Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Nominating featured lists in 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.  – Table of contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects

Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists ← Featured pictures Featured topics Featured list tools: Featured list criteria Featured list candidates Featured list removal candidates Featured list statistics Wikipedians by promoted featured list nominations Today's featured list This month's queue TFL submissions TFL statistics Featured lists that have appeared as TFL Featured lists yet to appear as TFL Featured list log Random featured list Former featured lists Removal candidates log

Nomination procedure Toolbox Analysis Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. 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. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. 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 edit · history · watch · refresh 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: List of commanders of the British 4th Division (FLC) List of Music Bank Chart winners (2020) (FLC) Mnet Asian Music Award for Best Music Video (FLC) List of Washington ballot measures (FLC) Michael Jackson albums discography (FLC) List of prime ministers of Italy (FLC) List of female chess grandmasters (FLC) List of commanders of the British 3rd Division (FLC) List of Roman emperors (FLC) edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago: List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names (FLRC)

Nominations

List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks

Nominator(s): Debartolo2917 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this page has failed a featured list candidate nomination before (in 2011). Since then, it has been substantially improved, now at the standard other lists for first-round draft picks of NFL teams (such as List of Baltimore Ravens first-round draft picks). In addition, this page simplifies the code in other, already featured lists, by utilizing a key with position links and a central 'align="center"' function. Debartolo2917 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

List of chief ministers from the Indian National Congress

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 07:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This is my second political list nomination. I am nominating this for featured list because I've worked on revamping this list over the last few weeks and feel that it's up to a pretty good standard. Contains everything needed to become a FL such as a good lead, sources and a clear table. Criticism, suggesting improvements most welcome. Thank you.. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS ^🍁 07:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Snooker world rankings 2018/2019

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it follows the same layout as current FL Snooker world rankings 2019/2020. Welcome your comments to this article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead. "Seeding list" and "Ranking points" are missing this.
• 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. | Party becomes !scope=col | Party. If the cell spans multiple columns, then use Example text instead. "Revision dates" has 'column' instead of 'col', while the other two tables have a different problem- when you have 2-layer column headers like that, both layers should bother have scopes so that screen readers read out e.g. "Season 18/19" as a prefix rather than just "18/19". Though, actually, why is it "17/18 Season" as a single cell, but "Season" and "18/19" as separate ones? Should be just one or the other.
• 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 17:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for these. i have made the changes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• Don't think you need the "main" template at the top given that it's linked in the lead
• "Start ranking released by World Snooker doesn't match" => "Start ranking released by World Snooker does not match"
• Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

No issues, resolved ChrisTheDude Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

AK

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
• "Certain tournaments were given" → Shouldn't this be "are given"?
  • Hmm, I think the reason for this is that it is future proof. Ranking status can change, with some events which were once non-ranking becoming ranking, and vise versa. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Footnote 13 needs a reference.
  • I went ahead and removed it. Seems a bit irrelevant to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• I've mainly just glanced over the tables since they're so large.
• That's all. AryKun (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. All my concerns have been resolved. AryKun (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Snooker world rankings 1976/1977

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Only a little list, and not too much to say about it. Thanks in advance for any comments to help improve the list. There were informal ranking lists a few years earlier (from late 1973), including both professionals and amateurs, produced by a panel including Joe Davis and Ted Lowe for a bookmaker; I'll include a mention of those if reviewers think it's worthwhile. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Vilenski

• To be honest, I thought these articles are more suitable to not have a bold title. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Not actioned - I know other Snooker world rankings featured lists don't have this but (barring it being against MOS) I'd prefer to keep it if it's not a required change. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• seeded first and the previous year's runner-up was seeded - no need for the second "was seeded". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• the 1976-77 snooker season - hyphen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• World Champion gained five points, the runner-up received four, losing semi-finalists got three, losing quarter-finalists got two, and losers in the last-16 - could probably be a bit more simple. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Has been reworded but let me know if more work is needed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• points, points - repetition. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• The eight-highest ranked players were placed direcly into the last-16 round of the 1977 World Snooker Championship - need to explain the alternative. If you weren't highly ranked, you'd have to play additional matches. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Added. Indidentally, when the list was published, the idea was that the top 8 would be in normal seed positions in the draw, those ranked 9 to 14 would be drawn at random into last 16, and everyone else would play in the qualifiers. With many lower-ranked players unhappy about this, there was a WPBSA vote two weeks before the draw that came out 11-10 in favour of changing it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Table needs some rowscopes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Amended - not sure if I've done it right though. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Probably need to explain what "-' means in the table. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• There's no need for Main article: 1976–77 snooker season at the top given that it's linked in the first sentence
• I've never seen an article where a "preceded by/succeeded by" template was placed centrally at the top, it looks odd to me. I would put it at the bottom as is by far the norm.
• What makes "Chris Turner's Snooker Archive", which seems to be some random dude's personal website, a reliable source? If it is, there's no need to show the URL in the reference, just the site name would suffice
  • Pop-in note - Chris Turner, who wrote the website is the guy who used to do the statistics for both the BBC and Eurosport. I've used it in several FAs, it far surpasses WP:SPS, deemed a "snooker historian". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Fair enough :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. I've amended the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:01, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by MWright96

• Lead: Clarify that the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association is professional snooker's governing body

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Lead: "losing semi-finalists got three, losing quarter-finalists got two," - try and use different words to replace the ones that are highlighted in bold

• Amended the sentence. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Lead: "The same points system, using results from 1973, 1974 and 1975 had been used" - repetition of "used(ing)"

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Rankings prose: with the total number of point" - typo; points

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Rankings prose: "A "-" symbol" - the hyphen should ideally be an en dash per MOS:DASH as it is in the table

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Higgins Infobox: Consider adding alt text to the Higgins image

• There is some, unless I've misunderstood. Perhaps it could be improved? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Table: Think the title atop the table could do with expanding

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Reference 4: The issue number for The Times reference is 59917

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Reference 6: Mention that Lowestoft is in Suffolk in England for clarity

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

That's all I have for this list MWright96 (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, MWright96. Hopefully I've addressed everything you raised, but let me know if there are any points where more is needed. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- Have nothing further to add MWright96 (talk) 17:45, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

AK

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
• I agree with Lee, the bold title does not look good here, incorporating it into natural prose would be better.

• Reworded, but I'm happy to rework it further. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• "results from 1973, 1974 and 1975 had" → "results from 1973, 1974 and 1975, had"

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• The alt text for the Higgins image doesn't need the comma.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• That's it, not much to say here. AryKun (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Many thanks, AryKun. Let me know if there's more to do. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

List of Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways

Nominator(s):  Buaidh  talk e-mail 23:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating the List of Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways for featured list because it presents information about the scenic and historic byways of Colorado in a straightforward manner with ample documentation and notes.

Comments from Reywas92

• The lead is too short, could you summarize the list a bit more, maybe the total length of the byways, highlight some important ones.
• Describe a little bit of the process for how these are selected. The All-American Roads, National Scenic Byways, National Forest Scenic Byways, and Back Country Byways are all federal programs, so this needs to specify the difference between a state and federal designation. I know the National Scenic Byways require state nomination, but talk about how these overlap with the state-level designation. Seems like 5 are state only, and the rest are both?
• Mention the difference between the scenic byways and the historic byways. Some are only scenic, some are both. What sort of themes do some of these share?
• What does designation actually mean? It says there's signage, but is there some sort of funding or other programming involved for these roads and sites on them? Or just listings in tourism guides?
• "the most national byways of any state." Source?? Looking at the maps on the three program articles, it looks like California has more.
• The section header should probably be "Scenic and Historic Byways"
• The table header doesn't need to specify it's a table.
• With most having both state and federal designation (and a few with multiple federal), what does the year represent? I don't see 1989 in either source for San Juan or 1993 in either for Top of the Rockies.
• The Description column doesn't need period for incomplete sentences.
• It also doesn't need to repeatedly link the designations since they're in the lead
• The first three see also links don't need to be there if they're already elsewhere.
• The Highways of Colorado by Matthew Salek external link seems unreliable and doesn't add anything beyond the comprehensive codot.gov site
• Interesting list – National Parkway is somewhere on my to-do list!

Reywas92^Talk 01:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Reywas92: Thank you very much for your helpful comments. I will see what I can do for this list. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 03:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose—this just isn't ready yet.
  • As noted above, there's some confusion in the content between this state-level program and national-level programs. For example, the table row for Dinosaur Diamond Prehistoric Highway National Scenic Byway implies that a Colorado Scenic and Historic Byway designation extends into Utah. Is the 512-mile length just the portion in Colorado with the state-level designation? Does that length include the part in Utah? It's very unclear. The entire table needs a rewrite so that the content focuses on only what has a state-level designation. Sure, note if a byway also has a national-level designation, but per the title of this list, it must focus on just what Colorado designated.
  • There's a lot of missing content. How are these byways nominated? What kind of approval process is there? What are the criteria for approval? What about a general history of the program? There should be some more content beyond the lead and the table. Take a look at Pure Michigan Byway for some inspiration.
  • Several of the items listed in the See also section should be removed per MOS:NOTSEEALSO; if it's already linked in the body of the article, it should not be linked there.
    Unfortunately, I cannot support promotion until more content is added what is there is fixed. Imzadi 1979 → 04:29, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

@Imzadi1979: As stated in the header, all 26 of the byways are designated by the Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways Commission and 21 of these currently have a federal designation as well. The four byways that extend into adjoining states show the total mileage. I will add notes for mileage and dates. I know that Michigan is impeccable, so I will attempt to bring this list up to snuff. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk e-mail 05:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Romania

Nominator(s): Tone 18:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Romania has nine WH sites and 15 sites on the tentative list. This time, several interesting old towns and churches, and beautiful nature. The style is standard. Bulgaria's list is seeing some support so I am adding a new nomination. Tone 18:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• I think this is the first one of these lists to come to FLC where I have actually been to one of the locations listed :-)
• Transylvanian Saxons linked twice, don't think it needs to be
• "They have since lived in the region for over 850 years" - no need for the word since
• "to include forests in total of 18 countries" => "to include forests in a total of 18 countries"
• "Roșia Montană is located in the western part of Romanian Carpathians" => "Roșia Montană is located in the western part of the Romanian Carpathians"
• "Curtea de Argeș was the old capital of the Wallachia" => "Curtea de Argeș was the old capital of Wallachia"
• "The Church of st. Nicholas" => "The Church of St. Nicholas"
• "in from the 10th to the 12th centuries" => "from the 10th to the 12th centuries"
• "The Alba Carolina Citadel, a start fort" - what's a "start fort"?
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Fixed, thanks! I am usually linking some items more than once, in case different sorting on columns is used, someone suggested this approach a while ago. Tone 09:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

  Oh yeah, I forgot it's a sortable table. In that case all good - support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

AK

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.

Resolved comments from ~~~~

* "two are natural" → "two of which are natural" Is the link to Carthage supposed to be to the ancient city? The modern city is at Carthage (municipality). The monk seal link would be better as one to the Mediterranean monk seal. "of the villages have been" → "of the villages has been" "Brâncovenesc style in architecture" → "Brâncovenesc style of architecture"? "inspired by the Byzantine art" → "inspired by Byzantine art" "examples of two types of forts" → "examples of the two types of forts" "now in ruin" → "now in ruins" "Among prominent architectural" → "Among the prominent architectural" That's all I could find. AryKun (talk) 13:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC) @AryKun Fixed, thanks! Tone 13:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. AryKun (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

List of Most Played Juke Box Race Records number ones of 1947

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Here's the latest instalment in the history of Billboard's R&B charts, which (as with the previous year) were thoroughly dominated by the sound of Louis Jordan. Feedback as ever gratefully received...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Pseud 14

Another great piece about the R&B charts instalment, I only have very minor comments:

• R&B and rock and roll. -- would pipe R&B as I think this is the first mention in the lead as a genre.
  • it's actually the second, but the first wasn't linked either, so I have linked it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• had ended by the end of the following year -- "ended" and "end" in close proximity, perhaps had ended the following year could be an alternative.
  • Changed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

That's all from me! Pseud 14 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- Pseud 14 (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

You thought you were safe just because you remembered the caption this time? Guess again, because something new has been added to these reviews!

• If the row header cell spans multiple rows, then use scope=rowgroup instead of scope=row.
• 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 00:21, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

AK

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
• "to the Four Tunes" → Shouldn't "The" be capitalized?
• "for the singer nicknamed "Cleanhead" → "for Vinson, nicknamed "Cleanhead"
• That's all, really nice list. AryKun (talk) 17:40, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Angel Locsin filmography

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

With my earlier nomination having at least four supports and no outstanding issues, here's another filmography of a Filipino actress. Angel Locsin started her career over two decades ago and has achieved considerable success in film and television. Prolific in fantasy and action adventure genres, perhaps she is best known for her portrayals of superheroines and mythological creatures. An avian-hybrid, a sorceress, a werewolf, and a comic book superhero to name a few.

Created early in March, this list article has been expanded to include an interesting and readable introduction of the subject's work. I’ve tried my best to thoroughly search for RS (publications, newspapers, etc.) that are available online, since sourcing can be a challenge, 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) 21:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "Critical success followed with Locsin's performances in high-profile directors' collaboration" => "Critical success followed with Locsin's performances in collaborations with high-profile directors"

Done

• "Locsin's portrayals of the grief-stricken title character in the drama series The Legal Wife (2014), and the indoctrinated military nurse in the spy-action thriller series The General's Daughter (2019)," - don't need either of those commas

Removed commas

• Titles starting with The should sort based on the next word of the title

Fixed

• That's all I've got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: thanks very much for your review. I have addressed the above. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Thanks Pseud 14 (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

• "Locsin gained wider recognition and received praise for portraying Darna in the 2005 television series based on Mars Ravelo's comics superheroine of the same name." It's not clear what the television series is called. We do get the name Darna but it's not 100% clear that the series is called as the character. Perhaps something like "...portraying the title character in the 2005 television series Darna..."?

Fixed per suggestion

• "During this period, Locsin also appeared alongside Dennis Trillo,[7] co-starring in the horror thriller Txt (2006) and playing a.." - co-starred, played; no need for the verb-ing modifier.

Done

• "Locsin's portrayals of the grief-stricken title character in the drama series The Legal Wife (2014)[18] and the indoctrinated military nurse in the spy-action thriller series The General's Daughter (2019)[19] earned her nominations at the Star Awards, winning Best Actress .." - the "winning Best Actress" refers to "Locsin's portrayals", which makes no sense. Her portrayal did not win the award but won her the award.

I have reworded this

• "Aside from acting, Locsin also" - also is unneeded when we have "aside from acting".

Done

• "She has also provided" - past tense should be better since you have provided the year the film was released.

Done

• Since the abbreviation is "Ref(s)", the full form should also be called "Reference(s)". FrB.TG (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Done

Thank you FrB.TG, I have addressed above comments. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed or misunderstood. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. Good work. FrB.TG (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

List of Media Forest most-broadcast songs of the 2020s in Romania

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it meets the required critera given the fact that it follows the same strucutre of List of Media Forest most-broadcast songs of the 2010s in Romania, which already is a FL. Love editing on this topic and any comment is appreciated. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment

• My only major concern is that we are still less than a quarter of the way through the decade. It would be like if Timeline of the 2020 Atlantic hurricane season had been nominated in June of that year. Maybe this isn't a problem, I don't know? I'll wait and see what other people think? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  • My guess is that this stems from featured list criteria #6: "...its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured list process". Weekly updates for the next 8 years might make it hard to ensure FL quality is maintained. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude:@RunningTiger123: Hey there. The only reason why I nominated this early is that not much would change to the article in 8 years. There will only be more number-one entries and there will be more statistics available on which radio station was the most popular per year etc. (also see List of Media Forest most-broadcast songs of the 2010s in Romania, an article which could've been nominated in 2014 since nothing significant changed until 2019). This can be easily updated and is not any significant change to the strucuture of the article that is already there. This chart list is not a topic like the Atlantic hurricane and will not have major changes in the future. Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:13, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !Artist(s) becomes !scope=col | Artist(s), and the other column headers are on their own lines with !scope=col in the same way.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 20:11, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Done. Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Anne Hathaway

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

My first FLC in more than four years. After writing her FA-class biography, I have worked extensively on Hathaway's awards list in the past few days. It is a well-sourced and well-written article IMHO. That said, I welcome constructive criticism on its improvement. FrB.TG (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• 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're good there, except for one minor tweak: if the cell spans multiple rows, then use scope=rowgroup instead of scope=row.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 02:12, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@PresN: is "scope=rowgroup" a standard practice? I don't like one bit how the entries are then shown in bold. None of the award pages, featured or not, I know has this. FrB.TG (talk) 10:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, "plainrowheaders" should fix that, just like it does for scope=row; I guess leave it as row for now, I'll ask at WP:ACCESS about it. --PresN 15:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Okay, this should now be fixed, I've gotten plainrowheaders updated to affect rowgroups as well as rows. I've updated the list for you as a test, and it looks fine. --PresN 17:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Any title starting with "The" should sort based on the next word
• As the table is sortable, anything that is linked should be linked every time
• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, Chris. These should be sorted now. FrB.TG (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from Pseud 14

I have very minor comments:

• Pipe first instance of Teen Choice Award
• Hathaway followed with roles -- perhaps rephrase, it does come across as clunky or reads awkwardly
• Maybe the image caption on the infobox could use some context? Instead of the usual "subject in year"

The image description says it was at an AHC campaign. And I for the life of me have no clue what that means. So I’ve only added that the picture was taken at a campaign.

