperial accession". "legal criteria for imperial acclamation" sounds wrong. It also does not seem from what you say below to signify imperial accession. Proclamation of a general by his troops was often the first stage, but as you say below he had to defeat his rivals to be regarded as legitimate.
I see what you mean; changed to just "there were no true objective legal criteria for being acclaimed emperor beyond acceptance by the Roman army". The point is that there was no legal obligations emperors had to fulfill before being proclaimed that stopped any successful general or politician from being proclaimed emperor by their supporters. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that Tiberius was co-emperor with Heraclonas in 641, but Tiberius is not listed. Then Constantine IV ruled with Heraclius and another Tiberius (659–681), but neither is listed. If they do not qualify for the list, then surely they do not qualify to be shown as co-emperors?
There is a note hidden away in the entry for Magnus Maximus that somewhat explains this; co-emperors in the Byzantine period constitutionally held the same title as senior emperors (i.e. both were basileus) and they thus qualify as emperors, both in a general sense and per the inclusion criteria. They are however rarely listed as such in lists of emperors in WP:RS (in contrast to ancient Roman junior co-emperors such as Diadumenian) and are not counted in enumerations of the senior emperors (Tiberius III would be Tiberius V if counted "correctly"). Here we solved the conundrum by not giving co-emperors full entries of their own but still mentioning them - this appears to be how some other lists handle things (the List of English monarchs for instance includes Henry the Young King but not with a full entry). They can't have full entries in the list because that will produce an unrecognizable list and confuse readers in regard to the numberings but they should not be wholly excluded either because then the list is not comprehensive enough. Perhaps this could be solved with adding some more clear explanation somewhere? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest a footnote for co-emperors who do not have an entry, as with your note explaining the approximate dates in the year of the six emperors. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify; an individual footnote for every co-emperor without an entry (could this help to solve the point below as well) or an overarching footnote for all of them explaining their status as junior rulers (perhaps a slightly altered version of the footnote already in Magnus Maximus's entry)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not thinking of separate footnotes for each one, but a single footnote, as with {{Efn||name=sixemperors}}, for co-emperors who do not have their own entry in the table, explaining the reason for their exclusion. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a note with explanation to all entries that mention co-emperors. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful if you distinguished between different emperors with the same name such as Tiberius, for example "Tiberius, son of Heraclian" and "Tiberius, son of Constans II"
I've added "son of" distinguishers to cases were confusion is likely (several co-emperors with the same name in quick succession, co-emperors with the same name as senior emperors etc.). Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Interstate Highways in Washington[edit]

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

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

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. The tables here are generated via template, so I edited the template to add an optional |caption parameter. Visual captions can be added by putting |caption=caption_text in the routelist top template; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |caption={{sronly|caption_text}} instead. --PresN 15:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for adding that parameter to the template. I've added it to the list. SounderBruce 22:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass[edit]

ALT text is fine, good! All the images are appropriately licenced. Nominator deserves credit not only for nominating this list, but also for uploading few of the images themselves! Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
  • A list of Interstate business routes still needs to be added. I-5 and I-90 have business routes within the state. Once it's in there and the table is completely filled out with enough references then this list may be nominated for sure. Dylpickle2k (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WSDOT does not maintain the business routes and generally does not acknowledge their existence. Any attempt to add them to the list would be original research. SounderBruce 09:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mnet Asian Music Award for Best Music Video[edit]

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

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Avoid having column headers in the middle of the table, like you have for "Music Video of the Year (daesang)" and "Best Music Video". Screen reader software won't treat it the say you're intending visual readers to treat it - like an exception line in the middle of a table - but instead as a stretch out first column cell (so, "year: Music Video of the Year (daesang)"). They also prevent you from having the table be sortable. See MOS:COLHEAD for more details.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 00:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review — Pass[edit]

ALT text looks good! All images are appropriately licenced. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Looks like a decent article! Will support after all comments resolved.

