Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FLC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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

Source reviews needed

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

Nominations[edit]

List of accolades received by The Lego Movie[edit]

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace

I am nominating this for featured list because I have expanded and reworked the table at The Lego Movie article and then I provided sources with verdicts for each award in this list. Chompy Ace 13:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

  • "a 2014 computer-animated adventure comedy film" — Perhaps, avoid linking two or more adjacent words.
  • "Lord, Miller, and Dan and Kevin Hageman" — is the first "and" necessary?
    • Question for you, Kavyansh. If Chompy wanted to emphasize the first two names rather than the last two, how do we write that ... "Dan, Kevin Hageman, Lord and Miller"? But then the readers would have no way of knowing that "Hageman" is Dan's last name (until they read on, and then it's too late). But if "Dan and Kevin Hageman, Lord and Miller" is right, then why should one "and" disappear if we switch the names around? Either the second "and" is necessary or it's not ... it would be better to be consistent ... and it appears to be necessary here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know why there is a need to emphasize the first two names when it is already mentioned that the film was "written and directed by Phil Lord and Christopher Miller" (emphasis added). So, "from a story by Lord, Miller, Dan and Kevin Hageman" reads fine to me. Moreover, this article already has usage of oxford comma. So not adding a comma in 'Dan and Kevin Hageman' would automatically imply that it is "Dan Hageman and Kevin Hageman". Does that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll try to raise a discussion on the general question at WT:FLC ... might not work, but it's worth a shot. - Dank (push to talk) 18:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 1 needs a citation
  • The image needs ALT text.
  • That is pretty much all there is to say. Great work!

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh:  Done for all Chompy Ace 21:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all concerns addressed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • There are some issues with the sorting in the Recipient(s) column. Anything that starts with a quotation mark should ignore that and sort based on the actual first word. And anything that starts with "The" should ignore that and sort on the next word.
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude:  Done Chompy Ace 09:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • For row scopes, e.g. !scope=row, if the cell spans multiple rows via 'rowspan' then the scope should be changed to use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 23:33, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN:  Done; I used this table from List of accolades received by Soul (2020 film). Chompy Ace 03:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, rowgroup has been around for a long time, but it only got put on the ACCESS examples last fall, and I only started checking for it in these reviews in the last couple months (so, after Soul was promoted). --PresN 13:17, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
  • "Lord, Miller, Dan and Kevin Hageman" → I think it should be "Lord, Miller, and Dan and Kevin Hageman". The use of the Oxford comma elsewhere means that it isn't really confusing and omitting the first "and" reads weirdly.
  • "international co-production between the United States, Australia, and Denmark" → This makes it sound like a collab between the countries instead of production houses from those countries.
  • That's all I could really find. AryKun (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AryKun:  Done Chompy Ace 23:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the basis of prose. AryKun (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dawkins Award[edit]

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrote this list recently, and feel that it meets the FL criteria. If promoted, this might be the first Category:FL-Class Atheism articles. Over to the community for their constructive feedback. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • Oppose. This article just lists the recipients with no information about what they have done which the Center for Enquiry regards as deserving the award. It falls far short of the requirement for comprehensiveness. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi @Dudley Miles, thanks for your review. I have worked at FL awards like Darwin Medal and Gabor Medal. The standard practice is that we include, in direct quotation, the "citation" or the rationale for the award, which the presenting organisation provides. In this case, I have checked at the official websites of both the former and current presenting organization (Atheist Alliance of America and Center for Inquiry) and the Dawkins Foundation. None has any citation/rationale. To add to the above issue, we even don't have a fixed reason as so why is this award awarded. Atheist Alliance of America says it is awarded to "honor an outstanding atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who, through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage, advocates increased scientific knowledge; who, through work or by example, teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy". Center for Inquiry says it is awarded to a "distinguished individual from the worlds of science, scholarship, education or entertainment, who publicly proclaims the values of secularism and rationalism, upholding scientific truth wherever it may lead". It simply changes from limited criteria of "outstanding atheist" to broad criteria of "distinguished individual". From "nontheist philosophy" to "values of secularism and rationalism". In other words, for me to write information about what they have done which the Center for Enquiry regards as deserving the award when the Center for Inquiry has no information on that would definitely be Original research, and this is the reason it only has name and portrait. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Adding to that, I see that the comprehensiveness FL criteria (WP:FL#3a) requires having a defined scope and "providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items". Here we do have a complete set of all winners. "where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items": Here, we do have mentioned everything that is relevant and what WP:RS report. Because I think this does meet the requirement for comprehensiveness. We have had recent featured lists (1, 2, etc.) which just mention that name/title and image, because that is all what is relevant. Do you have any sources which are not present in the article and have the information you are requesting for? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved from below