Nothing more to add. Marvelous job on this piece. Glad to see this last bit of her related article on here. (FT in no time!) -- Pseud 14 (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Pseud. These should be resolved now. And yes, I will definitely go for FTC if and when this is promoted. FrB.TG (talk) 07:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- P.S. I just saw her bust out "Since U Been Gone" during a game on The Kelly Clarkson Show. Love her! Pseud 14 (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If you have some spare time or inclination, would appreciate feedback on my FLC as well. Though not mandatory at all

Comments by Brankestein

• I've been told that tables need captions. You can see MOS:DTAB for an example.

Other than that, I don't think there's anything more to add. The list looks pretty good and I'm happy to return the favor, even if it's something really minor. --Brankestein (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Brankestein, caption added. Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support --Brankestein (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

2012 NFL Draft

Nominator(s): NSNW (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this list is important to me. I am a loyal Indianapolis Colts fan and this draft saw the Colts select Andrew Luck to be their new quarterback ... only to ruin him so much that he retired seven years later. This is my first featured nomination for any type of content so if I don't understand something at first or need help fixing an issue please be patient with me. Best wishes! NSNW (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. The table in this list is built with a template, so I've added an optional `caption` parameter to it; now you can add a visual caption by putting |caption=caption_text as a parameter of the {{NFLDraft-header}} template; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |caption={{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. Again, this list is using templates; I've added column scopes to the header template and row scopes to the row template, so it should be good to go now.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 02:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  I've completed the captions but I'm having trouble adding the column scopes, could you possibly help me with this? NSNW (talk) 03:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done. NSNW (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Made some updates- you didn't need the colscopes on the templates (I made the change inside the template code itself), one table was missing a caption still, and the last table I had missed entirely so I just made the changes myself. --PresN 18:18, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

A few drive-by comments

• What's actually sourcing the main table? The vast majority of rows have no reference at all and there is no general ref that might cover it all
• Notable undrafted players section is also completely unsourced
• All images beside tables should be set to be "upright" format so that they are all the same width -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:11, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done. NSNW (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

More comments

• Some of the images are still not set to "upright"
• No need to use Luck's full name and wikilink him in two consecutive sentences
• "Tannehill and Foles both had a season in which they led the NFL in passer rating, (Foles was also named MVP of Super Bowl LII)." - if you disregard the bit in brackets then this sentences ends with a comma AND a full stop. Personally I would change it to "Tannehill and Foles both had a season in which they led the NFL in passer rating; Foles was also named MVP of Super Bowl LII."
• Are there appropriate wikilinks for "passer rating" and "completion percentage"? As someone who knows only the most rudimentary amount about American football, I have no idea what either of these is
• "Chandler Harnish, chosen with the final pick of the draft by the Colts, made him Mr. Irrelevant for 2012" - this doesn't make grammatical sense. Change it to "Chandler Harnish was chosen with the final pick of the draft by the Colts, making him Mr. Irrelevant for 2012"
• Why is the Player selections section above the TOC?
• "A record 65 underclassmen announced" - is there an appropriate link for "underclassmen"? Again, I have no idea what this is
• "fifteen first overall picks (including seven of the last eight) have been players who have entered the draft early" - is this as at 2012 or as at now?
• "Bobby Wagner was selected was selected 47th overall by the Seattle Seahawks." - repeated words there
• "8 players were available, but only 1 was selected" - write these numbers as words
• Ref 34 in the second block of refs is tagged as dead
• Pretty sure the publisher of ref 41 in the same block is SBNation, not SBNatio -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  All done. NSNW (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Quick note. The "career completion percentage" link directs to the annual passer rating leaders wiki page; the page also contains information on career completion percentage and there was no separate page about it, so I used it. NSNW (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  You have added "upright" to some of the images but also left the fixed image sizes (eg the Wagner one) - you need to remove the fixed sizes so that the image displays at the user's default "upright" size -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed. NSNW (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude Any more comments? NSNW (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'll take another look over the weekend -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

List of Hulk video games

Nominator(s): Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

In the world of video games, the Marvel Comics character Hulk has appeared in a couple handfuls of standalone titles and in several others within an ensemble. As far as covering those appearances goes, this list has reached the full current extent of that purpose; each and every relevant entry is included, all details are adequately and reliably sourced, and the information is laid out in two clean and navigable tables. Special thanks to Buidhe for his input and assurance that the list is now ready for this candidacy. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. The {{Video game titles}} template has a `caption` parameter, so visual captions can be added by putting |caption=caption_text in the template; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |caption={{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 01:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Done. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "doppelgangers of She-Hulk as enemy characters.[39][13]" - refs are not in correct order
• If the FF game doesn't feature the Hulk, is it really a Hulk game?
• A handful of the bullet points are complete sentences, so need full stops
• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  @ChrisTheDude: The Hulk does appear as a potential mini-boss between levels in FF, but I haven't found any solid secondary sources to back it up. Even that aside, I would think the inclusion of a major Hulk supporting character would be sufficient for an entry. Other than that, the other points have been addressed. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Drama Series

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Outstanding Drama Series is one of the categories present at the GLAAD Media Awards, which honor various forms of media for their excellence in depicting the LGBT community. As one can understand, this category focuses on dramatic television series. The page has existed since 2017, but the lede consisted of just one sentence, and no references were present. In fact, despite the nominees for 2022 having been announced back in January, nobody had added them in for over a month. I based the structure of the lede from the GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book page, which was promoted back in 2018.

The references consist of a mixture of primary and secondary sources, as I believe the latter help showcase that this award is of importance to various independent organizations and corporations. Also, just in case this issue might be raised in the future: while this award and some others at the GLAAD Media Awards have always been competitive categories with various nominees, GLAAD never announced the nominees until 1996. Up until that point, the nominees were only discussed internally, with only the winners being announced in press released, and the awards being given at the ceremonies. It was later that GLAAD started announced the nominees in press releases first, with the winners not being revealed until the actual ceremony; like the Oscars. PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop.
  • Added in the period.
• Also, that caption probably needs a source
  • Added in sources for both instances that Cruz accepted the award.
• Anything that starts with "The" should sort based on the next word
  • @ChrisTheDude: I've done that with all of the shows. I have two questions; firstly, is the method I've used appropriate, or is there a better way of doing it? Secondly, should I also do that with all of the networks as well? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Yes, the method you have used is spot-on, and yes I would say the same needs to be done for networks -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
      • @ChrisTheDude: Done. I also did it to the "Multiple wins and nominations" section, although that might be a bit unnecessary since the tables aren't sortable. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead. Right now, you're using the caption as the key for the table, which doesn't work- move the key out above the table and replace it with a valid caption.
• 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, they just need a small tweak for some of them: if the cell spans multiple rows, then use scope=rowgroup instead of scope=row.
• I get what you're going for with the split ref columns, but only because I read the footnote- without it, it's confusing, and with it it's still visually confusing and weird for screen reader software. The referencing isn't so complicated that you can't just have two refs in one cell.
• It's not an accessibility problem, but the purple/green combo is really visually jarring. Consider using a less clashing combo, or dropping the purple altogether.
• 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 01:31, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @PresN: All right. I'll admit, I initially didn't understand most of the things and terminology you were using. But I did look into MOS:DTAB, and I believe I've correctly followed through with your instructions. I also changed the colour for the "Award year" column so that it's less jarring against the green. I took some inspiration from the Oscar for Best Actress page. Regarding your second point, is changing the "row" to "rowgroup" the only change I needed to make in the code, or are there others as well? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
    • You're good now; I made a minor tweak (you only need row 'group' if it's a group of rows), but that's all. Thanks! --PresN 15:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Thank you for taking the time to do that. At least now, I know how to more forward with both this and other GLAAD-related or similar articles I work on. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis

This is a pretty solid FLC, though I have some comments to help polish it up. GeraldWL 16:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• "is an annual award that honors dramatic series"-- ehh I don't think anyone calls it "dramatic series", just "drama series". Dramatic is subjective; drama is objective.
  • But the characters are just so melodramatic, lol. Fixed it.
• Infobox also needs LGBT parantheses like the lead.
  • Done.
• Images require alt text.
  • I added alt text. Although, I have to admit, I've always sucked at them as I'm not sure what to write.
    • Lmao don't worry, I often suck at writing them too especially for portraits. I copyedited yours for clarity.
• In the infobox, United States shouldn't be linked. Also if you state "United States" in full there, you must state it in full too in the lead.
  • Decided to change it to "American organization".
• "New York" City
  • Specified it's the city, not the state.
• "of the GLAAD Media Awards" --> "of the annual GLAAD Media Awards"
  • Done.
• While definitive articles cannot always be avoided, in paragraph 2's case (where there's three-at-once sentences starting with "The award") this is avoidable. In the second and third sentence, "The award" can be changed to "It".
  • Removed two of them.
• "The award was given to the ABC series HeartBeat and NBC series L.A. Law"-- must be made clear that this is this the first titles to win the award. I also think paragraph 2 as a whole can be moved as paragraph 3.
  • Made it more clear the ties was also the first time the award was given. Also, I merged the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs into one. I'm assuming that's what you meant, right?
    • Yep! :)
• "GLAAD can still nominate a mainstream work even if it was not submitted for consideration." Isn't this already covered at "GLAAD monitors mainstream media to identify which drama series will be nominated"?
  • Removed the latter part.
• "Shareholders Circle members"-- maybe add a footnote on the Shareholder Circle?
  • Looked into it and added a note explaining what the Shareholders Circle is.
• "as well as volunteers and allies." Allies as in, heterosexual people who supports LGBT? If so it must be linked.
  • I looked, and by "allies" they're referring to allies of the organization. To use one example GLAAD points out; a person who is a Special Honoree is not a member of GLAAD, but will be viewed as an ally and can vote. However, they don't exactly specify which criteria can make someone an ally. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I think you can paraphrase it to "Supporters". We don't need to use the organization's term all the time, and especially for an LGBT article this can be confusing.
      • @Gerald Waldo Luis: Would it be better to use something like "affiliated individuals"? I think supporters just makes it sound as if any one random person that supports the organization can vote. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
        • Sounds good :D GeraldWL 14:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
          • @Gerald Waldo Luis: Done. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• The last paragraph can be easily combined with the previous paragraph.
  • Done

• (1990s) For the 1990 and 1991, it uses the same citation, ref 5, so it can be merged.
  • Done.
• The first example for this is in the 2000 part. There's duplicate links to the WB in one year; I think this is excessive and duplicates within a year row should be removed.
  • Removed duplicate links within a given year's ceremony.

@Gerald Waldo Luis: All right. I hope followed your instructions correctly. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

• I have made some copyedits here to avoid repetitive prose and ensure a better flow. Let me know if I messed up something.
  • I don't see anything wrong with it. Thank you. :)
• "Wilson Cruz (pictured) accepted the award during the 2021 ceremony for Star Trek: Discovery,[1] having previously accepted" - can we find a way to avoid repeating "accept" in such a close proximity?
  • Made changes to second sentence. Let me know if it's appropriate or if you'd like for me to change that.
• "The Shareholders Circle consists of donors who have made a donation of $1,500 or more." Same as above (this time with donor/donation). FrB.TG (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @FrB.TG: Changed the word "donors" to "individuals". I'm not sure if that's a problem since the following sentence (outside of the note) also uses that word. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Support - good work. FrB.TG (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate some feedback on my FLC but to state the obvious, it is in no way mandatory.

List of World Heritage Sites in Bulgaria

Nominator(s): Tone 17:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Bulgaria has 10 WH sites, they include old churches and ancient tombs. Standard style for WHS articles. Feedback appreciated :) Tone 17:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "It minted their own coins" - "it" is singular and "their" is plural
• "constructed in the 12-14 centuries" => "constructed between the 12th and 14th centuries"
• Think that's all I got this time :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks! Tone 21:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

AK

• Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.

Resolved comments from ~~~~

* "natural beauty, are" → Comma unnecessary. "As of 2021" → You could presumably update it to be 2022 or March, 2022. "been preserved full" → "been preserved in full" "100 metres (330 ft) tall cliff" → Should be "100 meter tall" "at the height of 23 metres" → "at a height of 23 metres" "Thracian city Seuthopolis" → "Thracian city of Seuthopolis" "century, the hermits" → "century, hermits" "1862, in the time of Bulgarian National Revival" → "1862, at the time of the Bulgarian National Revival" "temple of Apollo" → Link Apollo. "Middle Ages, a basilica" → "Middle Ages and a basilica" or "Middle Ages; a basilica" "colony of Dalmatian pelican" → "colony of Dalmatian pelicans" "Pirin Mountains" → Link the whole term instead of just the first word. "preserved, best in the world" → "preserved, the best in the world" "wall drawings, that" → "wall drawings that" "during the Middle Ages, Bulgarian" → "during the Middle Ages: Bulgarian" "a 85 kilometres (53 mi) stretch" → Should be "85 kilometre" That's what I got. AryKun (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC) @AryKun: Done, thanks! As for the metre/feet comments, these are parts of templates, I am not sure if there's a trick to change it. Tone 14:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support as my concerns have been addressed. AryKun (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• "a 100 metres tall cliff" → "a 100 metre tall cliff" and "a 85 kilometres stretch" → "a 85 kilometre stretch" (appears AryKun noted this above – maybe it needs something with |adj=...?)
• Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe is actually listed as Ancient and Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe
• "Classical antiquity" → "classical antiquity"

Overall, another great list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123 Ha, "|abbr=on" fixes the issue and makes the text more compact, good to know this option exists. Fixed the rest as well, thanks for reviewing! Tone 19:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations

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

Nominator(s): ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 18:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

Comments by A. C. Santacruz

• Just noting that many of the images are either too vertically large or the subject seems small within the picture, so I would highly recommend cropping the images and reuploading to commons for use here in order to include only the bust of the winners. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the note. Unfortunately, many of these performers don't have headshots on Commons, and many of the images are too low resolution to crop. For example, File:WataruHokoyama2009.jpg has File:WataruHokoyama2009_(cropped).jpg but that's just trash... ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 03:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
    • When I combined the tables, I removed some of the more questionable images, and tried to stick with either action shots or headshots.~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 17:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Another comment, it seems to me having both the section headers and the list titles (2020s + Awards in the 2020s) is redundant. I'd suggest removing the table titles. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 20:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Converted to screen reader only. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 22:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I have combined the tables, thanks for the information. I'll keep it in mind for the future. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 17:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from ~~~~

*Wow, what an unwieldy title, but I guess there's nothing you can do about that :-) Yeah, I wish I could shorten it. Abbreviations are about the only option, unless I want to write to the IFMCA </kidding-kinda>.... 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. Fixed While I prefer the multiple table format, it does appear that consensus is against me. 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? Fixed - Could you take a quick look and make sure it reads right? I've been staring at it way too long... "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 Fixed Images captions which are not complete sentences (which is pretty much all of them) should not have full stops Fixed All the image captions from 2010 onwards still have full stops...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC) I have no clue what happened, but I've removed them again... and this time made sure it saved! ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 19:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Some of the refs list no work/publisher eg 1, 29, 30, 31, 32 Fixed There's no need to list the same group/body/whatever as both the work and publisher eg ref 8, 9, 10, etc Fixed 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. Fixed Also, if it's "only" a Wordpress site, can you confirm what makes it a reliable source? If you click "about us" on the site, you get redirected to the bio of Eleni Mitsiaki, who is a member of the IFMCA as well as a published journalist. She would then be a "recognized expert" under WP:RSEDITORIAL. That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Thank you for your review. I've addressed many of the comments, and will address the others this evening. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 17:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC) And addressed the rest. Thank you for taking the time for the review! ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 19:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. | Party becomes !scope=col | Party.
• 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;" | 1 becomes !scope=row style="color:white;" | 1.
• 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 19:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Fixed, thank you for the review! ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 23:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support and (pass) source review from Gerald Waldo Luis

Not sure what intrigued me to make these comments; the fact that the title is uniquely long, or that I am fond of soundtracks. But anyways. GeraldWL 07:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 02:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

* In the first paragraph's quote, is the "[...]" really needed, considering you start the quote mid-sentence? "The award period" --> "The awarding period" Suggest establishing in the lead when was the award introduced In the image caption, "Logo" should be decapitalized "As of 2022, 58 composers have been nominated for the International Film Music Critics Association Award for Best Original Score for a Video Game or Interactive Media." Shouldn't this be the first sentence of the paragraph? "Austin Wintory has been nominated eight times and won three. [...] Wintory is the only composer to have been nominated twice in the same year, which happened in 2016." --> "Austin Wintory has been nominated eight times and won three; he is the only composer to have been nominated twice in the same year, which happened in 2016." In the infobox's "Most nominations" parameter, Wintory can be unlinked since it's duplicate linking. "Company(s)" --> "Compan(y/ies)" "Sources" can be changed with Template:Refh "(theme)" --> "(theme music)" For the abbreviations of the platforms ("iOS", "Linux" etc) I think they should be linked. In some of the image captions you describe what the person is doing in said image, while in others you dont; I suggest dropping those descriptions.

Additionally I've done a source spotcheck and they all look good, the sources are also reliable. However some concerns:

• In ref 1, "| IFCMA: International Film Music Critics Association" is redundant
• All "IFCMA"s must be extended to "International Film Music Critics Association"
  • I've expanded it for the publisher. I opted to leave titles with "IFCMA" as that is the official title of the article in all cases.
• In the Variety reference you link to the Variety article, but you don't do the same for other refs. Also "Variety Media LLC" must be "Penske Media Corporation"; similar case with the AwardsCircuit, ColonneSonore.net, and TheWrap refs. LLCs also don't have to be mentioned.
• If ref 12 is a dead link and no archives can be found, it must be replaced with a different source.
• AwardsDaily, AwardsWatch, and Massively Overpowered should be in website parameter instead of publisher.