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 18:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* I am not an expert in Korean articles, but does this article also need a Hepburn translation?
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Done ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 17:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support with all comms resolved. Great work! Btw if you are interested, I have an open FLC which is also in need of a source review. GeraldWL 18:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of Italy[edit]

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

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

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments on the lead
  • No article should start with "This article contains...."
 Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Benito Mussolini formally modified the office title with" => "Benito Mussolini formally modified the office title to"
 Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sentence is unsourced
 Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since 1946, 29 men assumed the office in 75 years" => "Since 1946, 29 men have assumed the office in 75 years"
 Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead overall seems a bit thin. There must be more to mention eg the longest-serving PM, the shortest-serving, other notable facts.....
 Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it on the lead, I will look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
 Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! width=1% rowspan=2| Portrait becomes !scope=col width=1% rowspan=2| Portrait.
 Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ! 1 becomes !scope=row | 1.
 Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 13:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
;Comments on the tables and refs
  • Can you split the key into multiple columns so that it doesn't extend so far down the page?
 Done by Nick.mon. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Small text should not be used
yellow tickY Partly done: increased size of term duration. I see that also other featured list articles like List of chancellors of Germany or List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom use small text in the tables. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Below each PM's name you have dates for born-died, but below each king's name you have dates which (I presume) indicate his reign. Can you make the latter clearer, because at first glance I thought that Victor Emmanuel II died aged 17......?
 Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notes b to g are not full sentences so should not have full stops
 Done by Nick.mon. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do most refs have retrieval dates but some do not?
 Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is " Denis Mack Smith, Cavour (1985)."? A book? A journal?
Fixed it is a book. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely there's a better source for the first PM than yourdictionary.com.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Removed -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

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

Ping me when everything is sorted and I will re-visit :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: ok, I think everything is sorted! :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: What about the references column? I think it might be removed. Since all the 100+ references are just links to pages of the same archive website [3], it think it might be sufficient to add a link to the homepage of this website, e.g. in a last row in both tables. Furthermore, other featured list articles like List of chancellors of Germany do not show such references column in their tables. --Yakme (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Simply using the frontpage of storia.camera.it as a single "source" would absolutely not be acceptable in a FL as the frontpage by itself does not reference any of the info in the tables. List of chancellors of Germany was promoted more than three years ago and I don't think would pass FLC in its current form -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: For the Republican period, I found this link which contains all the governments, and also links to each specific government where one can find more details. --Yakme (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just leave the references as they currently are? There's nothing wrong with them...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

@ChrisTheDude: Hi Chris! Any news? :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: About the candidacy. I mean, I remember that in the previous one, many users answered, what can I do to re-start the discussion? -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could contact other users who commented before and ask them to take a look at this one. Are there any appropriate Wikiprojects where you could invite people to come and take a look? WP:ITALY? WP:POLITICS? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you! -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123, Reywas92, and Aza24: Excuse me for pinging you here, but some months ago you commented the first candidacy of this page. During these months, I followed your suggestions and I sincerly believe that it's ready to become a FL now. I'd be glad to hear your opinions. Thank you so much! -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:20, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments below. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • Images need alt text
  • "non consecutively" → "non-consecutively"
  • "who served as Prime Minister" → "who served as prime minister"
  • A single row should only have one cell with ! scope="row", as having multiple row headers doesn't make sense
  • Key needed for abbreviations in "Composition" column (i.e., what are "UL", "PR", "UECI", and so on?)
  • Small text should be avoided as much as possible – at the very least, it does not need to be used in the "Time in office" and "Composition" columns
  • Much of the information for the "Party" and "Composition" columns seems to be unsourced. For example, source 15 clearly states the start and end dates, and it makes it clear that it was the fourth Cavour government, but I don't see any information about the parties leading the government. Most of the sources from storia.camera.it use the same format, so it's an issue throughout the list. Where is this information sourced from?