  • Outgrowing God: A Beginner's Guide is more relevant than The Selfish Gene
  • "The most recent individual to be awarded is Tim Minchin in 2021." This is recentism as it will soon be out of date. You can just say "In 2021..."
  • "She had an early interest in science stemmed from a fascination with Karl Marx" I think [1] is more relevant. It clarifies that she is an agnostic, not an atheist.
    • Done. Although I was a bit hesitant on using WP:SALON.COM as it has no consensus on its reliability. Upon further thinking, I'd say this is usually decided on case-by-case basis. Here, we directly quote Druyan's, and specify her self stated agnostic views. So, I'd say no issues with using it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dennett was a professor". I would take "was" to mean he has died. If he has retired then "is an emeritus professor" would be correct.
    • Changes to "he served as a professor", that would be better, I think. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks much better now - just a few queries. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks a lot! Just for the record, I un-boldfaced and striked your initial oppose in this edit, merely to avoid any confusion by anyone reading this FLC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wretchskull[edit]

  • Comment: I unfortunately have to concur with the above, Kavyansh.Singh. Have you checked everywhere to make sure there isn't any info on the rationales (browser search, google scholar, google books, internet archive, TWL, profile websites of each recipient's institutions, etc.)? If so, comprehensiveness is probably met. Wretchskull (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is information about at least some of the awards. On a quick search I have found Tim Minchin] and Lawrence Krauss. I do not think your other examples are comparable. The Gallup poll by its nature does not give reasons and the birds of Nauru has links to relevant further information. This article does not provide links to information specifically relevant to the award. It would be helpful to give a summary where it is available, even if you have to mark some recipients as 'information not available'. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kavyansh.Singh: Have you perhaps considered adding small quotes of Dawkins' speech of each recipient from the YouTube video attached to each source? For example, here? Not sure if this would fly under FLC. Wretchskull (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dudley Miles: See WP:RSPYT. Also, I don't think adding parts of Dawkins speech would be helpful. How about if I add 2-3 lines on every recipient of the award, detailing their contributions to, well, secularism and rationalism? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG[edit]

Support on all criteria except 3a. I haven't heard of this award before so I cannot judge its comprehensiveness. Other than that, I find the list to be well-written, well-sourced and in compliance with other FL criteria. Just one minor suggestion below.

  • "The Richard Dawkins Award is named in honor of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins." Perhaps we could avoid repeating Richard Dawkins by rephrasing to something like: "The Richard Dawkins Award is named in honor of the eponymous evolutionary biologist." FrB.TG (talk) 14:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Shiva Baby[edit]

Nominator(s): Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My first FLC, though not the first list article I have worked extensively on. Having worked on the film article this awards list relates to (and, more specifically, having had a news alert for that), I know it is a comprehensive list of all accolades received which are sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia list article. It has been in draft until yesterday because of a simmering but ongoing discussion over the color of certain awards results boxes - the main issue being over "pending" and, with the last pending awards for this film announced yesterday, that is no longer an issue. I hope that the perceived newness (it has been a public draft, and other editors have contributed if just by adding and updating the awards table on the film article, which this replaces) does not work against the FLC, but understand if it does. In keeping with featured lists of the same scope, the prose is all in the lead, with some notes throughout the sectioned tables. I believe this prose to be well-written and properly sourced, but welcome comments for improvement. Similarly, any comments to improve the sectioning, too, are welcome. The ref formatting is a style derived from harv refs which I began using a few years ago, and which has been warmly welcomed by others as a style particularly helpful to readers looking for refs, but I of course also welcome feedback on this (including if the sub-headers "News", "Web", etc. should indeed by sub-headers rather than bold text). Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • For the infobox image, I would expand the caption to include where it was taken to provide the full context to readers. I would also add ALT text to the image.
  • I am uncertain about the current placement of the short film paragraph at the end of the lede. The second paragraph mentions that this film was adapted, but it is not immediately clear until the end of the lede that it was adapted from a short. I understand the rationale for its inclusion as it is part of the film's awards reception, but would it be possible to integrate into the prose earlier rather than sectioning it off at the end?
  • What makes Hetedik Sor a strong enough source to mention in the lead? To be clear, I do not have any issue with it, and I just want to get a clearer understanding of this as I have not heard of this website before.
  • Shouldn't this line, the ceremony marked a return to fully in-person events, have a small bit about the COVID-19 context to how this return to in-person events is notable?
  • While this quote, "were seen toasting with champagne several times", is cute, I do not think it is notable or particularly informative enough to put in the lede or the list in general.
  • For the MVFF citation at the bottom of the page, I would avoid putting "Behind the Screens" in all caps even if the site did that. In general, I would avoid all caps unless it is an acronym so I would also avoid instances when the film title is presented this way.