All done, except for a couple of notes above. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 19:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks all good now. Support and source pass. Nice work! GeraldWL 02:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

58th Academy Awards

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

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)

Comments

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

*"The Color Purple joined The Turning Point as the most nominated films in Oscar history without a single win, as well as the most nominations without one for Best Director" - does this mean that TCP joined TTP in achieving both those things? Or only the first? Fixed: Both films only accomplished most nominations without a win. The latter film only achieved most nominations without a Director nominations. However, I cannot find a citation for that fact. "By virtue of his father Walter's previous wins, John's daughter Anjelica's victory in the Best Supporting Actress category made her the first third-generation Oscar winner in history" - it wasn't just by virtue of Walter's wins, it was by virtue of both that and whatever win(s) John had at some point...... Fixed: Modified fact so that a footnote indicates that John and Walter Huston previously won Oscars. This is for better sentence flow. "Regarding Alda, Fonda, and Williams hosting performance" - missing 's before hosting Fixed: Added an apostrophe and an s to "Williams" and before "hosting". "various musicals numbers" - presume that should be "musical numbers".....? Fixed: Changed "musicals" to singular. "27.3% of households watching with a 43% share" - a 43% share of what? Not of total households, as that was 27%.......? @ChrisTheDude: Again, I don't know if I can explain it any clearer. The first number (27.3) represents the rating or the percentage of households with a TV (REGARDLESS of if the television set was on or off) that were tuned in to the program. The second number (43), the share, ONLY counts television sets/households that had their TV turned on during the program's duration. So 43 percent of TV's that were in USAGE DURING THE LENGTH OF THE CEREMONY were tuned in to that program. Again, I can remove the share number if you find it confusing or unnecessary. The reason newer ceremonies don't have the share number is because fewer media outlets don't report the share number as often. They focus on the viewership total and 18-49 rating. This problem was also brought up during the featured list candidacy for the 56th Academy Awards. Oh, that was me! I didn't remember that :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 11 March 2022 (UTC) Think that's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables (specifically, the "Multiple nominations and awards" 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;" | 1 becomes !scope=row style="color:white;" | 1.
• 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 19:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• @PresN: Done: Added scope="row" to the tables.

--Birdienest81talk 02:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

• "During the ceremony, AMPAS presented Academy Awards (commonly referred to as Oscars)" - suggest wiki-linking Academy Awards and isn't it the Oscars?
• I think it's worth mentioning in the lede that out of the whopping 11 nominations the film The Color Purple received, it won none.
• I would mention the viewership in the lede.
• I would mention the year the film The Turning Point was released.
• In "Box office performance of nominated films", there need to be NBSP's between the numbers and "million".
• There are some unnecessarily large quotes in critical reviews. Some can easily be paraphrased. Examples: ""The show regrettably returned to its old bad habits with a boring onstage production number intended...", ""Suddenly, it seemed, somebody had listened to the complaints that had grown deadeningly familiar over the years." (this part only).
• The racism that the LA Times source (#9) discusses seems worth mentioning somewhere in the article. Also, the source should be marked as dead since the main link redirects to its archive page.

Otherwise good work as always. FrB.TG (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• @FrB.TG: - Done: I've read your comments and made corrections and adjustments based on them. By the way, the primary name of the award is still the Academy Awards. The Oscars are just a secondary nickname for promotional and marketing purposes.

--Birdienest81talk 09:39, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

My comment was rather directed at "commonly referred to as Oscars". I was asking if it should be "the Oscars" instead of simply "Oscars". FrB.TG (talk) 09:47, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Jumping in here, that sentence is talking about the formal and informal names of the actual prizes awarded i.e. the statuettes. I think it is correct as it is and saying "AMPAS presented Academy Awards (commonly referred to as the Oscars)" would actually be incorrect -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I ask of this because according to this source, it was once rebranded as "the Oscars". However, this does not keep me from supporting this. I would appreciate comments on my FLC, Birdie, but this is obviously not obligatory in any way. FrB.TG (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review – Pending

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Formatting

• Since the NYT is not fully subscription based, those refs should be marked as "url-access=limited"
• assuming ref 8 shouldn't have the LAT linked as you seem to be only linking the first mentions
• BoxOfficeMojo is formatted differently in refs 25 & 26
• In the biblio, the location use is inconsistent, sometimes its city, sometimes its city and state, and sometimes its city, state and country. Any of the three are find, just needs to be consistent.

Reliability

• No issues

Verifiability

• A lot of the refs are marked as "url-access=live" when they should be marked as dead. 2 and 6 for instance, though there are others
• Checked a few, no issues Aza24 (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis

Nothing much, just that Will Smith really hit it hard yesterday, huh? Will also do an image review. GeraldWL 17:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• "The ceremony, televised in the United States by ABC, was produced by Stanley Donen and directed by Marty Pasetta." This is the lead and you cited a source, which makes sense since it's not written about in the body, but is there any way it can be moved to the Ceremony info section? Similarly to the succeeding sentences.
• A summary of the reviews would be nice to see in the lead, maybe the second paragraph.
• At what parts do you think it should be referred to as the Academy Awards, and what parts as the Oscars?
• "Flying Down to Rio" --> "Flying Down to Rio (1933)"
• "MGM" --> "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer"
• "Of the 50 grossing movies of the year"-- change movies to films for consistency.
• Rotten Tomatoes has a critics consensus and bundle on the 58th Oscars you might wanna check out. There are 20 sampled reviews which you might be interested in to expand the review scope. Additionally I would suggest reading WP:RECEPTION on making the reviews section more engaging.
• In the external links, "Official" --> "official"
• "Channel" --> "channel"
• "at YouTube" --> "on YouTube"
• Is the YT channel paranthesis needed?
• The Filmsite link is not needed, as it's just a repetition of the list table in this Wikipedia article, not an analysis of the telecast.
• The first IMDb link is a 404 error; even with an archive it feels kinda redundant as it's IMDb, a generally unreliable source. I think the second IMDb link should cover it well.
• The Exlink subsections are redundant.

• Infobox: in the duration, there shouldn't be a comma
• Credit roles must be in sentence case: "Art Director" --> "Art director"; "Set Decoration" --> "set decorator"
• In the presenters table, I think you can put the Hank ref to the preceding sentence.
• "Announcer of the 58th Annual Academy Awards" --> "Announcer of the award"
• In the performance table, suggest adding year brackets to the films
• "MGM" --> "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer"
• "Here's to the Losers" "Once a Star, Always a Star" "Oh, Lady Be Good!" from what film?

List of awards and nominations received by Daddy Yankee

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

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)

Drive-by comment

• This is not the format now deemed suitable for a FL in this area. All the awards should be in one table like List of awards and nominations received by Kylie Minogue, not dozens of little tables -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

As far as I can see, the change can be traced to this FLC from 2018..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--Brankestein (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks a lot! :) --Brankestein (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Support - gracias por tolerarme :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! No sabía que hablabas español :P --Brankestein (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Google Translate es muy útil :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I am concerned about Note A, Billboard doesn't give out physical plaques for any music chart achievement and the Guinness Book of World Records did specify that he holds "the most nominations" not wins, which you wrote that he "had not received a physical award for those records." so not sure why a note is needed here if the record was for "most nominated" and not "most wins"? Did you mean that Daddy Yankee has never received a plaque from Guinness Book of World Records? Any reason why Notes D and E are missing periods? I also went ahead and c/e the lead to the area problems that were still present. – jona ✉ 17:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for editing the lead. Regarding the Note A, Daddy Yankee did not receive a plaque for the most Lo Nuestro Award nominations from Guinness World Records, while he did receive plaques for the records included on the table. The periods on the Notes D and E were removed following a suggestion by another editor. Brankestein (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Notes D and E don't need full stops (as I call them) as they are sentence fragments, not complete sentences -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I now support the article's nomination. – jona ✉ 12:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your feedback and support. --Brankestein (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 19:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG

• "He rose to prominence with the release" - suggest starting a new paragraph with his name.
• "All of which were nominated" - this reads strangely when it's not part of an independent clause in a sentence. Suggest replacing "which" with "these".
• I would probably mention (one/some of) the Grammy categories "Despacito" was nominated in since he was nominated for a Grammy only once and two of these are for the Big Four.
• Why does the infobox only include five organizations? Either include all or refrain from the infobox altogether. This selectivity implies that these are more important than the others and pushes POV that we as encyclopedia should refrain from.
• Source 1 - Billboard needs linking.
• What makes chronicle.augusta a reliable source?
• Source 6 - Access Hollywood needs to be italicized and linked.
• Source 7 - latimes.com -> Los Angeles Times (and wiki-link)
• Source 8 - PR Newswire is an unreliable source per WP:RSP.
• What makes http://www.hispanicallyyours.com/ a high-quality reliable source? Its website is not even secure.
• awardsandwinners.com is definitely not a high-quality reliable source.
• Source 23 - same as source 7 (without wiki-link)
• Source 35 - Telemundo needs linking.
• Source 36 - AXS needs to link to AXS (company)
• I haven't looked to the end of references but so far I see a lot of mal-formatting, some questionable sources, there is an instance of WP:SHOUTING and one source even appears to be dead with no archived link.

I am going to have to oppose for now because of sourcing issues. FrB.TG (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have followed your comments, linked the articles and replaced the unreliable and dead sources you mentioned. --Brankestein (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks better although there's still quite some work to be done. More comments below.

• Source 4 - Tucson.com -> Arizona Daily Star and it needs a language parameter
• Source 12 - the language is not Spanish.
• Source 49 - QX needs to link to QX (magazine) and requires a language (Swedish) parameter.
• Source 57 - BBC News needs linking.
• Source 68 - iHeart → iHeartRadio
• Source 96 - Remezcla needs linking.
• Source 106 - Latin Songwriters Hall of Fame needs linking
• Source 108 - Terra needs to link to Terra (company)
• I'm afraid Hispanic PR Wire can't be considered reliable since according to the website, it's "a service of PR Newswire", on whose reliability I commented in my initial review.
• Source 123 - Univision needs linking.
• Source 140 is dead; Monitor Latino needs linking.
• Source 151 - MTV needs linking.
• Source 159 - WP:SHOUTING in title.
• I am not sure about the reliability of HispanicAd.com.
• Source 203 - the link is dead.
• What makes latinfluencers a reliable source?
• Source 221 is not formatted properly. The main link is to the archive link. We normally use the |archive-url and |archive-date for this and for |url we use the original link and mark the source as dead in |url-status. FrB.TG (talk) 11:32, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks again for your comments. I have followed them and it's hard to replace some unrealiable sources because the articles made by the awards' organizers were deleted and not archived. For example, I can't find an alternative article for the Tecla Awards nominations (the Latinfluencers.com one) because the event's organizers deleted theirs and the one I used as a source is literally the only one I can find. Brankestein (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, this is not the first time where an online source isn't available for such information. I have come across this problem several times. We usually cite sources without any external links. This is not the ideal practice but it has been accepted in the past. See this for what I mean. FrB.TG (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I replaced the Latinfluencers.com source with the original title from the Tecla Awards organizers' article that was deleted. Brankestein (talk) 18:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Have you tried accessing sources that are normally behind a paywall? What I mean is, if you go through WP: LIBRARY, you get exclusive privilege as a Wikipedia user to access news articles that are otherwise unavailable to an average person. Specifically, I'm talking about Proquestv( free to use for us Wikipedia users)!as well as newspaper.com and newspaperarchive.com, which you can get access to by requesting. Erick (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Brankestein and Magiciandude, I personally searched for it both in ProQuest an Newspapers.com but found regrettably nothing for this. Brankestein, I have struck my oppose above. Although my review had a rigorous sources check, I would still like this to go through a formal source review before this is considered for promotion. Now that my concerns have been addressed, I can support this for promotion. I myself have an FLC on an awards page. If possible, review it but it's not mandatory in any way. FrB.TG (talk) 17:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Brankestein (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Judy Ann Santos filmography

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

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)

• Image review — pass – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Fantastic work on this article! My only comment is that if the article is a Filmography, then the Discography and Bibliography sections don't really belong IMO, as those aren't subsets of "a listing of motion pictures by actor, director, genre, etc.". They would fit perfectly on her own article but I don't think they belong here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review ChrisTheDude! Agreed, while also not trying to pull a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST but its usage is also frequent in many other FL-class filmographies (e.g. List of Kate Winslet performances, List of Emily Blunt performances, List of Emma Stone performances), but then again they are named as "list of subject's performances", so I concur that filmographies (e.g. Matt Damon filmography) be in accordance to the above definition :) I have removed the subsets which can just be added on the subject's main article. Thanks! Pseud 14 (talk) 17:15, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your support! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47

• 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)

@Aoba47: I have completely removed the phrasing instead in order to avoid confusion. Pseud 14 (talk) 00:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

• @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)

@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)

Comments from Lady Lotus

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)

@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)

• Support - lovely list :) LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lady Lotus: much appreciate your support! Thanks Pseud 14 (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Maile66

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)

@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)

@Pseud 14: Yes, I think that would take care of the issue. — Maile (talk) 19:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Maile66: should be fixed now. Pseud 14 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Good job on both the scope, and the list overall. — Maile (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• Many thanks for your support! Pseud 14 (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 01:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Gallup's most admired man and woman poll

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

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)

Comments from Wasted Time R

• 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.
  • I agree, and I have added some context. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
• In 2020, 11% chose a male friend or relative and 16% chose a female friend ... – I think these should be written as 'percent' not '%'.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• That no poll was conducted in 2021 is stated twice.
  • Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• 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.
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
  • I hope so ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

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

• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • Thanks for the support and your review, and all your previous work on the article!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "Dwight D. Eisenhower and Barack Obama both have been" => "Dwight D. Eisenhower and Barack Obama have both been"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Queen Elizabeth II with 52 till 2020" - I think the last two word are redundant
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Although never winning" => "Despite never winning"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Oprah Winfrey has finished in the top-10 a total of 33 times till 2020" - again, last two words not needed
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• "including finishing the second 14 times" => "including finishing second 14 times"
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
  • Well, British politics, you know! Rest, all comments resolved, @ChrisTheDude! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
• 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)
  • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • I reworded that section a bit and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
          • Thanks! The wording is fine! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Eviolite

• It may just be me, but I find the "Most years the" construction informal and would prefer a different wording, maybe something like "In most years" with "has been" in place of "is".
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• "While the top of the list is often predictable, scholars have found appearances further down in the top ten to be illuminating; in 1958, governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas, a segregationist, appeared on the list in the wake of the Little Rock Nine civil rights episode." This is quite long thanks to the semicolon; I would recommend splitting this into two sentences, with a "For example," or similar in between.
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• The second paragraph interleaves information about the top-10 and those about the winners seemingly randomly; I'd recommend consolidating them (like how the third paragraph has info on #1 and then statistics for the rest of the top 10 after).
  • Similar to para 3, para 2 has stats about top-10 and discusses about the winner. I am not sure if I'm getting your point. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• "A portion of those surveyed choose a friend or relative instead of a public figure" - is the present tense intended?
  • No; fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• The screen reader table caption, "List of winners of the Gallup's most admired man and woman poll", should not have a "the"
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Technically, if it was "most admired person", shouldn't the columns for 1946/1947 be consolidated? Though I understand that would make the table headers very confusing and possibly break sorting, so it's not a big deal.
  • I'd rather not do that, due to sorting issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• I find it interesting that some of the sources, like [66], [67], and [81], note the sample size of just over 1000, while [79] notes one of 824. Is there any information on sample sizes over the years or the methodology in general?
  • Only thing I found is this, which has an analysis of this poll, but they don't state anything major about the sample size. So I don't feel comfortable writing that the sample size of just over 1000 based on 2-3 references. Moreover, that is how most of theGallup polls are conducted. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing review: (for ref numbers, Special:Permalink/1075046351)

• I'm slightly confused about the sourcing, because [12] does cover thet entire table, so I assume it's only used as a fallback for the few rows that don't have any contemporary/secondary sources/sources that show the top 10? But [52] is not a contemporary source, several sources don't have all of the top 10, and the many clippings written by Gallup aren't secondary.
  • Yes, Ref#12 is only used where I wasn't able to find good sources. As for the concern about other primary sources, I don't think that is an issue. FA criteria requires source to be "high quality reliable sources". But our FL criteria just requires "statements are sourced where they appear, and they provide inline citations if they contain any of the four kinds of material absolutely required to have citations." Moreover, we have entire featured topic which uses Billboard for Billboard lists. We use IUCN in IUCN lists. So Gallup for Gallup shouldn't be an issue. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Speaking of, while the results for 2019 are tied to the nearest percent, the official site in [12] lists Barack Obama as the winner based on the number of mentions while "next highest had similar percentage" (as opposed to Mother Teresa/Rosalynn Carter where it writes both). I think this is worth mentioning in a footnote.
  • This states that they were tied. If I follow the approach based on statistical tie, there would be a lot of people falling in that category. Gallup has always name 1 person as "most admired man/woman", thus I have listed that one. In 2019, however, the official site and secondary sources call them both to have tied. Moreover, on Talk:Gallup's most admired man and woman poll#'Statistical ties' misunderstood, there was a huge debate 9 years ago on the same matter. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• The scan on [28] is bad and almost unreadable, but oh well.
  • Do you have access to Newspapers.com through WP:TWL? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• [29], [39], [41], [42], [44] are also authored by George Gallup. The other ones likely are too (e.g. Princeton reporting location for several) but it's not listed explicitly.
  • Listed him in all these sources. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Was there any reason you could find that 1967 didn't have a most admired woman poll? The source gives no insight.
  • See Ref#12 – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Technically, [33] doesn't explicitly say it was 1968, but there's nothing else it could be, so it's fine.
  • Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• [40] doesn't back up the most admired woman poll for that yaer - I'm not even sure it backs up the most admired man poll because the clipping is from December 13, 1975 and Gallup's announcements for the ones before all seem to have been a few weeks later than that time of year, so the latest results might still have been from 1974.
  • Replaced by Ref#12. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Looks like [50] also backs up 1988 (in place of [51] and [52], the latter of which I mentioned above).
  • Maybe, but even Ref#51 and Ref#52 cite 1988. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• [56], [57], [63] refer to a CNN-USA Today poll, is that the same as Gallup? (I note that some other sources say all 3 of CNN/USA Today/Gallup, but find it odd that these don't..probably doesn't matter at all) [58] also does not mention a polling organization at all. (I realize that a lot of these complaints are just technicalities as the info in the article is definitely correct, but I don't think these sources are the best possible.)
  • Replaced whatever I could. This says "The CNNUSA Today poll of 1,016 Americans, conducted by the Gallup Organization" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• [65] is authored by Elizabeth Wolfe
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• [71] is authored by Natasha Metzler
  • Added. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks in advance! eviolite (talk) 03:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Eviolite, thanks a lot for all the comments. I think I fixed/replied all. Let me know if anything else is required. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Kavyansh.Singh (and I apologize for making comments that, in hindsight, are way too nitpicky and unnecessary).