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RunningTiger123, thanks for your comment. I've a few doubts about the key for the "Composition" column. There're dozens of parties involved in Italian governments, throughout 160 years of history, how can we create a key for all of them? Sorry, but I fear it's almost impossibile and in my humble opinion the table would look awful. Regarding the small text, we already reduced it a lot, and to be honest, it's used in some others FL in the "time in office" rows, like List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom. I'll try to found some better sources for the parties. -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the key: WP:PLA states that we should "avoid Easter egg links, which require the reader to open them before understanding what's going on." If the user has to click the link to see what party is being discussed, we're not following that. Some of the abbreviations could be grouped with the existing key; for instance, you could write   Christian Democracy (DC) instead of just   Christian Democracy.
Regarding the small text: Many of the lists with small text were promoted to FL status a while ago and do not reflect current standards. (For instance, the list of UK prime ministers was promoted over 15 years ago.) MOS:FONTSIZE makes it clear that "reduced or enlarged font sizes should be used sparingly", and in this case, I don't see a good reason for using it; the smaller text in the "Time in office" and "Composition" columns doesn't make the table appreciably narrower, so I don't know why it needs to remain. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Reywas92[edit]

  • "During this period" What period? This hasn't been introduced yet
  • "both branches of Parliament"->"both houses of Parliament"
  • Is "Government of National Unity" the appropriate term to use in this context? The capital letters imply a proper noun. Ricasoli II Cabinet says it was called Government of National Reconciliation. Boselli and Orlando had large coalitions but they don't appear to be "national unity".

Beyond the comments above, otherwise pretty nice! Reywas92Talk 04:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92:  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd add I don't think the legislature and monarch/president columns should have the !, which is for row headers. Otherwise support, thanks for your improvements from before! Any comment at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National preserve/archive1 would be appreciated as well. Reywas92Talk 17:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "as expressed in the Albertine Statute", This sounds a bit odd to me. How about "as laid down in the Albertine Statute"?
  • "The current officeholder is Mario Draghi". This will become out of date. It should be "As of February 2022, the current officeholder is Mario Draghi".
  • I think you need a section above the table explaining the headings. 'Party' is presumably that of the prime minister as opposed to 'composition' being that of the cabinet, but this should be explained. 'Government' is misleading as most articles only cover a list of the cabinet. Legislatures links to articles about general elections. 'Cabinet' and 'General election' would be more accurate headings.
  • Starting with Cavour at IV and legislature at VIII seems odd and not explained in the articles linked to. Maybe it refers to Sardinia but there is no continuity with the rest of Italy.
  • The article looks fine apart from the headings. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick.mon: Did you see the last set of comments? Are you still pursuing this nomination? --PresN 16:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson albums discography[edit]