Great work with this list. I have heard a lot about this film, mostly from film critics who believe this movie should have received attention from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, but I have not actually watched it. I get what the Vulture citation is saying about why it did not receive major nomination, but in my opinion, it more so boils down to that it was not picked up by a major distributor and did not get the awards campaign that other films did. Best of luck with the FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I'll respond down here to make who's saying what clearer.
  • I've added these; I had believed that alt text was not necessary when the comment described the image sufficiently, but have added some basic alt text anyway.
  • I have both moved the sentence about the short film, to follow the sentence in the second paragraph where the adapted screenplay is mentioned, and I have edited the short film sentence for flow.
  • Hetedik Sor, from reading the website and looking at its references on the Hungarian Wikipedia, is a website akin to Gold Derby and AwardsWatch: a film awards season/Oscars race website that may serve as a year-round bookies but is popular and reliable for film coverage during awards season. At least one film article on the Hungarian Wikipedia also uses the website as an external link along with IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes (Birds of Passage (film), so not a small film, either). The 'editorials' of GoldDerby and AwardsWatch do not commonly rank films by number of all awards, which is why they are not used here. Hetedik Sor, as I see it, is an equivalent source.
  • I have added "following the COVID-19 pandemic" (with wikilink to the impact on cinema article); as the pandemic is not really over, any better wording suggestions would be appreciated.
  • I have removed this (I also thought it was cute).
  • I have removed all-caps where I've seen it; if there are any instances I've missed, please tell me!
Thank you! While Utopia did their absolute best to promote the movie, and made more of a name for themselves in the process, I have to agree with you; I was watching the Indie Spirits and, there, the director said that they had no money and it was nice that the Spirits gave awards to films that couldn't afford to campaign (i.e. Shiva Baby) - but I haven't seen that soundbite repeated in any source (though they're probably doing her a favor, as you expect some people would interpret it as a dig at the Oscars). Kingsif (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your responses. To be honest, I am not entirely sure if ALT text is helpful, and it is a subject that I really should read more about as I have seen some conflicting opinions about it. I do not have a strong opinion, and I only brought it because it is something that seems expected for featured content. Thank you for the explanation for the Hetedik Sor source. That makes sense to me. You are right that the pandemic is not over, and I appreciate that you added context to this part of the list. For better or for worse, a lot of the Academy nominations and wins boil down to their campaigns. I doubt CODA would have had the same success if Apple TV+ did not distribute and promote it. I've seen some speculation that CODA wins may translate to bigger company and distributors picking up more films at festivals like the Sundance Film Festival, and I'd be interested in seeing if that really happens. I'd imagine that this film helped Emma Seligman in the end as critics were very positive about it.
  • Anyway, apologies for that long paragraph. I support this FLC for promotion. It does look somewhat different than other film awards list which put all the awards and nominations into a singular table, but I can see the advantages to this set-up and I do not really have a strong opinion either way. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 00:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't be surprised if more studios picked up films out of festivals, especially streaming; there was actually a Variety (VIP) article that I think was a source in this list but has been replaced, which inferred the same about Shiva Baby and various other TIFF/SXSW/Sundance/general fall festival films - saying that streamers were picking up the audience award winners to try and boost films that would otherwise be acclaimed but obscure. It didn't really happen, but maybe with CODA's win, there will be even more attempts, and surely a few more hits. Apologies for continuing your long paragraph, and thanks for the support! Kingsif (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: I was looking over the article yesterday, and think it may be improved by swapping the third and fourth paragraphs of the lead (para 2 ending on an Oscars discussion will lead into current para 4 mentioning similar, and the end of current para 4 that kinda mentions lack of campaign will lead into current para 3 starting with another theory of fewer noms) - since you have already indicated support, I wanted to notify you before making the change. Kingsif (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the message. That sounds good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead. You actually sort of have a caption with that header bar, so just change it to be a standard caption instead.
  • I have done this for the non-collapsible tables. Adding this row, from my attempts to add it, at least, prevent collapsible tables from doing so properly, and these tables are already captioned in the first row, anyway (i.e. the first thing a screen reader will read, even if not labelled as a caption). As suggested, due to the section headers, I have made the captions screen reader only. Kingsif (talk) 13:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the tables shouldn't be collapsible. The tables are the primary information for the list, and as per MOS:COLLAPSE should not be collapsed or even collapsible as a result. Captions are also not just for reading out by screen readers, but allow screen reader software to jump straight to a named table the same way a visual reader can scroll right to a table since it looks different than plain text. Why do you want the tables to be collapsible? --PresN 13:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just how I've seen it in similar articles; consistency is what I prioritized before getting into functionality (and my accessibility knowledge is mostly limited to colors). Kingsif (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ! ''[[Another Magazine|AnOther Magazine]]'' becomes !scope=row | ''[[Another Magazine|AnOther Magazine]]''. If the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • @PresN: I have done this for the year-end rankings; the other tables don't already use rowspans, should I also add to those? (The row header box does not seem to be used for these lists among FLs of similar scope, is why I ask). Also, is there any way to center back the text; adding a style parameter doesn't do it. Kingsif (talk) 13:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the left-aligning is because of the plainrowheaders class on the table, if you remove that they go back to being centered. When you do that, though, you'll see that you're actually doing some odd things with bolding- you can just remove the bolding marks, it's trying to double-bold them in the cases where you put the italics outside the link but the bolding inside for some reason. If you didn't know, in general, stick all of the ticks outside of the link, and if you want both italics and bold (in general, not in this case) you just use 5 ticks (2 for italics, 3 for bold) like this. And yes, all tables should use rowscopes - !scope=row normally, and !scope=rowgroup if the cell has rowspan=whatever, e.g. | rowspan="2"| [[Dorian Awards]] becomes !scope=row rowspan="2"| [[Dorian Awards]] - note the change to use a ! instead of a | at the beginning, that's what makes it a "header" cell instead of a regular one. --PresN 13:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Auto-bolding (goes inside) isn't my favorite thing, either ;) Thanks for the headers note. Kingsif (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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 23:32, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be all done! Thanks! Kingsif (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021 film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because awards season is over and I have provided sources for each award in this list. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • I'd add a link to the Three Witches article to the lede.
  • There is a red link for the 2021 IndieWire Critics Poll. That is okay as red links are helpful, but I am just curious if you think that a separate list could be created in the future?
  • I'd archive web sources like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to avoid any future headaches.
  • The citations are not consistent with including work/website and publisher or just the website. For instance, Citation 1 only has Deadline Hollywood while Citations 5 and 6 have Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic with their respective publishers. It looks like Citations 5 and 6 are the only ones that do this, but apologies if I overlooked one. I do not think the publishers for those two are necessary as they are very recognizable sites to a majority of readers.