No need to apologize for that. I think reviewers should list down everything they think while reviewing, doesn't matter how nitpicky it is. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• My point for paragraph 2/3 was that paragraph 2 goes from talking about the top 10, to #1 ("the incumbent president.."), to talking about the top 10 again ("In his lifetime,..."), to #1 again (Dwight D. Eisenhower..."), which may be a bit confusing.

• Is it better now? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the link to JSTOR. I find it interesting that due to the open-ended format, many do not come up with a response (top of p574), but I don't know if it's helpful to include.

• Not much. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Regarding the tie: [12] only gave one winner for that one, but seeing that everything else calls it a tie, it's fine.

• Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• I don't have TWL access, but looking at it again, it seems you can just zoom in on it for free, so never mind.

That's all. eviolite (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Eviolite: Done! Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, happy to support now. Great work! eviolite (talk) 16:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 01:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

List of songs written by Alexandru Cotoi

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

Done. Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

Fixed! Sebbirrrr (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

Per [1], only one dagger has ALT text "Song released as a single". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Sickotoy 2021.jpg — shouldn't there be an OTRS conformation, as the image is received by the nominator via direct e-mail?

The image was not uploaded nor received by me though. Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

My bad, I mistaken "uploaded" with "nominator". Though I can WP:AGF on its licencing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• File:Arena Corinthians Opening (cropped-Pitbull).jpg — I cannot access the source link.

Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

But that archived link does not verifies the licencing ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Changed the image to File:Pitbull,_2012_(2).jpg whose licensing is verified.Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh

• Add a short-description for the page

Done. Sebbirrrr (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Why is 'Sickotoy' bolded twice in the lead?

Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

Check if it meets WP:NSINGER, but that is not an important point here. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• "and Russia," — linking Russia appears over-linking; CIS and Romania links are probably fine

Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Minelli" is linked twice in the lead.

Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 19:08, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Done. Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

List of Roman Catholic bishops of Mostar-Duvno

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

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)

Comments

• As a quick comment, you could add the photos of the bishops to the table. Reywas92^Talk 18:04, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. --Governor Sheng (talk) 23:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

Thank you very much for your comments. I adjusted the article accordingly. --Governor Sheng (talk) 21:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !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)

PresN (talk · contribs) I think I've got it. Thank you! --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Gerald Waldo Luis

In addition to the prose review, I'm source-passing this article with the note that I don't have access to the journals. As part of the image review, all the images require alt texts. GeraldWL 02:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• "The Bishop of Mostar-Duvno is the head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, located in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who is responsible for looking after its spiritual and administrative needs." This makes it as if Bosnia and Herz is responsible for looking after its spiritual and administrative needs. Suggest "The Bishop of Mostar-Duvno is the head of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Mostar-Duvno, located in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is responsible for looking after the diocese's spiritual and administrative needs."
• Suggest linking Mostar, Duvno, Apostolic succession, and episcopacy.
• "The current bishop is Petar Palić, who serves as the diocese's sixth ordinary since 2020." Should there be an "also" between "who" and "serves"? Or is he being bishop and ordinary the same thing?
• "Its first ordinary was the last Apostolic Vicar of Herzegovina Paškal Buconjić." If he is mentioned in the third paragraph I don't see why this sentence is needed; you can merge the vicar info in the third paragraph though. I also suggest merging the second and third paragraph.
• "by the current bishop Petar Palić." --> "by the incumbent Palić." to avoid repetition.
• "Bishop's Ordinariate, located in Mostar, is the seat of the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno." --> "Exterior of Bishop's Ordinariate, the seat of the Bishop of Mostar-Duvno, which is located in Mostar" Full stops shouldn't be there since it's not a full sentence.

• "Franciscan. Chaplain (1871–73) and parish priest (1873–1874) in Drinovci; Custos of the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina (1874–79); guardian of the Franciscan friary in Humac, Ljubuški (1879–81)." Very monotone sentences, with the first sentence being only one, very technical word without any explanation. Suggest modifying to "A Franciscan, Buconjić was Chaplain (1871–73) and parish priest (1873–1874) in Drinovci; Custos of the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina (1874–79); guardian of the Franciscan friary in Humac, Ljubuški (1879–81)." Same case goes to Mišić's notes. Also link Chaplain
• "Serving as the apostolic vicar of Herzegovina (1880–81), he was also the titular bishop of Magydus (1880–81)." --> "In 1880–81, he served as both the apostolic vicar of Herzegovina and the titular bishop of Magydus."
• "and the first years of the Bosnian War." --> "and the early years of the Bosnian War."
• Link Apostolic Vicariate of Herzegovina, friary, parish, Archdiocese of Split-Makarska, and Rector (ecclesiastical)
• "He briefly served as the apostolic administratr" typo in "administratr"
• For the parts of the notes where you mention the different statuses they held, I suggest adding "Served as" in the beginning of the sentence. So "Served as archivist in the Episcopal Ordinariate (1926–1942) and secretary..."
• For the "Notes" section... can it be titled "Notes"? Because Notes generally refer to footnotes, like Template:Notelist. In my opinion this should be retitled either "Sources" or "Citations" or anything similar.

I have implemented your suggestions, except the alt text... For this I need clarification. Do you suggest I add a short description below the images in the table? --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Mmm no actually, alt texts are placed within the image file. Add an |alt= parameter and write a short description detailing the image. It's especially important for blind readers who can't see the image. For this image specifically I suggest "Low-angle image of a dark-yellow building". GeraldWL 01:58, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, got it. Done. Thank you! --Governor Sheng (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Snooker world rankings 2020/2021

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

I have made all of the changes above @Kavyansh.Singh and ChrisTheDude:. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

• Could add a page description.
  • Intentionally blank, I can't think of anything more succinct than the page name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think it's probably worth mentioning that only the top 64, plus those with another year to run on a two-year card, and the top 8 from 2020/21 if not otherwise qualified, remained on the main tour.
  • Sure. As you know this can be a bit more complicated than that, as also those who are in the top 4 of the one year list qualify, as well as anyone who qualifies for the main stage of the WSC. It's a balance between being thorough, and not going off topic. I'm not sure either way, if I'm honest. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

  Snooker Scene for June 2021 says that it's top 8 from the one-year list and didn't mention WSC main stage, but they've been wrong before; and consistent rules seem to be less important than commercial considerations for the snooker authorities, so maybe they changed it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• Snooker Scene (June 2021) comments on the end-of-season rankings include that Trump was nearly a million points ahead for most of the season, and that Selby won most points in 20/21 (820,500 to Trump's 573,500).Jordan Brown (Welsh Open Champion) was the highest ranked one-season pro, at 40th. None of these are essential points for the wikipedia article IMO but I think it would be worth looking at that article as there's probably not going to be any other independent source with as much commentary/opionion.
  • Yeah, it's probably a good point. I'll check over the article when I get chance. Tbf, he was about 800,000 points ahead for most of the season, and only just under a million for a little bit. It could be added, but I feel like as we give the totals, just prose on who held the spot throughout the year is enough. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Can we have a source for Note 10 (about withdrawals)?
  • I went ahead and removed it. We'd be better to cite the actual instances if we know about it, but it's news to me if it happened at any time in the season. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Suggest running IABot to archive all sources possible. (e.g. 9, 10, and 26)
  • Done. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Some inconsistency in refs, e.g. 9 and 10 are both wst.tv but appear differently. ("WST" may be more accurate after Jan 2020 - see https://wpbsa.com/wst-brand-relaunch-for-snooker-as-part-of-global-vision/ from 9 January 2020).
  • I think I got them all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Refs 7 and 11 are the same source as each other.
  • Merged. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• Ref 12 looks incomplete.
  • I think this is sorted now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
• With some script or other, Refs 12 and 13 show "CS1 maint: url-status"
  • Yeah, its cause there was no archive link. Fixed Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

List of The Book of Boba Fett characters

Nominator(s): ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

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.― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 15:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review

Since I'm not in the mood to sift through a 6000+-word article, I'm gonna do the source review. Well, 200+ sources is still a lot I guess...

Formatting (the really nitpicky stage)

• ref 50, 52, 74, 89, 90, 100, 108, 120, 144, 148, 174, 179, 203, 206, 209, 232, 239, 254, 268, 271, 281, 291, 292: Fix MOS:ALLCAPS issues
• Also per MOS:ALLCAPS, be consistent with capitalisation (either sentence-case or title-case following MOS:5LETTER)
  • Pamzeis Question, since the rules at MOS:5LETTER are kinda confusing did I do it right with ref 50
    • NVM I got myself familiarized with the guidelines and have fixed the titles

Reliability

Doing...

Verifiability (it's kinda tedious because of the spotchecks...)

Doing...

We're getting started... Pamzeis (talk) 03:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

I'll take this challenge, but I'll definitely do it in chunks :-)

• Wikilink space western
• "He is also a Mandalorian bounty hunter" => just "He is a Mandalorian bounty hunter"
• "In the series, he barely escapes the sarlacc" - clarify/expand that this is a continuation from his last film appearance
  • I put that in the form of a fn is that fine
• "Later, in "Chapter 9: The Marshal" of The Mandalorian" - wikilink The Mandalorian
• "Fett ends up going to war with the Pyke Syndicate" - in the lead it was Pykes Syndicates, which is correct?
  • 2nd one
    • In that case, fix the usages which currently use the other one..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• "give some of his lines to Ming-Na Wen" - wikilink her here rather than on her second mention
  • is it fine if i wikilink her in both the first and second mention just in case someone only wanted to read the fennec shand section
    • Sounds reasonable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• Ming-Na image caption needs a full stop
• "Vizsla, who's ancestor" => "Vizsla, whose ancestor"
• "is stripped from his title" => "is stripped of his title"
• "Din Djarin is portrayed by Pedro Pascal, who also plays Din Djarin in The Mandalorian" => "Din Djarin is portrayed by Pedro Pascal, who also plays the character in The Mandalorian" (avoid repetition)
• " inspired by Clint Eastwood’s character a Man with No Name" => " inspired by Clint Eastwood’s character The Man with No Name"
• "Many were glad to see Pedro Pascal as Djarin starring" - no need to repeat his entire name
• Pascal image caption needs a full stop
• Back for more later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Matt Berry image caption needs a full stop
• "With the most recent ones being Taika Waititi as IG-11 in The Mandalorian and Bill Hader as BB-8 in the Star Wars sequels." - this is not a complete sentence
  • Is it good what I did here?
    • Yup, all good :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Blake Hawkins of Comic Book Resources liked 8D8 writing that there has been" => "Blake Hawkins of Comic Book Resources liked 8D8, writing that there had been"
• "TheWrap's Drew Taylor disliked 8D8 calling him a "fussy torture droid"." => "TheWrap's Drew Taylor disliked 8D8, calling him a "fussy torture droid"."
• Beals image caption needs a full stop
• "they hears loud drums" => "they hear loud drums"
• "she walked into the room to hear the phone ring with someone telling her she got the job for The Book of Boba Fett [....] She said that when she first stepped on set, she had no clue what series she was part of" - someone rang her to offer her a role on the show, but then when she turned up for filming she didn't know what show it was? That makes no sense.......
  • I think I fixed this
• "the two tentacle-like appendages on Twi'leks heads" => "the two tentacle-like appendages on Twi'leks' heads"
• "to put and keep on, She said" - that S should not be a capital
• "said that the Brian Sipe" - *the* Brian Sipe?
• "Since her Lekku were already made" - lekku didn't have a capital L before......
• "who is a bounty hunter and former gladiator hired by The Hutt Twins as a bodyguard, who is now in Fett's service" - avoid repetition of "who is" by saying "who is a bounty hunter and former gladiator hired by The Hutt Twins as a bodyguard and is now in Fett's service"
• "he is performed by a guy" - can we use a slightly less slangy word than "guy"?
  • Is man better?
    • Yes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Krrsantan was created by Kieron Gillen and Salvador Larocca, who originally created him for the Marvel comics" => "Krrsantan was originally created by Kieron Gillen and Salvador Larocca for the Marvel comics" - tighter language and avoids repetition
  • Question should "Marvel" be italicized
    • I don't think so, no -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Eric Francisco of Inverse.com praised the Wookie calling him" => "Eric Francisco of Inverse.com praised the Wookie, calling him"
• "When asked about if she knew" => "When asked whether she knew"
• "with her character, She responded" - that S should not be a capital
• Back for more later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the amazing detailed review so far. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Hey I've done what you have said, but I also had some questions. Thanks again! ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 23:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

More comments from ChrisTheDude

• "In an interview with TVLine's Matt Mitovich, Morrison and Wen tell Mitovich" => "In an interview with TVLine's Matt Mitovich, Morrison and Wen told Mitovich"
• Does nobody play the Twins, even as a voice?
  • What I put about Morrison’s stand in and the cardboard cutouts is literally it. No reliable source, non reliable source, behind the voice actors, nor the credits even say anything
    • Fair enough :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Stephen Root portrays Lortha peel." - missing capital on Peel
• I would merge this one sentence "paragraph" with the one before
• "where he brings Fett his new pet rancor calf" - this is (at least) the second mention of rancor - move the wikilink to the first
• "makes his first acting debut" - you can only ever make one acting debut, so the word "first" is redundant
• "The Armorer is the leader of the Mandalroian" - last word is spelt incorrectly
• "Emily said that" => "Swallow said that"
• "director for two of the episode" => "director for two of the episodes"
• "While training with Luke, he helps Grogu remember his past as a Jedi youngling" => "While training him, Luke helps Grogu remember his past as a Jedi youngling"
• "Grogu is forced to make a decision to continue his trading" - training, surely?
• Back for more later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Even more comments from ChrisTheDude

• Most of the minor guests characters have a single-sentence "paragraph" about who played them. I'd just join these onto the paragraph before
  • How does that work? I left the ones that had more than one line as a separate paragraph.
• "how to use speeder bike" - either "speeder bikes" or "a speeder bike"
• "help against the upcoming war against the Pyke Syndacate" => "help in the upcoming war against the Pyke Syndicate" (or Pykes Syndicate, whichever is actually correct)
• "He is also one of the crime lords Fett ask" => "He is also one of the crime lords Fett asks"
• "The Night Wind Assassin appears in "Chapter 1: Stranger in a Strange Land" and "Chapter 2: The Tribes of Tatooine" of The Book of Boba Fett." - "of The Book of Boba Fett" is not needed, what else would they be chapters of within this article?
• "Camie Marstrap and Laze "Fixer" Loneozner are the two couple" - "the two couple" does not make sense
  • I have absolutely no idea how else to describe them. You have anything in mind?
    • "a couple" would be fine. "The two couple" doesn't make any sense grammatically -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Fixer and Camie were originally supposed to be portrayed by Anthony Forrest and Koo Stark in Star Wars (1997)" - 1997??
• "He is also of the Klatooinian species" => "He is f the Klatooinian species"
• "Paz Vizsla is portrayed by Tait Fletcher with Jon Favreau as the voice of him, respectively" - last word is not needed
• "Taanti leads the people of Freetowm" - think that last word is spelt incorrectly
  • Actually they, Lucasfilm, decided to get pretty weird with how to name that city... jk lol
• Think that's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • ChrisTheDude Thanks again for the good review, yet again I had some more questions. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

List of lagomorphs

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

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)

• Support - try as I might I couldn't find anything to quibble about :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support I also have no issues, very nice. Reywas92^Talk 17:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• Image review—pass: nothing problematic this time! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

AK

Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.