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

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

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

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


Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
Done. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes (which you have) lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! rowspan="2" style="width:13em;"| Title becomes ! rowspan="2" style="width:13em;" scope=col| Title. Note that where you have double headers (e.g. Peak chart positions and also the individual countries) both column headers need the scope.
Done. TheWikiholic (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 21:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PresN take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheWikiholic: Ah, not quite- see my edit to the page. Both the "Peak chart positions" and all of the "US", etc. column headers need it too. I've done it for the first table as an example. --PresN 15:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PresN Please see my latest edits and let me know if I missed anything. TheWikiholic (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Great to see this, as I'm a relatively new MJ fan ever since my brother got interested in his songs. This looks like massive amount of work, which I applaud, but of course at a cost of some flaws which I found. If they're all resolved I'll happily support this nom. GeraldWL 17:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why cant those links in the See also hatnote be moved to the See also section instead?
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest using the original crop of the infobox image, since the current one's blurry
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has sold 89 million certified albums in the US"-- change "US" to "United States"
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album peaked at 14" --> "It peaked at 14"
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HHe followed the debut album with Ben in the same year. It peaked at five on the Billboard Pop Album Chart and was certified silver by the British Phonographic Industry." Kinda repetitive, suggest "In the same year, he released another album, Ben, which peaked at five on the Billboard Pop Album Chart and was certified silver by the British Phonographic Industry."
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson's next two studio albums were Music & Me and Forever Michael. These two albums were released in 1973 and 1975 respectively." --> "Jackson's next two studio albums were Music & Me (1973) and Forever Michael (1975)."
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1975, Jackson signed to Epic Records. Jackson's fifth studio album, and the first with Epic Records, Off the Wall, was released in 1979." --> "In 1975, Jackson signed to Epic Records, and released his fifth studio album, Off the Wall, four years later."
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Billboard hot 100" --> "Billboard Hot 100"
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was nominated for two Awards"-- decapitalize the A
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It became Jackson's first"-- change "Jackson's" to "his"
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first to become the United States’" --> "the first to become the U.S.'"
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the links on the texts "Billboard 200", "9x platinum", and "Billboard Top LPs & Tapes" as they're duplicate
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It won a record-breaking eight Grammys at the 1984 Grammy Awards, including Album of the Year. Jackson also won a record-breaking eight Awards at the 1984 American Music Awards." This can be shortened to "It won a record-breaking eight awards at the 1984 Grammy Awards (where it won Album of the Year) and the 1984 American Music Awards."
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "record-breaking five number ones." What does "five number ones" mean?
five number one Singles.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bad was certified 11× platinum by the RIAA. With sales of over 35 million copies sold worldwide, Bad is one of the best-selling albums of all time." This can be shortened to "With a certification of 11× platinum by the RIAA and sales of over 35 million copies worldwide, Bad is one of the best-selling albums of all time."
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album was Jackson's first since Forever, Michael (1975)"-- remove "(1975)" as repetitive.
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one on the US"-- change "US" to "U.S." for consistency
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As part of this deal, two posthumous albums of previously unreleased tracks were released with Michael in 2010 and Xscape in 2014." --> "As part of this deal, two posthumous albums of previously unreleased tracks were released: Michael (2010) and Xscape (2014)."
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table caption must be in title case. For example, "List of Studio albums" --> "List of studio albums"
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the format types should be linked at first mention
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the "Records" shouldn't prob be ommitted, for example "Motown" --> "Motown Records"
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Got to Be There column, "World" --> "WW"
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should probably add Template:Abbr in the abbreviations, for example {{Abbr|WW|Worldwide}} which creates WW
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can omit the abbreviation in the section heading, I think it's too specific and the table caption handles that well
Gerald Waldo Luis Is that necessary? I think one editor asked me to add it because it's necessary for mobile phone users. Feel free to correct it or me if they were wrong.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I opened the mobile version, and I also have the Wikipedia App. None of them omit the table caption, so yeah. GeraldWL 16:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "List of Compilations albums" must be "List of compilation albums" without the s, considering our article for it is called Compilation album. Keep the section name tho, the s is valid there
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've worked in an electronic store for two years, but I've never heard of "CD/DVD". Mind clarifying?
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references are inconsistent. For telegraph.co.uk, you have "Daily Telegraph" in one reference but "Telegraph" in another. You also need to determine whether you want the publication name to be linked or not. Also titles that are in foreign language must have a translation in the "trans-title" parameter.
Gerald Waldo Luis The telegraph issues are fixed. Can you please provide the reference numbers where the publication and a trans-title parameter are needed?.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's ref 60, 107, 147, 152, 153, 154, 155, 158, 161, and 165 for the trans-title. There's also some other foreign-language citations without a language parameter. For the publication, you have ref 2 (CNN), ref 7 (RIAA, which must be referred to by its full name), ref 10 (Simon), ref 11 (New Yorker), ref 15 (Grammy.com must be changed to Grammy Awards), and many more unlinked but in other places linked. There's also consistency: ABC News is in =website at the first citation but is =publisher on others. The list is honestly exhaustive, so I can help you fix it if you want. GeraldWL 16:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis I am open to any assistance on the remaining issues and bettering any part of this article. Please, be my guest. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis I have fixed the publication issues and added trans- title parameter for references 60 and 106. I don’t believe that the remaining need a trans-title parameter since they do not have a title in foreign languages. Please have a look at my edits and please provide the reference numbers if there are more issues. Thanks.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Municipalities of Querétaro[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Image review[edit]