You have done wonderful work with this list. My comments are incredibly nitpick-y and I would be more than happy to support this for promotion based on the prose. I really should watch this film one day as the cast and crew are excellent and I have always enjoy the play, although admittedly it has been years since I last read it or saw an adaptation of it. Best of luck with this FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Link added. Template:IndieWire Critics Poll exists so that's why there's a red link. Sources have been archived. I am using Template:Cite Rotten Tomatoes and Template:Cite Metacritic, which add the publishers automatically and cannot be removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding to my points. I honestly keep forgetting about those templates and your response makes sense to me. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. 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. (The number of accolades is sufficient to justify a separate page from the film itself, I think.)
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the one image seems fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • For row scopes, e.g. !scope=row, if the cell spans multiple rows via 'rowspan' then the scope should be changed to use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 23:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PresN: Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
  • I've added a link I thought would be helpful, but nothing else to pick at here, so happy to support. AryKun (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1948[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's number 7 in my series of nominations for the early years of what is now the Billboard R&B/hip hop chart. In this particular year we start to see some of the earliest rumblings of rock and roll as Wynonie Harris hits the top spot with "Good Rockin' Tonight". As ever, feedback most gratefully received! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few minor comments:

  • Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs redirects to Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs. Better to stick with the official title.
  • "two weeks later Lee returned to the top of the chart with the song "King Size Papa", which had a nine-week run at number one" - could be condensed to "two weeks later Lee returned to the top of the chart with the song "King Size Papa" for nine weeks". FrB.TG (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed the first one, would prefer to leave the second one as is if that's OK as although it's a bit longer I think it's slightly more grammatically correct -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Like it has always and forever been, after all the comments got resolved I'll support. GeraldWL 02:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Lonnie Johnson had the first number one on the best sellers chart." Full sentence no?
  • "in the United States in rhythm and blues (R&B)"-- repetitive use of "in"
  • "In the issue of Billboard dated January 3"-- you gotta establish that from here and beyond, you're concerning the year 1948.
  • "topped the juke box chart." But why is the previous mention of "jukebox" not have any spaces?
  • For the column headers ("Juke Box" & "Best Sellers"), shouldn't it be sentence case ("Juke box" & "Best sellers")?
  • I don't quite understand the "pictured in later life" phrases in the captions. Perhaps just say what year it was and do it for all the other images for consistency?
  • At the end of the "Chart history" section, perhaps a "Notes" subsection would be useful?
  • Link the publishers in the "Works cited" per consistency with the above references.
@Gerald Waldo Luis: - all done other than as noted above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Shah Rukh Khan[edit]

Nominator(s): —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is comprehensive enough. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:08, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
  • "Besides acting awards, he has been awarded with a number of state honours" => "Besides acting awards, he has received a number of state honours" would avoid the repetition
  • "falls in love with the character of Kajol" => "falls in love with the character played by Kajol"
  • "He was later awarded with the IIFA Award for Best Actor" => "He later received the IIFA Award for Best Actor" (as above)
  • None of the notes are complete sentences, so they should not have full stops
  • Ref 1 - I don't think "PR" is a person, so don't list it as the author
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 10:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Robin Williams performances[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk & FrB.TG (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating the list because we believe it provides an exhaustive list of Robin Williams's roles on stage and screen as well as other performances in video games. Please note that this is one of the co-nominators (Birdienest81) first filmography to be nominated for featured list status. This list was drafted over at User:Birdienest81/sandbox thirty-one. Warning: I have wisdom tooth removal on April 1, and therefore responses might be slow. Birdienest81talk 08:56, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "Williams then took on more serious parts in the comedy-drams" - typo on last word
  • "the musical animated" - animated musical, surely?
  • "Cameo, credited as Marty Fromage." - this doesn't need a full stop
  • "Frank|Reverend Frank}}" - what's going on here?
Well, since "Reverend" is merely a form of address and not actually his name, it should be sorted by Frank, don't you think?
Yes I do, but the issue was that the }} template was broken...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two Harv errors in the refs
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Chris, as always. All done except the Reverent part. FrB.TG (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:SNUGGUMS