Resolved comments from AryKun (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

* "recently gone extinct" → Perhaps link extinct? "molecular phylogenetic analysis" → "molecular phylogenetic analysis" "into named clades" → Link clade and perhaps add a gloss like (group of all the descendants of a common ancestor) For all the monotypic genera, just write "rabbit" in the common name instead of "rabbits" (eg Amami rabbit instead of Amami rabbits) What reference is supporting the cladogram? It isn't the best illustration, but consider adding CaprolagusHispidusJASB.jpg for Caprolagus. That's all. AryKun (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• @AryKun: All done, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 14:54, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support. AryKun (talk) 15:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

List of female 24 Hours of Le Mans drivers

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

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)

Comments

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

*Check for image captions which are complete sentences and therefore need full stops Added more full stops MWright96 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC) "There have been six countries who" => "There have been six countries which" Done MWright96 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC) "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) 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) @ChrisTheDude: Done MWright96 (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC) "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" Done MWright96 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC) "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 Reworded MWright96 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC) "Odette Siko was one of first two women" => "Odette Siko was one of the first two women" Done MWright96 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Vanina Ickx is not linked in her image caption Done MWright96 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC) 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 Added extra wikilinks MWright96 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC) "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? Clarified that in the lede MWright96 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC) That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2022 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Replies are above MWright96 (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• 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)
  • @PresN: Added extra scope="row"s MWright96 (talk) 08:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• Is it "female" drivers or "woman" drivers?
  • Made changes to this MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• "were officially not permitted to enter the event until the restriction was lifted" what provoked the change that led to banning women?
  • It was because a woman driver was killed at the 1956 12 Hours of Reims as well as spectator deaths in two events MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Could we add something to that effect, even if it's a footnote? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Added an accompanying note to go what I have written MWright96 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
• "1954 race" in note [a], make race part of the link.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• "in 2021.[7]" overlinked.
  • Delinked MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• "all-women squads" first mention of squad here, worth noting to the readers that not one single driver competes for the whole drive.
  • Clarified MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• "the 1974 edition" edition inside link.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Same for the following three.
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Best Finish -> Best finish
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• Class Wins -> Class wins
  • Done MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Société Esso" you linked Esso in other names, not here?
  • Added extra links MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
• " pp. page 1, page 2" you don't need those two "page"s.
  • Reformatted ref MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

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

• • @The Rambling Man: Replies are above MWright96 (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Pershing House

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

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)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

;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) That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh

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)

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

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)

reference info for Pershing House

unnamed refs	73
named refs	5
self closed	10
cs1 refs	117
cs1 templates	136
use xxx dates	dmy
cs1|2 dmy dates	28
cs1|2 mdy dates	5
cs1|2 last/first	15
List of cs1 templates cite book (4) cite news (20) cite web (112)
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)

✓ Removed - thanks for catching this. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Dank

• 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)

• "DSM, Distinguished Service Medal": The column that these appear in is not sortable, but you've got "DSM" showing up before "Distinguished Service Medal", which doesn't look right.

Changed for consistency. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

Comments from TRM

• First instinct was upon seeing a straightforward article about a house was "how is this a list?" Is there really so little to write about the house itself? As the caption on the table suggests, this is really "Fort Sam Houston commanding officers who lived at Pershing House 1881 through 1973".

• I think its inclusion on the register is secondary to its main task(s), why is it even notable, that needs to be represented up front.

• The NRHP is the only reason it qualified. Without that, it's just government property. If I might, combine these two as an answer for you. I created this in my early, early days of Wikipedia. So, I don't remember if I was advised to make it a list, or it just happened. But every decent list has a lead of sorts. This was on National Register of Historic Places listings in Bexar County, Texas, which are usually listed/written exactly as the US government National Register of Historic Places listings. They didn't name it a list. The PDF source we used titled it "Pershing House", as it is still listed at the Texas Historic Sites Atlas. And with NRHP articles, we tend to go with what the approved Nomination Form contains. This one in particular had two pages of the list of the leaders who lived in the house - rank, name and date of occupancy up through 1973. That was important to NRHP as the plaque listing those names was part of the qualifying inventory of the nomination. And that's why we included it as a list - it was part of the qualifyig aspect. Beyond 1973, we're dealing with BLP issues of military leaders who may still be influential in the government. Since the military tends to keep some information to itself, that is not available to us. But without all those heroes who lived there, the house, no matter how grand, is just a house. — Maile (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• "was admitted to the Union" link. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Link Comanche. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Consider linking Fort Sill. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• "happened in" passive, maybe "took place in" Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Feels like at no point in the lead you say "and this is what is known as Pershing House".

Just added a little, "Architect Alfred Giles designed the general staff quarters, as well as the commanding general's quarters, now known at Pershing House." Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "six-and-one-half baths" don't know what that means.

Apparently, it's American real estate lingo. I refer you to ChrisTheDude's question on that. The NRHP form says "six and one half baths" - generally speaking, that usually means there is not a bathtub, maybe a shower, or maybe just a sink and loo. It varies, but it's American lingo. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "equivalent to $457,931" probably only need nearest $1000. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Constructed in 1881 at a cost of..." this is odd as it comes after descriptions of improvements to it, surely we should try to be chronological here? Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• "in the United States Army prior" you mentioned "Army" before so should really use the formal title and link it that time. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• "lived in the house.[7] The house has.." new para but still repetitive reading. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• "the American Expeditionary Forces in " link. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• "five-star General of the Armies" link. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Isaac D. White, who" why not linked here if he's linked in the table? Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• " General (4 stars) currently located in The Pentagon" what does that mean, these individuals are dead mostly.

Reworded a bit. That comment was for modern-day readers who associate the Chief of Staff generals with the Pentagon. Before The Pentagon was completed in 1943, the Chief of Staff 4-star generals worked out of military base headquarters. After 1943, they have all been stationed at the Pentagon. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) 14:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• Image column has white space on the right of every image, why not just let that column relax to fit?

 Question: Could this be your browser? I don't see that on Firefox, Chrome or the Edge. It's all evenly spaced on all images, and there's nothing in the coding to indicate anything. — Maile (talk) 23:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Screenshot from Chrome

I'm using Chrome, and I do see that white space on right side of images. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:26, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, I didn't see it on my Chrome at normal size, 100% zoom. But if I shrink the zoom to what is teeny on my screen - say 70% or less - it starts looking like that. The only column that had a set width was the Notes column. I've removed that. But if that doesn't work, I don't have an answer. — Maile (talk) 12:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It is now looking fine for me. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Done - Good, then. — Maile (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

• Linked items in a sortable table should be linked every time because after a re-sort, there's no guarantee that the linked item will appear first.

 Question: Not sure what you mean. The Notes column is not sortable. The names in the Names column only appear once for each. — Maile (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Done - taken care of. — Maile (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Union general during the Civil war," link Union forces and last time you used it I think it was Civil War, not Civil war.

Standardized all mentions as American Civil War. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Several notes are fragments so don't need full stops, check them all.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Peninsula Campaign," our article doesn't capitalise the C.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Spanish-American War" en-dash not hyphen. Several of these.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Can link New York City Police Commissioner.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Philippine Insurrection" link?→Philippine–American War

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Link Army Chief of Staff.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Philippine insurrection" capital I for consistency.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) - see above, this is correctly the Philippine–American War

• "Antique Panay in the Philippines." link Antique Panay, and did the name change formally from "Philippine Islands" to "the Philippines" at this point? The Wikipedia article refers to Philippines. If I input Philippine Islands as a link in Wikipedia, it always redirects to Philippines.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Southern Dept. and VIII Corps Area." what's that?

 Comment: The source is the Army. The military routinely rearranges itself and designates different names to different areas, but there is no existing article about the Southern Department. — Maile (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the term "Southern Dept" altogether, but linked VIII Corps Area. — Maile (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Veteran of the Spanish–American War and the Philippine–American War," full stop, not comma.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Moro Rebellion" link?

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "American Expeditionary Forces during World War I; Commander 2nd Division and United States Army Field Artillery School." links?

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) except that there is nothing to link for Commander 2nd Division

• "the Guadalcanal Campaign" small c.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Distinguished Service Medal" link.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• 442nd RCT - any point in this as you never use this abbreviation.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) removed

• "Ryukyu Islands" link.

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "director J13 operations" what are those?

Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) I've added a link. It just means the classification level of workers he oversaw. Just a little American terminology for you. When it comes to the military, everybody has a number and letter somewhere classifying them. That includes civilians who work on military base, so we don't know for sure.

That's all I have on a really brisk canter over the article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I've addressed all. — Maile (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review

Why "The Department of Defense" vs. "US Department of the Interior"?

• United States Department of the Interior is over the National Parks Service. That's who certifies whether or not any property is eligible for National Register of Historic Places. And the form literally says "United States Department of the Interior". But if you are asking why I didn't say US Department of Defense elsewhere, for years I've been using the drop-down template in the edit window to format sources. The Joint Base San Antonio site, for instance, literally says it's part of "The Department Of Defense", but does not specify "The United States Department of Defense". Maybe it should be standardized for this nomination, but I've been going with however any government site presents itself. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Some refs have day month year, some month day year.

• Per WP:MILFORMAT, I have inserted {:{Use dmy dates}} at the top of the page. That should standardize it. Let me know if I missed anything on this. — Maile (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Some of the MOH winners are sourced to "Military Times" and some to valor.militarytimes.com. They seem the same.

• I found three, and standardized all to "Military Times". — Maile (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ref 1, " "National Register Information System", I don't see that name on the page and it's just a search page anyway.

• I've done what I can on this, in the fact that I removed the Ref template itself, but left the number. It still goes to a blank page. That's a template that pre-dates my participation on Wikipedia. Have a look at National Register of Historic Places listings in Bexar County, Texas. The number itself comes from the "Date Listed" column that appears on all NRHP sites on Wikipedia, which is considerable. I'm guessing that the number probably comes from a regular listing from the Dept of the Interior. That template was created by @Doncram: more than a decade ago. Maybe they know where this number comes from. I'm thinking there are regular announcements lists that come from the Dept of the Interior, but I really don't know. — Maile (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ref 2, "Joint Base San Antonio > Information > JBSA History & Fact Sheets" I get a page called "Joint Base San Antonio History". Is the information sourced to this page?

• Yes, but eliminating Ref 1 in the Infobox brought this one up to Ref 1. At the bottom, it lists the bases that now fall under Joint Base San Antonio. The military has a tendency to rearrange its structure when convenient. — Maile (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ref 4, the text to be sourced is "After the Texas annexation to the Union in 1845, the United States Army became a steady presence in what was then designated the Department of Texas", and the relevant part of the source, as far as I can see (it is a list of records held) is "Department of Texas, 1853-58. Department of Texas, 1865-66, and subordinate or related commands, including Eastern and Central Districts of Texas, Department of Texas, 1865-66; Subdistrict of San Antonio, 1865- 66; and post at San Antonio, TX, 1865. Department of Texas, 1870-1913, and subordinate or related commands, including District of Upper Brazos, 1877-78." I'd question whether the information is adequately sourced.

•  Question: Not exactly sure what you mean. If you are questioning the site sourcing, it's the records of the US Government, and the site is the US National Archives. That's about as adequate as it's going to be. But feel free to suggest something else if you like. — Maile (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ref 3 is asked to support material re Comanche chief Parker. I don't see it in the source material.

• Added source. — Maile (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• "The combining of Fort Sam Houston, Randolph Air Force Base, Lackland Air Force Base and Martindale Army Airfield, to create Joint Base San Antonio, took place in 2010." is supposed to be sourced to a page that seems the main page of the Joint Base's website. I don't see anything that says that on that page, though it might be elsewhere on the website.

• That's because the JBSA site keeps flipping its pages around. I've updated the URL, "History of 502d Air Base Wing". At least as of my typing this, it's the history of the combining the bases. Input "2010" in your search bar, and, as of my writing this, that fact is the 3rd click, "On Oct. 1, 2010, Joint Base San Antonio achieved full operational capability." — Maile (talk) 23:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Refs 6 and 7 appear to be the identical document.

• Combined. Thanks for catching. — Maile (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Ref 8 nowhere mentions that Augur lived in Pershing House.

• The list on the NRHP form lists him as the first resident in the house. — Maile (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

At this point, I'm going to pause and await responses. Possibly I'm missing something here, but this seems to be a high levels of quibbles per source.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Yeah ... the result of a decade of little tweaks over a decade. I think I should have gone over all of these before, but I'll get back to you. Let's pause this a bit while I fix the above, and have another look through. — Maile (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Done with your first go-around. In response to your "high levels of quibbles per source", some were my real errors, some of it because of a pre-existing NRHP template issue, and some were questions that needed to be asked. — Maile (talk) 23:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

2020 Summer Olympics medal table

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

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)

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)
• 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)

• Support, nothing else I could find. AryKun (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Source review/comments by RunningTiger123

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

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) @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) 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) @RunningTiger123: Done: I have made all the appropriate corrections based on the comments. --Birdienest81talk 09:53, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Comments

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

*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) @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)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

• @MWright96: Done - Everything has been corrected based on your comments.

--Birdienest81talk 09:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Nothing further from yours truly MWright96 (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Image review from SNUGGUMS

• With no evidence found to the contrary, I'll assume good faith that File:Japan National Stadium C-gate on 2021 July 28.jpg, File:Countries by medals 2020 Summer Olympics.svg, and File:Daniel Ståhl in 2019-2.jpg are indeed the uploaders' own works
• I'm not sure what to make of File:Caeleb Dressel (USA) 2018.jpg or File:April Ross (USA) 2017.jpg when marked as "safe" yet the source URLs say "all rights reserved"
• No copyright concerns with File:Neisi Dajomes.jpg, File:WK3B0180 1000m zevenkamp warner.jpg, or File:Vincent Hancock wins gold in men’s skeet at the 2020 Summer Olympic Games (51352451809).jpg

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

• @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)

• 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)

Comments from TRM

• Where in source [3] is the number of athletes mentioned? Or the 206 countries?

• Done: Added news article from CNN indicating both numbers.

• "former" and "latter" makes for clumsy reading, I think we should look for a rephrase here.

• Done': Rearranged two sentences for better flow.

• "2004 Summer Games" put Summer Games into the pipe.

• Done: Summer Games is now part of pipe.

• "won the greatest number of medals overall, winning seven" won/winning not needed, replace "winning" with "with"!

• Done: Replaced accordingly.

• "Soviet gymnast" might be worth linking Soviet here to some appropriate Soviet Union @ the Olympics article. Not long now and readers won't know what "Soviet" even means.

• Done: Linked Soviet to Soviet Union at the 1952 Olympics. Soviet Union at the Olympics in general is linked at the second mention of the nation in the same paragraph. Therefore this avoids overlinking.

• "The design of the medals used for the 2020 Summer Olympics was created by ..." why not "The medals used ... were designed by..."?

• Done: Changed sentence appropriately.

• "the COVID-19 pandemic, athletes" this is the second link to the pandemic, but the one in the lead was a general link, this is to "in Japan" shouldn't we be consistent?

• Done: Linked first one in lead to pandemic in Japan.

• In the image captions, why not link the events which are being described?

• Done: Linked events in captions.

• "Medals have not yet been reallocated." needs an "as of".

• Done: Added "As of February 2022".

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: Done - I have addressed all your comments.