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

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the image review! I believe I've addressed all concerns. Mattximus (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Pretty short article, but eh, a list's a list. GeraldWL 15:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 01:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* "Every three years, citizens elect a municipal president (Spanish: presidente municipal)"-- suggest putting the translation in a footnote. As well as the other translations.
  • "Map of Mexico with Querétaro highlighted"-- suggest adding comma between "Mexico" and "with"
  • For these two, they would break the consistency between all the other municipalities of Mexico list, and I don't think a comma belongs there.
  • Sounds reasonable.
  • Suggest removing the municipalities names as it's redundant; for example "Corregidora was originally incorporated as San Francisco Galileo, changing its name on May 28, 1931" --> "Originally incorporated as San Francisco Galileo, changing its name on May 28, 1931"
  • There is a problem with this suggestion, if the name is removed, readers can't scroll to the notes and see a list of the original names, they would then have to reverse click to see what the context was.
  • Well the whole point of footnotes is to assist readers while reading the table; if a reader directly jumps to the footnotes then yes they won't understand, because that's not what footnotes are made for.
  • But what harm is there for readers that do this to keep the extra word? I've done this before and it's helped me. I can see no reason why we can't accommodate both types of readers, nothing is lost.
  • True. Don't mind this then :)
  • For ref. 5 and 6, remove the authors, as staff writers should not be incorporated.
  • I do not believe in either case it would be considered staff writers, I could be wrong.
  • It is actually, it's like saying "NYT Staff" or "LAX Airport" in articles written by NYT or LAX Airport.
  • In this specific case, the format is to indeed include OECD as the authour: see [4]
  • Still, OECD is not an author because it isn't a person. The "OECD author" is merely referring to staff writers, and we don't indicate it if there's a staff writer.
  • Suggest changing "INEGI" to "National Institute of Statistics and Geography" as the official name (INEGI is abbreviation).
  • Needs consistency on whether to link publishers or not.
  • Done.
  • Suggest adding Geography portal.
  • Which specific geography portal did you have in mind? I have it linked to Mexico portal already.
  • The portal. Since this article has elements of Mexico and geography, but this is super trivial tbh.  Done
  • Thank you for the suggestions, I've made several but had questions/comments on others. Thanks again! Mattximus (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "According to the 2020 Mexican Census, it is the twenty-first most populated state". I think you should twenty-first say out of how many states, as otherwise there is no indication of how it ranks among the states.
  • "administratively autonomous of the state" Perhaps "administratively autonomous of the state government".
  • " municipal council (ayuntamiento) responsible for providing all the public services for their constituents" All? Below you say central and state governments are responsible for some public services. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattximus: Did you see the last set of comments? Are you still pursuing this nomination? --PresN 16:12, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I completely missed these last 3 suggestions, thanks for the ping will get to them this weekend! Mattximus (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of international goals scored by Ian Rush[edit]

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

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions to allow screen reader software to 'jump' straight to them without reading out all of the text above them each time; add as the first line in the table `|+ caption_text`, or if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header you can make it only visible to screen reader software like `|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}`  Done
  • The column header cells need to be marked with `scope=col`, e.g. `! No.` becomes `! scope=col | No.`, etc. - each on their own line --PresN 14:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

  • The short description is almost same as the list title. Can set it to "{{short decription|none}}"  Done
  • The article lead should be somewhat in the chronological order. We mention his 1996 retirement before him becoming all-time top goalscorer in 1992.  Done
  • "during a friendly against" — not a sports person, but shouldn't it be "during a friendly match against"?  Done
  • Can we expand the lead?
  • In the references, should write "RSSSF.com"as just "RSSSF" in the "Publisher" field.  Done
  • That is pretty much all there is to say.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from NapHit[edit]