  • While I don't see any licensing problems with File:Robin Williams 2011a (2).jpg, it feels somewhat repetitive to use a very similar shot to what's used in the infobox at Robin Williams. I'd recommend using a pic from a different film-related event rather than the same one the main page uses one from.
The ones I found worth using were from as early as 2006 and I wanted to use an image from his later years.
  • Contrary to what your use of the word "but" in "a critical failure but earned thrice its budget" implies, what critics think of a movie is a separate matter from how much money it grosses.
  • The body's last sentence (talking about work in the 2010s) misuses semi-colons. They're not supposed to be used for separating titles.
I thought the overuse of commas and and's might confuse readers but there do not seem to be many so changed to commas.
  • Using rowspans within filmography tables is bad practice and frowned upon.
  • You shouldn't use episode counts for main starring/major recurring roles.
  • "Bibliography" is discouraged as a vague section title that could also refer to works written by a subject. You're better off renaming it.

I believe the above can be resolved within a reasonable time. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Snuggums. All done unless stated otherwise. FrB.TG (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, and now I can support this nomination. The image review also passes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dank
  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Best of luck with the dentist visit!
  • Many titles beginning with "The" (and one that starts with "A") aren't sorting correctly when I click on the sort arrows.
Done.
  • I fixed some double-redirects but I didn't get them all (such as Louie (U.S. TV series) -> Louie (American TV series)). Check for double redirects in sortable table columns.
Checked all and found another one. Fixed.
  • Check for retrieval dates; I see that ref #125 needs one (and "Philadelphia" is misspelled, too).
The ref. has no external link so it wouldn't need a retrieval date. The other ones missing it also don't have URLs.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I really like the lead. 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 tables.
  • 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).
  • 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.
  • 6. It is stable. - Dank (push to talk) 02:31, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Dank. :) FrB.TG (talk) 07:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We're close enough for a support now, but check the sorting again. When I click on the sort arrow in the "Title" column in the first table, it sorts as follows: "... The Survivors, the Aristocrats, The Big Wedding ...". I looked at the coding and I'm not sure what's going on; someone may have broken Template:Sort ... which is used constantly at FLC, so that would be a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 13:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I only looked under roles. They should be fixed now. Thank you for the support. FrB.TG (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That does fix it, thanks, and I'm no longer seeing any evidence that Template:Sort is acting up. Strange. - Dank (push to talk) 17:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

  • "starred in films, television and video games throughout a career" — Suggesting to add Oxford comma after 'television' (if the article is in American English, which I'd assume as the subject actor is American)
  • "earned him his first Golden Globe Award and a Primetime Emmy Award nomination" — 'earned him his first Golden Globe Award and a nomination for Primetime Emmy Award' or 'earned him his nominations for first Golden Globe Award and Primetime Emmy Award"?
  • Suggesting to add an em-dash in the "Notes" column wherever there is nothing.
  • Ref#135 in the "Theatre" table is not center-aligned.
  • "p. 192-194" should be (1) pp. (2) en-dash instead of hyphen
  • "Crump, William D. (2017), How the Movies Saved Christmas: 228 Rescues from Clausnappers, Sleigh Crashes, Lost Presents and Holiday Disasters, Jefferson, North Carolina, United States: McFarland & Company, ISBN 978-1-4766-6488-0 " is listed, but there is no link pointing to that citation.
  • "Single Season Sitcoms, 1948-1979" — en-dash instead of hyphen
  • "TV Guide: Guide to TV {2006)" — something wrong with brackets?

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done except for the third point. I find the use of em-dash redundant since it's just as meaningless as an empty note. Not to mention it doesn't look very pretty either. Thank you for your review. FrB.TG (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first line of this review doesn't look right to me; I've left a comment and question on the reviewer's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing most of it. I support the list for its promotion as a FL. I have reverted back the addition of serial comma, as suggested at my talk page. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Drive-by comments on refs
  • A significant number of the refs do not list a publisher
  • Ref 25 is tagged as dead
  • The two general refs are both listed as having been retrieved in 2009 yet they (seemingly) source data right up to 2021 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be up to speed now. It's incredible how so many old links just completely break. Debartolo2917 (talk) 08:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Updates on links
  • Links have been updated and I have rescinded a nomination for the Cincinnati Bengals first-round draft pick page. One think to note, I changed the notes next to each draft pick to footnotes. I do not know if that is compatible with in-line citations in the rest of the page (currently sourced as just references without direct placement). Do you know of a way to separate footnotes with references? Debartolo2917 (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! style="{{NFLPrimaryStyle|Chicago Bears|border=2}};"|Year becomes !scope=col style="{{NFLPrimaryStyle|Chicago Bears|border=2}};"|Year.
  • 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. | [[1936 NFL Draft|1936]] becomes !scope=row | [[1936 NFL Draft|1936]].
  • Note that these apply to the "Key" table as well, though that table also needs a caption: 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 23:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of chief ministers from the Indian National Congress[edit]