--Birdienest81talk 06:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:50, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

At a first glance, this looks pretty good for FL, but there are several concerns I have; if they're resolved I'll strike and support. GeraldWL 06:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 16:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

* "The games were postponed by one year due to the COVID-19 pandemic." I think this would sound more interesting if you correlate it with the title, "2020 Summer Olympics", since they didn't change the year to 2021. Fixed: Added sentence explaining why the date was not changed and included two articles as sources. Also, "due to the COVID-19 pandemic" can be changed to "as part of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on sports" Fixed: Changed the phrase with new link accordingly. "Overall, a record 93 nations received at least one medal, and 65 of them won at least one gold medal, which was also a record." This sentence sounds pretty bland specifically due to the awkward placing of "which was also a record." Suggest change to "Overall, the event saw two records: 93 nations received at least one medal, and 65 of them won at least one gold medal." Fixed: Rearranged the sentence to improve flow. "Athletes from the United States won the most medals overall, with 113 and the most gold medals, with 39." --> "Athletes from the United States won the most medals overall, with 113, and the most gold medals, with 39." Fixed: Rearranged sentence accordingly. "and 2004 Summer Games"-- is "2004 Summer Games" an official nickname? If no, suggest changing to "and 2004 summer edition." per consistency with paragraph 3. Fixed: Changed "Summer Games" to "summer edition". "Australian swimmer Emma McKeon won the greatest number of medals overall, with seven in total." Suggest starting the sentence with "Meanwhile," to not make the reading flow static. Fixed: Added "Meanwhile" to the beginning of the sentence. In "the Philippines", "the" should be out of the link. Fixed: Moved the out of the pipeline. "Burkina Faso, Turkmenistan and San Marino won their nation's first Olympic medals." Same case with the Emma McKeon sentence. Fixed: Added "Meanwhile" to the beginning of the sentence. It's not the romanization that must be in the lang template, but rather the script. So for ichimatsu moyo, I can't find any script of it, but for kasane no irome it's 重ね の 色目. The template for this is {{nihongo|''kasane no irome''|重ね の 色目}} Fixed: Utilized lang template, and I found the script for the former via research. "a traditional kimono layering technique, in a modern presentation." Is the comma needed? Fixed: Removed phrase and comma since it seems unnecessary. "Two gold medals (and no silver)"-- why the brackets? Isn't it normal to win two golds but no silver? Yes in cases where there are two golds or silvers the next tier medal would not be awarded. This article explains it. * In the image with the legend, the "Gold", "Silver", etc. are not needed as it doesn't enhance accessibility; additionally the bolds are inappropriate. Fixed: Removed the words "gold", "silver", and "bronze". Per accessibility guidelines, remove the image px-es. Although for images of "Raven Saunders, Gong Lijiao, and Valerie Adams" and "Vincent Hancock", I suggest giving it a 1.1 or 1.2 upright since the faces are smaller, thus blurrier, in normal size than the other portraits. Fixed: Removed px-es and insrted upright in the first and last images. For the first table, suggest using Template:Abbrlink for the NOC cell and link to respective article. Also suggest expanding it to "NOC (code)" or whatever you call those three-letter abbreviations of the countries. I suppose they're made by the Olympics themselves? since Indonesia is usually "IND" but here it's "INA"-- if such you should probably explain it in an Efn-la. But I'm probably being too much here, so feel free to change what you think suits. Sorry, I cannot use Template:Abbrlink nor can I change or add annotations on the table. Apparently the table being used is a specially designed table made for Olympics medal counts that can only be modified by either administrators or users in the Template editors group of which I am not qualified to be part of (see Wikipedia:Protection_policy#template). Why is the abbreviation linked in the second table but not on the first? Again, the first table is a specially designed medal table that can only be modified by administrators or users in the Template editors group. Template:Flagicon no? Tables displaying results are supposed to use Template:FlagIOCathlete which again can only be edited by Administrators or such. "On 18 February 2022, the Great Britain team was" is probably redundant since it's a repetition of the previous cells information. Fixed: Removed the date. "Canada will be elevated to the silver medal, while China will receive bronze. As of February 2022, medals have not yet been reallocated." Updates? None yet. Not according to the official Olympics website seen here. @Gerald Waldo Luis: - Done: I've have read all the comments and made appropriate adjustments based on them with a few exceptions. --Birdienest81talk 09:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Nice work right there-- was a pleasure to watch some of the games, and this I feel is eligible for FL. GeraldWL 16:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Promoting. --PresN 01:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Melon Music Award for Album of the Year

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

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)

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)

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)

@ChrisTheDude Are you able to take a look again? Are there additional concerns? ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis

This is a relatively short article so I don't have much concerns on this; at first glance the layout is neat! GeraldWL 06:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "an award presented by Kakao M" --> "an award presented by South Korean entertainment company Kakao M". This I think is important to establish that it's South Korea, dont want readers to constantly click article links. As a result, for "held offline in Seoul, South Korea" I think you can drop the "South Korea".
• "in 2007 or 2008"-- what about "from 2007 to 2008" (or use dash if you please)?
• "starting with the 2009 awards"-- "since 2009"
• "having both been nominated"-- is the "both" needed?
• Why is daesang linked in "Winners and nominees" but not in the lead?
• In the second table, why are the nominees text small?

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Done except for the last bullet point, as I've seen several FLs with nominees that have small text. But I'll remove them if needed. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 17:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I see, I see. No problem then-- I was just wondering. Anyways, the article looks all good now for me, so support. GeraldWL 01:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

List of ochotonids

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

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)

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)

  @ChrisTheDude: Whoops, knew I forgot something. Done! --PresN 12:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support - fantastic work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

• 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)

@Kavyansh.Singh: Done. --PresN 22:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Pass for image review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Dank

• 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)

AryKun

• Disclaimer: Haven't checked references, and will be claiming credit for this at the Wikicup.

Resolved comments from ~~~~

* "an ochotonid, or colloquially" → Comma unnecessary. "shrubland, and rocky biomes" → Link scrubland and biome. "long Northern pika" → Northern should be uncapitalized. "many are not yet evaluated for conservation status" → "many have not yet had their conservation status evaluated" "single genus, Ochotona" → Ochotona should be italicized. Also, since you've said that Ochotona is the only genus in the family, which is already linked, is the duplink needed? "four subgenera" → Link subgenus. "Several extinct Ochotonidae species" → Looking at the page for pika, there seem to be more extinct species than living ones, so "Many species" would be a better wording. "species in 1 genus" → "species in one genus" In Korean pika, link lichen That's all I could find. AryKun (talk) 08:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• @AryKun: All done, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 14:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. AryKun (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

List of Detroit Lions in the Pro Football Hall of Fame

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

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)

• Oppose per crition 3c. This list of people is already at Detroit_Lions#Pro_Football_Hall_of_Famers and List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees, which is sortable by team. While compared to the former this list also has the overall career beyond those with the Lions and the pro bowls, those could be easily added there, with no need for a separate page. The Packers list also largely duplicates Green_Bay_Packers#Pro_Football_Hall_of_Fame_members and could be merged as well; there's a reason until you made this there were only four lists of this type. Reywas92^Talk 21:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

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. Reywas92^Talk 00:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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?

• Seems to have been resolved..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• "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)

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)

@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)

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)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !|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)

Thank you for the feedback. I hadn't considered accessibility before your post. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per Reywas92. This list adds not much beyond what is already in the main Lions article. If we had some context for each of those listed in the table, and some explanation as to how they got in in their career to get them elevated to the HoF, then it'd be different. Right now, it's nothing beyond what's in the main article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

List of Angelic Layer episodes

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

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)

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)
  • @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)
    • I'd suggest rewriting the summaries from a more neutral point of view.Tintor2 (talk) 02:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
      • OK. Should I withdraw the nomination for now while I do this, or leave it here? ISD (talk) 08:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
        • 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)

• OK. This may take me a while, but I'll see what I can do. ISD (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! 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)

Comments from TRM

• Could create a plausible redirect at Battle Doll: Angelic Layer to this list.
• "fight using dolls. Misaki enters professional" merge: "fight using dolls and enters professional"
• "The cover of the Angelic Layer collector's edition from Anime Limited." that's a fragment, no full stop.
• "opening theme is " is this the theme song? Why is this more significant than a plot synopsis??
• The source says "ending theme" and has "Ame Agari" rather than "After the rain" (which I guess could be the translation, but for consistency, shouldn't that be "After The Rain"?)
• I would link Blu-ray.
• "In 2001, Angelic Layer won the "Television Award" in the 6th Animation Kobe awards.[12]" I would avoid single-sentence paras.
• Don't use "#" to represent "Number" or "No.", it's an abuse of MOS:HASH.
• "Original Air Date" -> Original air date.
• English Title -> English title.
• " Hikaru..."" please visit MOS:ELLIPSIS here for how to use non-breaking spaces appropriately.
• "can't"/"won't" etc, avoid contractions.

That's enough for a first pass right now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Timeline of the 2020 Pacific hurricane season

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

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)

Image review from Kavyansh — Pass

• The infobox image can take ALT text
• File:2020 Pacific hurricane season summary map.png — It says that "This file may be updated to reflect new information."
• All the own work images are fine, thanks to FleurDeOdile.
  • Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh

• "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)

  Kavyansh.Singh, I have addressed your comments. Thanks. :) TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 03:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  No issues. Looks good; Supporting! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

  Hi, ChrisTheDude, I believe I have addressed these comments. Thanks for the review! TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 21:28, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• Funny, I would think we could link Pacific Ocean in the lead as that's a principle component of the context of the list.
• "eastern Pacific Ocean" vs "Eastern Pacific basin" Eastern/eastern? In the latter case, the Eastern, if part of the formal name, really ought to be inside the pipe.
• It's only just struck me after all these years that it's odd calling it a "hurricane" season when it's all about "tropical cyclones". I think a footnote would be useful explaining that these are (in this case) synonymous, because where I'm from, we have the odd hurricane, but that's never a "tropical cyclone"...
• "four. Accumulated Cyclone Energy, an index" our article doesn't over-capitalise this.
• "Baja California Peninsula" our article doesn't capitalise peninsula.
• "e Madden–Julian Oscillation " likewise "oscillation".

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Timothée Chalamet

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

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)

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)
  • @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)
    • 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)
      • @ChrisTheDude: Following TRM's similar comments, I've modified the results column sorting so that all the runner-ups and ranked places are together. - Brojam (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• It still seems odd to me that it sorts Won > Nominated > Runner-up, implying that being nominated is "closer" to winning than being runner-up, but it seems that nobody else has an issue with it so I guess I may as well support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

* Source from The New York Times should be tagged as "url-access=limited" Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Link to 12th Academy Awards from "youngest" in the lead is not logical; suggest removing the link or moving it somewhere else Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) "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) Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) 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) Merge duplicated nominated works for International Cinephile Society, Online Film Critics Society, and San Diego Film Critics Society Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) 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) Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Suggest renaming Critics' Choice Movie Award categories from "Best Movie X" to "Best X" Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) The King should sort by "King", not "The" Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) "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 Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) "List of Timothée Chalamet performances" should also be removed from "See also", as the page redirects to Timothée Chalamet, which is already linked Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC) — RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: Thanks for your comments! I've addressed them all. - Brojam (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Comments from TRM

• "actor Timothée Chalamet has " maybe put (born X) so we have a context for his generation.
  • Added. - Brojam (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• "autobiographical play Prodigal" any chance of noting where that was performed?
  • Added. - Brojam (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
• Seems odd when sorting by the Result column that numerical placings are separated from Runner-up by "nominated"...!
  • Fixed. - Brojam (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Not much else to grumble about here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• @The Rambling Man: I have addressed all your comments. - Brojam (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Source review passed; promoted. --PresN 01:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

List of commanders of the British 4th Division

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

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• "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)

• 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)

  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)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

  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)

Comments from TRM

• Please see my review on the 3rd Division list and ensure that the general issues mentioned there are implemented here.
• Could link killed in action.
• When sorting by "No." it goes all out of numerical order. That needs to be fixed. Ah I see why. You're using No. to mean "exclusive" so people re-taking command are given the same number. That's confusing indeed.
• Major General or Major-General?
• Linked items should be linked every time in a sortable table because after a re-sort there's no way of knowing which instance comes first.
• Consistency with full stops in the Description column please. Full sentences should use one, fragments should not.
• Are there periods where no GOC was in place, e.g. you have James Dick-Cunyngham dying in office yet not being replaced after his death for three weeks.
• Allard, a Canadian! So are there any other non-British GOCs here? They seem significant and should be highlighted.

That's enough for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

List of female chess grandmasters

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

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)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• 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?
  • Fixed. It's 2003. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Judit Polgar should not be linked twice in the lead
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• 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
  • Moved the applications to their own column. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• 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

• Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

• Monika Soćko should sort by last name
  • Fixed, good catch! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Final row of "By country" table should not be sorted – see Help:Sorting#Excluding final rows from sorting for how to fix this
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
• Suggest archiving sources using IABot here
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

Thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

That's fair enough. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Drive-by comment

• 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)
  • 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)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• 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
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 02:11, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

• 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)
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

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"
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "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
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "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
  • Moved this part to the previous section and rephrased. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "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
  • Rephrased to Susan and Judit Polgar. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "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)
    • Surely the peak year was 2008, when there were five awards.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
      • 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)
• That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh

• "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)
    • 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)
      • Linked to Georgian SSR. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• link "Soviet Union" in the Background section as well.
  • Same as above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "was not considered as she had already been killed in World War II" → "was not considered because of her death during World War II"
  • Changed "as" to "because". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "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)
    • 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)
• "No earlier than 1977," → In 1977
  • It's not necessarily 1977. It might have been 1977, or it might have been before. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "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)
    • 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)
      • Changed to "was". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• "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)
• "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)
    • 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)
      • Added a link to her own interview, and rephrased to "Her most notable tournament result". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
        • 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)
• "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)
• "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)
    • 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)
      • Rephrased to "began fulfilling the requirements for the Grandmaster title from a relatively young age". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• "At the age of 15 years, 4 months, and 28 days" — do we need to be so specific?
  • Switched to month precision. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "the next century saw a substantial influx of new female Grandmasters" — suggesting to rephrase a bit more neutrally
  • Changed "substantial" to "much larger". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "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)
• "Elo rating system" — pipe 'system' in the link
  • I think this is an issue with the other article. It should really be called just "Elo rating". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Fine. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• "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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
• 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)
    • 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)
      • I'll see if anyone else wants to comment on this. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
• Ref#6 and Ref#50 doesn't point to any citation
  • Fixed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
• 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)

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

Replies above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Replied, thanks! Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

• No copyright issues with File:The President, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam presenting Padma Shri to Kumari Koneru Humpy (Chess), at an Investiture Ceremony at Rashtrapati Bhavan in New Delhi on March 23, 2007.jpg, File:Anna Muzychuk 2011.jpg, File:Tatiana Kosintseva.jpg, File:HouYifan.jpg, or File:Ju Wenjun (2016.09) (cropped) 2.jpg
• When there isn't any evidence suggesting otherwise, I'll assume good faith that File:Sofia, Judit, Susan Polgar sisters.jpg, File:2019-Zhansaya-Abdumalik (cropped).JPG, and File:Arakhamia grant rd6 4thEUIO (A).JPG are in fact the uploaders' own works
• I'm not sure what to say about File:Nona Gaprindaschwili 1982 (cropped).jpg when that and File:Nona Gaprindaschwili 1982.jpg just seem to loop back and forth to one another as file sources
  • It's also an uploader's own work, like the ones in the previous point. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    • In that case, I wish they said so in the file description SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
      • It does state the author in the description. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
• Maybe there's something I missed (I admittedly am a native English speaker who grasps very little of the Russian language without a translator), but the given URL for File:Alexandra Goryachkina Satka 2018.jpg doens't seem to say anything on image licensing
  • It's at the bottom: "CONTENT IS LICENSED UNDER A CREATIVE COMMONS ATTRIBUTION-SHAREALIKE 3.0 LICENSE". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Thank you for mentioning this :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• From "21st century", you don't have any citations for "At some point by 2003, FIDE changed their regulations and began awarding the GM title to players who win the Women's World Championship if they are not already GMs. Since then, four players have obtained the GM title in this manner, most recently Tan Zhongyi in 2017. The Kosintseva sisters Tatiana and Nadezhda as well as the Muzychuk sisters Anna and Mariya both joined Susan and Judit Polgar as pairs of sisters to both be awarded the Grandmaster title. Irina Krush was the first player from outside Europe or Asia to be awarded the title in 2013."
  • Added. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• For more consistency with date formats used within citations, I recommend converting birthdates into DMY format
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
• Get rid of the flag icons per WP:Manual of Style/Icons#Inappropriate use when they above all else come off as decorative
  • I think it falls under "visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
    • How so? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

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

• SNUGGUMS, thanks for the review! Replied above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• • 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)
    • 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)
      • 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)
        • Very well. With no other issues found, I support this nomination for FL. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• As "Grandmaster" is a formal title, and we shouldn't be confusing it with "Woman Grandmaster", I would respectfully suggest the list is moved to "List of female chess Grandmasters". Indeed, that would then beg the question, is "chess" even required in the title, is it ambiguous?
  • That's a good point. I did consider both of those things when creating the article. My main rationale for not capitalizing was to copy List of chess grandmasters. I will ask them about their rationale. I think "chess" is necessary because Grandmaster is a disambiguation term. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
    • I got a quick reply that I think is correct. They referred to MOS:JOBTITLES, in which it is not one of the capitalized cases for two reasons: it is preceded by a modifier (or rather two modifiers: "female chess"), and also along the same lines of what I elaborate on below with regard to the abbreviations. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• Judit Polgár has a diacritic which appears to be missing in the lead/caption.
  • I think that's an issue with the other article. (Neither of her sisters' articles use the diacretic in the title.) I'll see if I can get that article moved to remove the diacritic. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Having looked at more sources, the diacretic is more common than I thought, so I'm backtracking on that and made the change to Judit Polgár as you suggested. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• You abbreviate Grandmaster to GM immediately but then immediately don't use that abbreviation in the following sentence(s)...
  • It's common to use both the full term and the abbreviation depending on the situation. (There is a difference in that when you see "GM", you would read it as "GEE-EM" instead of the full term.) For example, when you are referring to "Grandmasters" in general, you would probably write out the full term. As another example, "GM norm" is always abbreviated. I aimed to be consistent with different types of usage. There were a few situations where I wasn't sure what the preference would be, and mostly just tried to re-word so as to avoid those cases. Were there any instances you were concerned about in particular? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Actually, having just looked at Shahade's new book, I'm going to double back on this and say the only time it is correct to use the capitalized term Grandmaster is when referring to the "Grandmaster title", which can be abbreviated by as the GM title. When referring to a player with the GM title, it is correct to refer to them as a "grandmaster" in lowercase. That would also answer your question about the title of the article in that lowercase would be correct because it is referring to players with the Grandmaster title and not the Grandmaster title itself. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
      • Extending on that, I made it more consistent by always writing out "Grandmaster title" in the prose, and now mainly only just abbreviating for "GM norm". I left a few instances where it is more convenient to abbreviate in the key and the image captions. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
• "The Grandmaster title was formally established by FIDE in 1950. " and was open to both men and women?
  • I think so (or rather, there were no specific restrictions on that). Do you think that's worth clarifying? I was hoping that would be clear from stating the reason why Menchik wasn't awarded the title. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• "Since no later than 2003" I don't follow but I am tired. Do you mean just "Since 2003"?
  • I don't know the exact year. I have the FIDE handbook from 2003 that shows the rule was in place then, but I don't have the previous handbooks, so it could have been earlier. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• "in large part by" -> " largely by" or "mostly by"?
  • Changed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• "were a mere six female Grandmasters" instead of "mere" how many male GMs were there?
  • The point I wanted to make was that the raw number has increased (as in "mere" relative to the current women's total, not the overall total back then). The number relative to the overall total has always been roughly constant, or at least it never increased to a significant percentage (as it states in the body of the article). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• "As of 2021, all female...." it's now 2022...
  • Updated. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• "The Grandmaster title was formally established by FIDE in 1950" vs "FIDE first established formal criteria for the Grandmaster title in 1953" doesn't seem to tie up.
  • They declared various people Grandmasters in 1950, but there was no reason why certain players received the title. (It was related to who they thought was a top player, but there was no criteria of how they determined that until 1953.)
• FIDE and Elo rating system link to the same article. Probably need a footnote here explaining why the same target is linked via different pipes.
  • They should be separate articles. I will get around to moving it soon. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• "and just the second" remove "just".
  • Done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• "women still make up a small fraction of the total" could be specific here.
  • Changed to "no more than a few percent of the total". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• "obtain the Grandmaster (GM) title" you don't need to show us the abbreviation again at this late point in the article...
  • Removed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• "minimum FIDE rating of 2500" overlinked.
  • I wanted to include it here because I think the term is much more relevant to this section than the previous one. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• "using an Elo rating system, which" ditto.
  • I'll separate the FIDE rating and Elo rating articles. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• "7/9 against 2380-rated opponents, 6½/9 " suddenly struck me that the 7/9 and 6½/9 is completely alien and unexplained. Suggest a footnote or something to explain chess scoring.
  • I added a note to say "7 points in 9 games". Normally, for the chess GAs I've written, I would also put "A win is worth 1 point, a draw is worth a ½ point, and a loss is worth 0 points.", but I didn't do that here because that is covered by the previous note. I could repeat it if you prefer that? Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• In the table, why under Federation aren't you linking the actual federation (e.g. Hungarian Chess Federation) rather than just the country?
  • I think the point is to list the country associated with the federation. (I could change the key to clarify that?) Not all of the federations have articles, and most of the ones that do aren't very good (i.e. very brief, and either stub-class or start-class). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Don't see any good reason to abbreviate the dates, the table isn't that wide and it looks clumsy and archaic to reduce to three-character month format.
  • I changed it. (I had used the abbreviations because I wanted to keep the table less wide, and to align the years in the date columns.) Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Seems like the vast majority of these individuals have a portrait image which could be included in the table in another column rather than searching for them dotted around the article.
  • I wanted to keep the table more compact (in line with most tables, I would think?). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• For me the ext link which should show me all the female GMs from FIDE website doesn't work at all.
  • It works now. The old version of the FIDE website was down yesterday. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a quick starter for me. Plenty to work on here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the (first part of the) review! I replied to all points above. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