  • I agree with Kavyansh, the lead does feel a bit sparse. Is there nothing more we can add?
  • "He made his debut on 21 May 1980, in an away game against Scotland. He scored his first international goal two years later, in his eighth international appearance, a home game against Northern Ireland." Both of these sentences need references
  • "Rush became the Wales national team's all-time top goalscorer on 9 October 1992, when he scored the only hat-trick of his Wales career in a 6–0 win over the Faroe Islands to bring him level with the record held by Trevor Ford, who scored 23 goals in 38 matches between 1947 and 1957, and Ivor Allchurch, who scored the same number in 68 matches between 1951 and 1966." This sentence is far too long. I'd split it into two.
  • Big concerns about the use of eu-football.info referencing the whole table. This site doesn't appear to be a reliable source at all. A much better source or individual referencing of his goals will be needed instead.

NapHit (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MWright96[edit]

  • "Rush broke the record with a goal against Belgium on 31 March 1993, and scored four more goals in his Wales career to extend the record to 28 goals." - this sentence will need verifying by a reliable citation
  • "He held it until 2018, when Gareth Bale scored his 29th international goal during a friendly against China." - same issue as above
  • "Rush's tally included a famous goal that saw Wales beat then-world champions Germany in 1991." - please state the final score of the match mentioned in this sentence
  • Use the Abbr template on the No. column in the main table to indict to the reader hovering over it that it means number
  • Consider adding an extra column in the main stating the cap in which the goal(s) were scored as is common with other "List of international goals scored by xxxxxxxx" that are featured lists
  • The individual goals that Rush scored and mentioned in the table can be individually referenced as is common with similiar lists that are featured

That is all I have MWright96 (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@REDMAN 2019: Are you still planning on continuing with this nomination? --PresN 14:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to continue but I have been down with a flu-type illness for the past few days and can't promise an immediate response. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 15:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@REDMAN 2019: Okay, last call- some of these comments have been here for two months without a response, so this nomination will be closed soon if there's no actions taken. --PresN 16:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Houston Texans first-round draft picks[edit]

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

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

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

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

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

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

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

TRM[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drive-by comment

@Kavyansh.Singh: I apologize for delay as I had personal matters to attend to in the stretch. I would also would like you to help me out here, as I am kind of a new editor, so what you meant wasn't exactly clear. Could you help me by fixing the problem yourself when you are free, as in that way we could easily solve your issue with the article.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no issues at-all. I'll do it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay; now done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names[edit]

Notified: Seattle (inactive), Bison X, WikiProject Baseball, WikiProject African diaspora

I am nominating this featured list for removal because it fails the criterion of comprehensiveness. The Negro leagues were reclassified/recognized by MLB as major leagues in December 2020 and its players are therefore Major League Baseball players. This list, however, contains only players from the white major leagues. There are over 250 Negro leaguers with no first name given by Baseball-Reference. This list either needs to be exponentially expanded or the list (and its title) need to narrow its scope to exclude players from the non-white leagues which does not seem right. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvester Medal[edit]

Ironholds has left Wikipedia

An old 2008 FL with missing information about awards given non-biennially after 2009 and many unreferenced recipients. Also, all pre-1940 recipients have detailed and sourced rationales, but not the rest. Wretchskull (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rumford Medal[edit]

Ironholds has left Wikipedia

An old 2009 FL with missing information available on the internet, most recipients being unsourced, and the lede being completely unreferenced. There are no explanatory notes stating why some awards given non-biennially exist, such as after 1874 and 2018. Wretchskull (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Medal[edit]

Notified: Ironholds

An old 2008 FL that is completely reliant on a single primary source apart from the "past winners" section, which itself is unnecessary. Wretchskull (talk) 11:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

  1. ^ https://www.wikilengua.org/index.php/Ordenaci%C3%B3n_alfab%C3%A9tica
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=1076221024"