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 07:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

  • I have few initial concerns about the notability of the list itself. This is just a huge compilation of list of all the chief ministers of a particular political party. Is there any reason why this meets WP:NLIST? Are there relevant reliable source discussion (not verifying) that "List of chief ministers from the Indian National Congress" is a topic of scholar interest? Because a collection of data can be classified in any possible manner, but Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. So, while I am not opposing now, I wanted to know your (and others) opinion regarding this. What further concerns me is that List of chief ministers from the Bharatiya Janata Party is already a FL, but my concerns yet stand. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for respoding. Honestly, I had no intention developing this list initially, but then I saw List of chief ministers from the Bharatiya Janata Party which is FL. I thought such lists might be meeting WP:NLIST, otherwise we would not had FL like this. In my opinion, such list should be relevant, also we cannot add it in main article. Moreover, we have several list including List of chief ministers from the Aam Aadmi Party, List of chief ministers from the Communist Party of India (Marxist). So, the idea of having a list that could possibly explain a political party's leadership in different states of India seems fine to me.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 09:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do have other lists, but I am concerned about the notability of all those lists, not just this one. Another thing to note is that we do have lists for CMs of individual states (like List of chief ministers of [state's name]). I presume all those lists have a column on the CMs political affiliation. So what information does this list/these lists add to the reader? All information available here is already available in individual lists (including name, constituency, term, assemble, etc.). I see this as a violation of WP:FL?#3c Additionally, if I am not wrong, most of the list is cited to http://www.worldstatesmen.org/India_states.html. Why is that particular source a WP:RS? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think such lists are useful if someone wants to know list of CMs for all states from a particular party, at one place; be it incumbant or previous. I have removed [[2]] ref. I do not know who added and what could be the reason. Also, I do not see its significance here.--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 13:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I presume that the reason for adding that source would be that it verifies the tenure and term of office of each CM. The individual references the list have do not verify that. For example, Ref#7 (after "Chief Minister of Andhra State") has no mention of either of the 2 chief ministers, or their tenure, etc. Currently, most of the list fails WP:V, and that was the only reference supporting everything. Assuming that other agree with the notability of the list, we'll still need inline citations verifying everything present in the table, which currently is not the case. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Honestly, I cannot explain about others than this since I am not a contributor to those lists. I can solved list of concerns raised with regards to this list. Besides, I am in process of adding sources to individual table. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 12:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • All of these comments apply to all tables.
  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! rowspan="2" |Name becomes !scope=col rowspan="2" |Name. If the cell spans multiple columns, then use !scope=colgroup instead. Note that in the case that you have two levels of column headers, both cells need colscopes.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1 becomes !scope=row | 1. If the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
  • The table-spanning cells (e.g. Chief Ministers of Hyderabad State (1948–1956)) can't be used. Not only do they result in weird results for screen readers (e.g. the screen reader reads out the first column header and the cell, then the second column header and the same cell again, etc. even though no column headers actually apply to the text in the cell at all), but they don't even work for fully-sighted viewers- just sort the table and they all stop being in any useful place. If you want to logically divide a table with three subsections into three parts, make it three tables or else move that information to a new column.
  • 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 23:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. Please allow me sufficient time to make the changes, since the list is quite lengthy. I will let you know after I address all concerns raised. Thanks. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 15:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @TheWikiholic: can you please help me resolving table issues raised here. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 13:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker world rankings 2018/2019[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

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

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
No issues, resolved ChrisTheDude Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Footnote 13 needs a reference.
  • I've mainly just glanced over the tables since they're so large.
  • That's all. AryKun (talk) 15:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All my concerns have been resolved. AryKun (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Refs 4 and 8 are missing retrieval dates.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I've done very minor copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine. Normally I eyeball the sort orders in the table columns, but the ones here are almost all numbers (which are probaby going to sort correctly), and there are a lot of them. I sampled the links in the tables.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). Except as noted above, all relevant retrieval (or archive) 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.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

  • "The events that made up the 1976–77 snooker season were the first to award players with ranking points" - as per my comment at the Snooker world rankings 2020/2021 review, this isn't correct. 1976 World Championship was before that season, as an example.
  • Suggest wikilining "Seeding" in "Seedings for each event were..."
  • Note 12: "Start ranking released by World Snooker does not match with the points at the end of last season." - is there a source for this? Is it known why?
  • Ref 4 is incomplete.
  • Ref 8 produces a "CS1 maint: url-status (link)"
  • I think that World Snooker refs should have World Snooker as the publisher, rather than WPBSA. (WPBSA is only the second largest shareholder in World Snooker's ownership company, behind Matchroom Sport, as mentioned here).
  • Some of the linked sources aren't archived. I suggest running IABot.
Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Colorado Scenic and Historic Byways[edit]

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

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!