List of Music Bank Chart winners (2020)

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

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)

Image review — Pass

• 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)

Drive-by comment

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)

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)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

====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) 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) @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)

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis

Additionally, this is a source pass; did spotchecks earlier this week and I can't find any inaccuracies. GeraldWL 07:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 16:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

* I think the title is self-explanatory, so the short description can be changed to "none" Done. At first glance, paragraph 2 and 3 are too short and warrants a merge. Merged. "number of times the song"-- or the single? Fixed. "Soribada was also used until November"-- what year? Fixed. I think you can digitize the numbers: thirty-one to 31, twenty-four to 24, and twelve to 12. This is because some readers may find difficulty in reading numbers 10 and up in text. Fixed. I'm confused by what note c means, perhaps it can be extended for clarification? Removed. @Gerald Waldo Luis thank you for your comments. I have made the changes you you have suggested. -- EN-Jungwon 13:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support, though I'll give another suggestion of adding the year this chart was established (1998 I think?) in the first lead sentence. But otherwise, nice work! GeraldWL 16:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Support by Nkon21

• Support as I can't find anything in particular to comment on. Good work! ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• I find the lead rather lightweight. I know ChrisTheDude has written literally more than 100 of these kinds of lists, perhaps you could work with him to expand the lead a little bit. It would be nice to have a little bit of the history of the chart there as well as some more facts about the artists etc.
• "digital performance on domestic online music services" what does that mean, number of downloads/streams/combination?
• I think it would be informative to actually describe exactly how the points system works.
• "Exo member Suho received his first music show award..." reference?
  • Done.
• The table is sortable so every linked item in the table should linked every time.
  • Done.
• "Red Velvet – Irene & Seulgi" (in the image caption) should use an en-dash, not a hyphen.
  • Done.
• Ref 1 also has a spaced hyphen which should be an endash.
  • Done.

That's it on a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions @The Rambling Man. Apologies for the late reply. I haven't been feeling well these days and real life has been keeping me busy. I have made most of the changes you suggested. I am working on the lead in my sandbox and will try to get back to you before the end of the month. Thank you. -- EN-Jungwon 11:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

List of commanders of the British 3rd Division

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

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)

Image review — Pass

• 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)

  Thank you for your image reviewEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

• "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)

  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)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

* "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" Also wikilink Thomas Picton in that caption "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) 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)

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)

Comments from TRM

• "The 3rd Division was an..." so I immediately thought it was defunct, but apparently not. It might have changed names/roles etc, but in essence it's still active, right?

  Correct. Over-zealous with the copy and the paste. I have changed to "is an"

• "commanding (GOC). In this role, the GOC receives" can't you just merge, e.g. "commanding (GOC) who receives"?

  Updated per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• "over a history that has spanned over " over/over, maybe make the second one "more than"?

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• "was broken-up, once" is that really hyphenated?
• "was broken-up to provide" ditto.

  Not sure, to be honest. The Cambridge English Dictionary, for example, uses a hyphen when discussing a break-up of an entity.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  A "break-up" is not the same as something being "broken up". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

• Plus quick repeat, perhaps use "disbanded" the second time?

  Wording switched per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• "permanent standing formation" what is one of those? Is it similar/the same as Standing army?

  I have made a couple of tweaks to the existing sentence, but not major changes. Basically, the UK had a standing army, but it was on based on battalions. In a time of crisis, these were formed into brigades and divisions. At the end of a crisis, the division would be disbanded. In 1902, the British Army enacted some reforms to ensure that the army always had divisions at the ready and a handful were formed (that a decade later would form the basis of the BEF). Thoughts on wording changes to try and capture that?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Could link Mechanized infantry as it's jargon.

  Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• "mid-90s" 1990s.

  TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• "part in peacekeeping operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina.[9] " isn't there a specific article about that UN mission available to be linked?

  I have added an extra link at the end of the sentence in parenthesisEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• The row scope element should be unique so the name of the officer, rather than the number of the appointment (as "acting" appears a few times...)

  I have updated per your commentEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• There is also the problem that when sorting by "No.", all the "acting" etc disappear off to the bottom because it's sorting alphanumerically, so you need to force a hidden sort on those to make sure they sort in the correct order.

  I checked out the Help:Sorting page and made a change, does this work (I'm not entirely sure)?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• You have a mix of unhyphenated and hyphenated "Major(-)General" in the table, why?

  In the late 90s, hyphens were dropped from ranks per the official records (the Gazette). There is a note, when the table is not sorted, on the first entry (Richard Dannatt) that this occurs on to briefly explain.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Items which are linked in a sortable table should be linked every time because after re-sorting, there's no guarantee the linked item will appear first.
• In a sortable table, you can't assume that text retains its context, so "When Picton returned to the peninsula" is like "which peninsula? Where??" And "of the division once combat ended." which combat? Where?

  I have worked through the table and added in some additional links, including the items mentioned.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

A few fundamental issues here, but happy to re-review once they're dealt with. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:54, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your review and comments. I have worked on the list to enact the changes you suggested. I have also left some comments above to address outstanding concerns.

List of Washington ballot measures

Nominator(s): ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 19:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 19:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !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)

Done - That was clear, thank you! ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 20:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@PresN: Checking back in - Any other issues of note? ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

;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) Definitely better :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC) 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) 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) 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)

Image review — Pass

• There are no images in this list-article (except the sidebar image). Is there nothing more relevant image to add? I found File:Seattle - Transportation ballot measure campaign literature, 1937.jpg. Will that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

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? ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 08:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

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? ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 09:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

;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) "gather an number of signatures" => "gather a number of signatures" Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "equal or greater to 8%" => "equal to or greater than 8%" Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "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) "initiatives and referendum have become" => "initiatives and referendums have become" Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "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) "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) "requiring employers offer additional pay" => "requiring that employers offer additional pay" Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) "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) "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) "A measure requiring unions provide employers" => "A measure requiring that unions provide employers" Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC) That's what I got as far as 1948, I will look at the rest later....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC) 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) 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) "specific stretches of the Columbia River if it would interefere" - typo on last word Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC) "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) "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) "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) That's what I got as far as 1999 :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh.Singh

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! ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 19:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Continuing:

• I'd link Native Americans

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• the Supreme Court — mention that it is Washington's supreme court, not SCOTUS.

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• equivalent to $83,444,206 in 2020 — can we round this off to nearest 1000, same goes with other equivalent templates.

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• replacing the $40 mill property tax — mill here is Mill or Million?

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• 2,000 acres — can we use template:convert?

Fixed - I used km2 for the conversion, I'm not sure what the metric standard would be besides that. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• thirty to fifty-five years v. 21 to 19 — consistency needed

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• delegated to the Federal Reserve in the United States Supreme Court — 'United States Supreme Court' is mentioned, but 'Supreme Court' is linked to Washington Supreme Court

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• adding term limits for governor, Lieutenant governor, State Legislature — why capiytalized?

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• 911 system can be linked to 9-1-1

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• and the hunting — do we really need a link to hunting?

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• sodium fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide — do we have a link?

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• within 25 feet — convert to meter as-well

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• that contain GMOs to be — why not write the full form at the first instance

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

• 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" ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to set it back to "none". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

• Support — Clearly an excellent list. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Even more comments from ChrisTheDude

• "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)

  Thanks, Chris - Fixed those issues :) ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 11:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

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! Reywas92^Talk 15:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

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. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

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. Reywas92^Talk 17:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Source review — Pass

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

• 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! Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • 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)
• 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. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • 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)

      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. Reywas92^Talk 20:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

• 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. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • 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)
• 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. Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • 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)
      • 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. Reywas92^Talk 20:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Yeah; I'll still say if a better source is available, better use it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• 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? Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
    • 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)

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

Thanks @Reywas92, few responses above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

@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. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 22:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

* 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. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

*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. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* 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. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

*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. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* "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. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* "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"). ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks better now. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* 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. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* Ref#12: "www.spokesman.com" — this should be The Spokesman-Review

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* There is inconsistency in linking of media outlets/websites — Oregon Public Broadcasting is linked. Reuters is not. Suggesting to be consistent

Fixed ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* 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 ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* 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). ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* 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 ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

* 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 ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

And I think that's everything! Let me know if I missed something, @Kavyansh.Singh: ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 16:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

Comments from TRM

• I think a single para lead is a little lightweight for this major piece of work.
• Description columns no point in being sortable, it's free text so sorting is meaningless.
• Check your inflation work, I'm seeing "$300 property tax exemption (equivalent to $0 in 2020)"
• "Yes Votes" etc, no need for capital V here, this isn't German.
• Same for "Measure Name".
• " $1,033,000,000 in" probably $1 billion would do here.
• "World War One $15 a month" World War I, and you've previously inflated these monetary values. There needs to be a consistent approach to inflating these values, I see many which aren't...
• What's "poll tax"?

Just a quick pass over. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man Logging that I’ve seen this but don’t have access to a computer to do any editing for at least another week, potentially more. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 15:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Actually, I can't sleep and commandeered one of my uni's laptops to do this while mine is getting repaired.

I think a single para lead is a little lightweight for this major piece of work.

I added an additional paragraph but I don't think it's that great - any advice there would be appreciated. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Description columns no point in being sortable, it's free text so sorting is meaningless.

Fixed this, they are no longer sortable. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Check your inflation work, I'm seeing "$300 property tax exemption (equivalent to $0 in 2020)"

Fixed this as well - That's what I get for relying on the find-and-replace feature! ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"Yes Votes" etc, no need for capital V here, this isn't German.

After begrudgingly checking MOS I fixed this (but I don't like it!) ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Same for "Measure Name".

See above. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"$1,033,000,000 in" probably $1 billion would do here.

Fixed this. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

"World War One $15 a month" World War I, and you've previously inflated these monetary values. There needs to be a consistent approach to inflating these values, I see many which aren't...

Fixed everything before the year 2000, which I'm going to use as the cutoff date (unless people want me to just apply it to all).

What's "poll tax"?

It's a tax since made illegal everywhere in the United States designed to prevent certain people (*cough cough*) from voting. I hyper-linked the relevant article. ThadeusOfNazereth^{Talk to Me!} 21:42, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

List of Roman emperors

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

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

Drive-by comments

• The lead has no references at all

Fixed - the lead is now fully referenced. Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

• There are rows where colour is used to indicate something - per MOS:COLOUR, colour alone cannot be used in this way, it needs to be accompanied by a symbol for the benefit of people who cannot distinguish the colours -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Do you have any suggestions for how this could be done in a seamless way? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Assuming the question relates to my second point, then for every row which currently uses colour to indicate ambiguous legitimacy, you also need to add a symbol such as . I would suggest that the best place for it is after the emperor's name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Added hash-tags. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Seconding what ChrisTheDude said about color - {{dagger}} is an easy way to add a non-color indication.

I understand why this is necessary but I worry that the symbol in particular could cause misunderstanding since this list deals with people (could perhaps be taken as an indication for a specific type of death) of different religions (could perhaps be misunderstood as marking them as Christians). Would something like § work just as well? Ichthyovenator (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

{{Hash-tag}} might be best, as it definitely meets accessibility requirements and I don't think would carry any other implications. Don't forget to add it to the key as well as the rows -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! width="17%" |Name becomes !scope=col width="17%" |Name.

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |'''[[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)

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)

Required some tweaking and experimentation but I succeeded; done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 15:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Should be all of these addressed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@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)

Source review - pass

• Taking this up. User:Iazyges (User talk:Iazyges)
• No objection to inclusion of any sources, will pass once issues are dealt with.

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)

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)

Passing source review. User:Iazyges

More comments from ChrisTheDude

• "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)

  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)

  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)

Support Comments from Iazyges

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• dominus noster 'our lord' suggest dominus noster (our lord)

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

• considered legitimate began their careers as usurpers suggest changing careers to rule

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• as demonstrated already in the suggest changing already to either soon or removing it =,

Removed it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• wrestle power away suggest seize

Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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)

Should have had a cooler name, I guess. User:Iazyges

Guess he should have ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

• 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)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Reywas92

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

Keeping the first in each table would be fine. Reywas92^Talk 19:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

Reywas92^Talk 16:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "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)

• "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)

• "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)

• " 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)

• "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)

• 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

Added a note with explanation to all entries that mention co-emperors. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
• "Dethroned and blinded Constantine in 797". Perhaps worth adding that Irene dethroned and blinded her son.

Added "dethroned and blinded her son Constantine in 797". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• You say that Isaac I Komnenos abdicated and died six months later, but below you say that he designated his successor on his deathbed.

Changed "on his deathbed" to "during his abdication". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Retired as a nun in November 1071" This implies that she retired from being a nun. Presumably you mean to become a nun.

Yes, changed to "became a nun". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Deposed in a palace coup while imprisoned by the Seljuk Sultanate, captured and blinded on 29 June 1072" You should say that this was after his release by the Seljuks.

Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Great-grandson of Alexios I, proclaimed emperor by the people of Constantinople after refusing an order of arrest issued by Andronikos I, then captured, deposed and had Andronikos I killed" This is unclear. Who was the order of arrest for. Presumable you mean that he captured etc Andronikos, but this is ungrammatical.

Rewrote the entry. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Refused an order of arrest issued by Andronikos I, whereafter he was proclaimed emperor by the people of Constantinople. Captured, deposed and killed Andronikos I. This is still unclear. Did Andronikos order his arrest or order him to arrest someone else? If it was to arrest him then "resisted" would be clearer than "refused" Also, "whereafter" is correct but described by OED as "Now formal or archaic". Maybe "after which". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Changed to your suggestions. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• "Heraclius transitioned to issuing administrative documents in Greek." This is bureaucratic gobbledygook. Maybe "Heraclius issued his later administrative documents in Greek." Dudley Miles (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Changed In 629, Heraclius transitioned to issuing administrative documents in Greek to From 629 onwards, Heraclius issued administrative documents in Greek., which keeps the year of the change. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:17, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Mnet Asian Music Award for Best Music Video

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

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

Comments

• "and was retitled as "Best Music Video"" => "and it was retitled as "Best Music Video""
• "the most wins in the category—having won for four consecutive years" => "the most wins in the category, having won for four consecutive years"
• Lee Seung-hwan, 2PM, Blackpink, and BTS image captions are all full sentences so need full stops
• Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: All fixed, thanks! ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 21:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

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

  Done. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass

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

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

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

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 18:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

* I am not an expert in Korean articles, but does this article also need a Hepburn translation? "a music video centered"-- hyphenate video and centered Award categories shouldn't be in quotations "At the inaugural ceremony in 1999"-- can be shortened to "In 1999", as readers already know 1999's the inaugural ceremony. In the infobox: "Quality short form music videos"-- link music videos "Music Video of the Year (daesang)"-- italicize daesang "From 1999–2005"-- for 2005, link 2005 Mnet Km Music Video Festival "2000–03"-- for 03, link 2003 Mnet Music Video Festival "2004–05"-- for 2004, link 2004 Mnet Km Music Video Festival "Starting in 2006"-- for 2006, link 2006 Mnet Km Music Festival "2006–08"-- for 08, link 2008 Mnet Km Music Festival "2009"-- link 2009 Mnet Asian Music Awards Now onto the image captions. "2009 and 2010 recipients"-- for 2010, link 2010 Mnet Asian Music Awards If the videos that won were mentioned (like in img1 and 2), then the rest (imgs 2, 5, 7) must follow the same style. Last image is an exception considering the large scope. "2012"-- link 2012 Mnet Asian Music Awards "2011"-- link 2011 Mnet Asian Music Awards "2015"-- link 2015 Mnet Asian Music Awards "2016"-- link 2016 Mnet Asian Music Awards "2017-21"-- link 2017 Mnet Asian Music Awards and 2021 Mnet Asian Music Awards Table looks good to me. Now the sources. NPR should be in publisher not website parameter YouTube must be linked for consistency

@Gerald Waldo Luis: Done ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 17:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

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)

Comments from TRM

• "by CJ E&M Pictures (Mnet) at the" perhaps I'm the only one confused by this, the first link is a redirect, the second link is to a TV channel. What does all this mean?