Reywas92Talk 01:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Romania[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

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

AK[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
    @AryKun Fixed, thanks! Tone 13:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Most Played Juke Box Race Records number ones of 1947[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Comments from Pseud 14[edit]

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)[reply]
  • 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.

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

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)[reply]

AK[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Support, nothing else I could find. AryKun (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. 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. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support - Dank (push to talk) 02:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations[edit]

Snooker world rankings 1976/1977[edit]

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

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)[reply]


Comments by Vilenski[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MWright96[edit]

  • Lead: Clarify that the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association is professional snooker's governing body
  • 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
  • Lead: "The same points system, using results from 1973, 1974 and 1975 had been used" - repetition of "used(ing)"
  • Rankings prose: with the total number of point" - typo; points
  • Rankings prose: "A "-" symbol" - the hyphen should ideally be an en dash per MOS:DASH as it is in the table
  • 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)[reply]
  • Table: Think the title atop the table could do with expanding
  • Reference 4: The issue number for The Times reference is 59917
  • Reference 6: Mention that Lowestoft is in Suffolk in England for clarity

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

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)[reply]

AK[edit]

  • 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.
  • "results from 1973, 1974 and 1975 had" → "results from 1973, 1974 and 1975, had"
  • The alt text for the Higgins image doesn't need the comma.
  • That's it, not much to say here. AryKun (talk) 15:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, nothing else I could find. AryKun (talk) 02:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Angel Locsin filmography[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

  • "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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
      • @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)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !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)[reply]
Done. Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Anne Hathaway[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You'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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Many thanks, Chris. These should be sorted now. FrB.TG (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Pseud 14[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • For the image, I would clarify the campaign to avoid any ambiguity or confusion. I would also add ALT text for the image.
  • For this part, with a role in Christopher Nolan's superhero film, why not specify that she played Catwoman? You could use a link to the Catwoman in other media article. I am only asking because the lead names Fantine for Les Misérables.
  • I would include the Golden Raspberry Awards in the lead. It would balance the lead, and they are a notable award.
  • Hathaway has received two nominations for playing the Grand High Witch in The Witches (including the Golden Raspberry Awards mentioned above) so I think that is worth including at the end of the lead.

Great work with this list. Once my comments are addressed, I would be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. I think Hathaway is a very talented actress, but I have honestly not watched one of her films in a while. However, that is more so because I've fallen off of keeping up with films in general lol. Aoba47 (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Aoba, as always. All done. FrB.TG (talk) 15:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do watch some of her films in the future, although her recent works have been less than great. FrB.TG (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks good to me. I support this FLC for promotion. I remember that I tried watching The Hustle and The Last Thing He Wanted, but I couldn't get into either. That being said, I still pay attention to casting news about her future films. I might check out The Witches because her performance looks delightfully absurd, but I'm not crazy about the amount of CGI. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and support by PanagiotisZois[edit]

Source review (formatting and reliability) by PanagiotisZois

I want to point out that this isn't a full-blown source review. My comments focus primarily on the formatting of the sources end ensuring that they're all structured the same way, that the websites/publishers are always linked (not linked in some sources but not others), and that information isn't missing. I also looked at the reliability of the sources basedon on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The majority of the references come from reliable sources, so no problems there. I've included comments about some which I think can be improved.

  1. Source 4: I'm not sure if Yahoo! News is all that of a high-quality, reliable source. Since the source is about her character in Les Miserables being a prostitute and ill, I'm sure there are better sources.
  2. Source 9: The Academy should be wikilinked.
  3. Sources 11-13: The Alliance should be wikilinked.
  4. Source 19, 20, 26, 30: Variety should be linked.
  5. Source 29: Is BroadwayWorld considered a reliable source?
  6. Source 33: HitFix should be linked.
  7. Source 35, 36: The HFPA should be linked.
  8. Source 37, 38: Websites should be linked.
  9. Source 40: Gotham Awards should be linked. Lol, Gotham Awards and she played Catwoman.
  10. Source 42-46: Variety and other sources should be linked.
  11. Source 46, 49: Link HitFix.
  12. Source 51: Link Variety.
  13. Source 52: Link the National Board of Review.
  14. Source 54: Link the LA Times.
  15. Sources 56-59: Link the websites / publishers.
  16. Source 61: Link the Online Film Critics Society.
  17. Source 62 is missing the website / publisher.
  18. Sources 67 and 68 should probably include the publisher. As this is the Emmys, I'm guessing that would be the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences.
  19. Source 69: Link HitFix.
  20. Source 72, 80: Link the Hollywood Reporter.
  21. Source 74: Link the website.
  22. Source 78: Link SAG-AFTRA.
  23. Source 81: Is Awards Daily a reliable source?
  24. Source 82: Link HitFix.
  25. Source 87, 89: Link the LA Times.
  26. Source 88: Link HuffPost.
  27. Source 90: Link E!.
  28. Source 95: Link Washington D.C. Area Film Critics Association.