Mnet is owned by CJ E&M.

• It says "in 1999 as the Mnet Music Video Festival" but the link title is "1999 Mnet Video Music Awards"? It does say "The award-giving body began in this year under the name "Mnet Km Music Festival" (MKMF).[2]" but that's still different from what is written here. Which is correct?

Fixed

• "the MTV Video Music Awards.[3] From" no need to pipe to the singular which then only redirects back to the plural.
• "went through an" -> "underwent an"
• "In 1999, the prize was first presented" Perhaps "The inaugural Mnet Asian Music Award for Best Music Video was presented..." to reiterate the subject again.
• "between 2017–21" would prefer prose, i.e. between 2017 and 2021.
• "Three artists share the title for second-most wins" there's no such "title". You mean "Three artists have won the award twice..."
• "as the lead artist" what does that add?
• "From 1999–2005, the category" can relink 1999 first time in the main body of the article.
• "2000–03" 2000–2003 per MOS.
• "2004–05" so "2004–2005" to be consistent.
• "the winner was instead announced live at the ceremony." well one assumes that whether there were nominations or not, the winner is still' announced live, I think what you mean is that there was no list of nominees unveiled, just the winner announced at the early ceremonies.
• "2004 recipient for..." etc. Try to avoid starting sentences (or even fragments) with numbers. Reword it, e.g. "blah was a recipient ... in 2004" etc.
• "No list of nominees was made available for the former daesang during the course..." also looks like this was the case from 2019 onwards as well...?

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man:  Done ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:53, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

List of prime ministers of Italy

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

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

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.

 Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! width=1% rowspan=2| Portrait becomes !scope=col width=1% rowspan=2| Portrait.

 Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ! 1 becomes !scope=row | 1.

 Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 13:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

;Comments on the tables and refs Can you split the key into multiple columns so that it doesn't extend so far down the page?  Done by Nick.mon. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Small text should not be used Y Partly done: increased size of term duration. I see that also other featured list articles like List of chancellors of Germany or List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom use small text in the tables. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Below each PM's name you have dates for born-died, but below each king's name you have dates which (I presume) indicate his reign. Can you make the latter clearer, because at first glance I thought that Victor Emmanuel II died aged 17......?  Done --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Notes b to g are not full sentences so should not have full stops  Done by Nick.mon. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Why do most refs have retrieval dates but some do not?  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC) What is " Denis Mack Smith, Cavour (1985)."? A book? A journal? Fixed it is a book. --Yakme (talk) 08:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Surely there's a better source for the first PM than yourdictionary.com.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC) N Removed -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC) Comments Ok thank you, I've tried to solve some of these problems. -- Nick.mon (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Ping me when everything is sorted and I will re-visit :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: ok, I think everything is sorted! :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)  Comment: What about the references column? I think it might be removed. Since all the 100+ references are just links to pages of the same archive website [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) Simply using the frontpage of storia.camera.it as a single "source" would absolutely not be acceptable in a FL as the frontpage by itself does not reference any of the info in the tables. List of chancellors of Germany was promoted more than three years ago and I don't think would pass FLC in its current form -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: For the Republican period, I found this link which contains all the governments, and also links to each specific government where one can find more details. --Yakme (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Why not just leave the references as they currently are? There's nothing wrong with them...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Hi! So, what do you think, doest the list fit with the FL criteria? :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

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

About......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:07, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@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)

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)

Ok, thank you! -- Nick.mon (talk) 09:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@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)

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

Comments by RunningTiger123

• Images need alt text
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• "non consecutively" → "non-consecutively"
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• "who served as Prime Minister" → "who served as prime minister"
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 19:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• A single row should only have one cell with ! scope="row", as having multiple row headers doesn't make sense
  •  Done Yakme (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• 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
  •  Done Yakme (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
• 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)

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)

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)

Comments by Reywas92

• "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! Reywas92^Talk 04:20, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Reywas92:  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:38, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

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. Reywas92^Talk 17:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "as expressed in the Albertine Statute", This sounds a bit odd to me. How about "as laid down in the Albertine Statute"?
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• "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".
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
• 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.
  •  Done, The first government of the Kingdom of Italy is officially known as Cavour IV, while the first legislature is the VIII. I know it sounds weird, but I've tried to explain it with footnotes. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
• The article looks fine apart from the headings. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Nick.mon nudge. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

I've already updated the page, I'm just trying to figure out how to solve the "Party / Coalition" section. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I've fixed it. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• I have a natural dislike of single sentence paragraphs. I think you could/should" merge the first two paras of the lead.
• "officeholder was Camillo Benso, Count of Cavour, who took the office " officeholder ... took the office is repetitive.
• "unification of Italy" is there an article for this we could link?
• "the King of Italy, as" vs "The prime minister of Italy" why the inconsistent capitalisation of job titles?
• "abolishment" reads odd, even if it might be right, why isn't it simply abolition?
• "the Italian Republic" could link.
• "is currently" see WP:ASOF.
• Might be worth noting that not one single woman has ever held the office.
• "who stayed in power for more than nine years non-consecutively" stayed ... non-consecutively is odd for me. Perhaps "who held the position ..." or something.
• I assume † means died in office but that's not in the key. Check you're using alt text for the {{dagger}} symbol too.
• E.g. in Giolitti's entry, it says "with PSI's external support", but where is that in the reference? Similar comment applies to all such notes.
• The abbreviations, such as PSI, PDSI, all need to be added in a key, not just rely on the wikilinks.
• Refs 6 and 8 have spaced hyphens, should be unspaced per MOS.
• Third biblio entry needs an en-dash in the year range.

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:05, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Michael Jackson albums discography

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

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

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

RunningTiger123 I have reviewed and sampled many articles from Category:FL-Class Discography articles before nominating this article, and none of them were sourced as you say. They either use the sources part of chart history or the certifications. Here I've already added a source for the albums, even if it was not certified even though it has already charted. There were only seven releases since 2010 and that's why most of the sources have access dates prior to 2010.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I know that older nominations don't have the same level of sourcing, but the three most recent discography promotions – Regine Velasquez discography, MewithoutYou discography, and Amy Grant discography – all provide sources for album details. Also, access dates and archived pages still need to be updated even if most of the cited information predates those; we need to source all of the information, not most of it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Follow-up: I missed the part where you'd updated the sources – those generally look good now, though I haven't taken an in-depth look. Thanks for doing that! RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

;Initial comments No reason for a capital on Extended Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) No reason for a capital on Remix Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "According to Recording Industry Association of America" => "According to the Recording Industry Association of America" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "The album peaked at 14 on the Billboard 200 album chart" - the chart wasn't called that in 1972 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "It peaked at five on the Billboard 200 album chart" - same again Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) No reason for capital on Silver Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "Epic Records, then known as CBS Records" - that's not true Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "spawned two number-one singles on the billboard hot 100" - needs a capital B Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "Off The Wall made Jackson the first solo artist to have four singles from the same album to peak" => "Off The Wall made Jackson the first solo artist to have four singles from the same album peak" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "At the 1980 Grammy Awards, it was nominated for two Grammy Awards" - any way to avoid repeating those two words in the same sentence? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC) The source does not support the above claim Added.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "Jackson winning Best R&B Vocal Performance, Male for "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough"" - not relevant, this article is about his albums, not his singles Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) That's what I got on the first two paragraphs of the lead, will look at more later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC) More comments "the Billboard Top LPs & Tapes chart, which spent a record 37 weeks at number one" - the chart did not spend 37 weeks at number one Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "Seven singles were released. They all reached the top 10 on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart." - these two very short sentences could be combined into one Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "eight Grammy Awards at the 1984 Grammy Awards" - again, try to avoid repetitive language Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "while "Beat It" won Record of the Year" - again, not really relevant in this article Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "eight American Music Awards at the 1984 American Music Awards" - as above Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "The single "You Are Not Alone" was the first song in history to debut at number one on the Billboard Hot 100" - again, not really relevant in this article Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) "and is the best selling multiple-disc release, making it one of the best-selling albums of all time" - this badly formatted sentence fragment repeats the sentence before so should be removed Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Title of Blood on the Dance Floor should be in italics Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Not sure "skyrocketed" is really an encyclopedic choice of word Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Essential Michael Jackson should be in italics Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) And so should the two albums in the last sentence of the lead -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC) More comments The table heading "Compilation" should be "Compilations", as there is more than one Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC) "albums at least 18 months old, have fallen below" => "albums at least 18 months old which have fallen below" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC) "Here, a list of his albums reached a major position in this chart while not eligible for the Billboard 200:" - this is very mangled English. I would suggest "The following albums appeared on this chart while not eligible for the Billboard 200:" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC) I would also join that list to the one in the next sentence. It makes no sense at all to separate out those which reached a "major" position and those which reached a "minor" position, especially when some of the minor positions are higher than one of the major positions!! Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC) "List of officially released compilations and other albums not charted in the table" is a terrible title and I can't even tell what it's trying to say. Is it just "albums which don't appear in any of the tables above"? If so, why not? Albums which did not chart should still be listed in the same table as equivalent albums which did, so for example all the Remix Suites should be in the same table as all the other remix albums...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC) Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Comments on refs Ref 2 lists no publisher/work Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 9 is some random guy's self-published/print-on-demand book. There must be dozens of better refs for that statement. Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 10 does not list the author of the book Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 13 - what's "George"? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 15 shows the name of the RIAA in full, whereas an earlier ref shows the initials Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) The title of ref 28 is not "archived copy", it also lists no publisher/work Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 42 lists nothing but the title Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 43 lists no publisher for the book Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 44 is also self-published, so not an acceptable source Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) The chart history portion of ref 55 does not exist Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 65 lists nothing but the title Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 72 has the same issue as ref 9 Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 82 uses different date format to the rest (as do some others) Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 83 has two different date formats within the same ref! Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 101 - Nielsen Business Media Inc. is not the author's name Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 102 - author's names are the wrong way round Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 109 - why is Parool.nl wikilinked, when it doesn't have an article? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Refs 120, 121, 129, 144 are just bare URLs Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 122 has "via allmusic.com", different to all the other AllMusic refs Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 125 is missing almost all fields Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 138 lists no publisher/work Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Ref 143 is another self-published book Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Refs 146 and 148 (and some others) show the author's name with forename first, unlike the rest Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Quite a lot of formatting work to do on the refs, I fear...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2021 (UTC) ChrisTheDude take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC) Quick comment - ref 11: Condé Nast is a company, not a person, so shouldn't be listed as the author -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.

Done. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes (which you have) lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! rowspan="2" style="width:13em;"| Title becomes ! rowspan="2" style="width:13em;" scope=col| Title. Note that where you have double headers (e.g. Peak chart positions and also the individual countries) both column headers need the scope.

Done. TheWikiholic (talk) 13:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 21:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

PresN take a look now, please.— TheWikiholic (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@TheWikiholic: Ah, not quite- see my edit to the page. Both the "Peak chart positions" and all of the "US", etc. column headers need it too. I've done it for the first table as an example. --PresN 15:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

PresN Please see my latest edits and let me know if I missed anything. TheWikiholic (talk) 08:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Support as I see no other lingering issues at all. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis

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)

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 16:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

* 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) 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) "has sold 89 million certified albums in the US"-- change "US" to "United States" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "The album peaked at 14" --> "It peaked at 14" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "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) "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) "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) "Billboard hot 100" --> "Billboard Hot 100" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "it was nominated for two Awards"-- decapitalize the A Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "It became Jackson's first"-- change "Jackson's" to "his" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "the first to become the United States’" --> "the first to become the U.S.'" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) 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) "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) "record-breaking five number ones." What does "five number ones" mean? five number one Singles.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "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) "The album was Jackson's first since Forever, Michael (1975)"-- remove "(1975)" as repetitive. Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "one on the US"-- change "US" to "U.S." for consistency Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) "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) 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) I think the format types should be linked at first mention Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC) And the "Records" shouldn't prob be ommitted, for example "Motown" --> "Motown Records" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC) In the Got to Be There column, "World" --> "WW" Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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)

• Support. Sorry TheWikiholic for the delay; it looks all good for me now! GeraldWL 16:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• I'm not convinced that Jackson released two posthumous albums, he wasn't alive to do that...

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comparable figures should be all numerals or all words (numbers of each type of album...)

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "later known as The Jacksons" for consistency, shouldn't that be "the Jacksons"?

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "still part of The Jackson 5" etc etc.

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "was certified Gold by the" you've mentioned "certification" before. so the link should be there and not on "Gold".

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• " on the Billboard Pop Albums Chart and " consistency needed on format of Billboard here. Check all others.
• "both the U.S. and the Australian ARIA charts" this implies that there are ARIA charts in the US.

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "U.S.’ best-selling album for two years" awkward, perhaps "best-selling album in the United States for two years"

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "The album's success set the standard for the music industry" what does that even mean? And the linked article relates to the success of the Thriller video an its impact, not the album per se.

Fixed.TheWikiholic (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• What is ref 36 supposed to be saying?

Reference 36 is supposed to say that the album was certified 8-time platinum by RIAA.

• You have "5 million" and "six million" in the same paragraph. Be consistent and compliant with MOS.

Fixed.TheWikiholic (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• "It has sold over six million copies" the source says "reportedly six million".

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "and The Essential Michael Jackson" why is "The" outside the link?!

Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• "until at least 2017" it's 2022, so what now?

Fixed.TheWikiholic (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

That's the lead reviewed. Plenty to do here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

The Rambling Man Please have a look at my edits, and let me know if I missed something. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

List of Houston Texans first-round draft picks

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

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

Comments by RunningTiger123

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

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

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

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

Comments

• Lead should probably specify that the Texans are an American football team. I know it says "joined the National Football League", but given how many different sports are called "football" by someone in the world, it would be best to be completely clear
• Paid is spelt incorrectly (unless "payed" is valid in American English?)
• Quarterback is wikilinked in the lead but offensive tackle not - any reason?
• Italics on always seem unnecessary to me
• "No player selected by the Texans has been enshrined in the Pro Football Hall Of Fame"- no player selected in the first round specifically, or no player ever selected?
• Row 2 of the key refers to the Ravens, presumably this is a copy/paste error.....?
• Sentence fragments like "Youngest player ever taken in modern draft era." should not have full stops. This applies to pretty much everything in the Notes column.
• As above, every row needs a specific reference. These would probably work best in a separate column.
• The key suggests that a dagger will appear against Pro Bowl players, but it doesn't
• Footnotes (eg "The franchise was established in 1999, but played its first season in 2002.") should be separated from actual references
• Footnotes which are not complete sentences should also not have full stops (think this only applies to one note)
• Ref 11 shows no accessdate
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• @ChrisTheDude: All the problems have been solved now. you may please have a look.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The fourth and fifth comments above have not been addressed. Also, you have removed the full stops from all footnotes, including the ones which are complete sentences -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Also, you have addressed the ninth by removing the dagger from the key. Apologies for being unclear, but what you should have done is left the dagger in the key and added it to the relevant players. For accessibility reasons, colour alone cannot be used as an identifier -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: I have added the daggers and have got the hof problem solved. I didn't spot any italics this time. I removed some seeing your first comment. Please inform me where they are. Also - I rechecked all the footnotes and found that all of them are free of full-stops. I hope we are allowed to keep other punctuations like comma's to give the sentence meaning. If I am wrong please inform me.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Re: the footnotes, my comment was "Footnotes which are not complete sentences should also not have full stops". I never said to remove them from all notes. Notes a, c, d, e and f are complete sentences and therefore need full stops. Re: italics, my comment was "Italics on always seem unnecessary to me". I accept this is maybe ambiguous, so apologies. What I meant is that the word "always" is italicised twice in the lead and (IMO) there is no reason for this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Problem solved I guess.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

TRM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drive-by comment

• All the citations in the Ref column need to be center aligned. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Atlantis77177 – Any updates here? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@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)

Oh, no issues at-all. I'll do it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; now done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Nominations for removal

List of computer criminals

Notified: Esemono, Blueclaw, WP Lists, WP Bio, WP Computer security, WP Computing, WP Law, WP Crime

This 2009 promotion has no clear inclusion/exclusion criteria. It's unclear, for instance, why Michael Princeton Wilkerson who doesn't seem to have ever had an article is included, but someone like Ross Ulbricht or Ryan Ackroyd isn't. Additionally, I suspect that there are comprehensiveness issues here. Hog Farm _Talk 17:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names

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)

• Delist tagged for 15 months, this isn't our best work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Delist I don't think this page even passes WP:NLIST since there's nothing covering the subject as a whole. It's just a way to include people who played one or two games and were so forgettable no one wrote their whole name down without having individual articles for them. Reywas92^Talk 00:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

• Delist. I agree with the rationale provided by the nominator. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
• Delist per above; if we have to source the entire thing to b-ref player pages, that is problematic. Hog Farm _Talk 18:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)