For now, these are the comments I have to make. I'll try my best to also perform a source review regarding verifiability. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these. I have decided to wiki-link sources publishers only on first instances. AFAIK, there are usually two standards: linking works on their first instances to avoid overlinking (especially in ones that are crowded with references)—this is usually my preference—or link them every time, although I have seen some not linking publishers at all. It makes me think there is no set rule for this. Otherwise, I have replaced the sources from Yahoo! and BroadwayWorld.
Regarding the 23rd point, Awards Daily's owner Sasha Stone is a noted blogger who was profiled by New York Magazine and is a member of Alliance of Women Film Journalists. It should be fine IMO. FrB.TG (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't say I necessarily like it, but it isn't really an issue with linking the websites in just the first references but not others. I'm glad to see you replaced some of the less-than reliable sources and added information in the ones that were missing it. But I see source #62 is still missing the website. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, ref. 62 does have a link. The ones that don’t are not available online, unfortunately. FrB.TG (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added in the publisher in source 62. One last nitpick I have is this: source #42 is the only one to list Variety's publisher; Penske Media Corporation. For consistency, unless you want to add the publisher in every other Variety reference, I'd recommend removing it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 22:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and thank you for the fix. I thought you were referring to the URL and not the missing publisher. FrB.TG (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I suck with Wikipedia terminology. Things are shaping up greatly. I'll try to post my remaining comments regarding verifiability soon. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source review (verifiability) by PanagiotisZois
  1. Sources 1 and 2 require subscriptions. I believe Wikipedia has icons for these types of situations.
  2. Source 7 does discuss Hathaway's role in Modern Love but not that she won an award. Maybe it would be more appropriate to have the sentence read as "That year, for the role of a woman with bipolar disorder in an episode of the anthology series Modern Love,[SOURCE] Hathaway earned...".
  3. Since sources 12 and 13 are the same, wouldn't it be better to either combine the two columns and use only one source, or have just one source be repeated using "ref=name"?
  4. I might be hallucinating, but from sources 19 and 20, it doesn't seem like Rachel Getting Married won a Critics' Choice Award for Best Cast.
  5. Source 27 is apparently dead. Change the url to "=dead".
  6. HitFix sources like 32, 33, 46, 49, 69, 82 are also dead.
  7. Source 49 doesn't state that Anne Hathawaye was nominated for Best Hero for Les Miserables. It was for The Dark Knight Rises, which the source in question doesn't state.
  8. Source 51 is apparently dead.
  9. Source 55 only references Hathaway's role in Les Miserables.
  10. Source 62 doesn't bring up any Desert Palm Achievement Award that Hathaway won.
  11. Source 63 should be viewed as dead, as the page doesn't exist anymore. Same with source 64.
  12. Source 65 doesn't state that Hathaway was nominated for The Intern.
  13. Source 67 is dead.
  14. Source 71 only states that Hathaway was nominated, not that she won.
  15. Source 74 doesn't seem to state that Hathaway was nominated for Les Miserables alongside The Dark Knight Rises, for which she won.
  16. Source 77 is dead.
Thank you for a rather exhaustive review, much obliged. To avoid messing up the numberization of your points, I am replying here to the points that require clarification. The ones I haven't responded have been done as suggested.
3. They are not the same source, one is for the winners, the other for nominees.
You're right. My bad. :|
4. They didn't and the list isn't claiming to either. It only says they were nominated.
12. Unfortunately, that is the only source I found for this but given that she only had The Intern released in 2015, I think it's okay this time.
15. There's a different source for her nomination in Les. FrB.TG (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Source 75 only discusses the leading acting categories, not supporting ones. I believe that's my final nitpick with the sources. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced now. FrB.TG (talk) 13:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last thing I have to say is this. I noticed that you changed all references to having their "|url-status" to be "dead", despite most of the sources still being active. I don't believe Wikipedia has a consesnus on this, but Wikipedia:Link rot seems to indicate that it's preferable for active sources to be listed as "alive". Having said that, I don't really view that as an "issue" with the page. They're all properly formatted, the majority come from pretty high-quality, reliable sources (granted, MTV News may not be BBC News, but it's appropriate), and are varifiable. I apologize for some of the mistakes I made during the review process, and am happy to pass the source review. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now, moving on to the prose review:

  1. I'd recommend clarifying that Hathaway's role in Get Real was a leading one.
  2. Similarly to The Princess Diaries, include the year of release for The Dark Knight Rises.
    1. Same with Les Miserables.
  3. I think there's something wrong with the Best Hero award for The Dark Knight Rises.
1 and 2 done but I don't understand your third point. What exactly is wrong there? Do you Hathaway unsuitable for the nomination in the category (as in Catwoman shouldn't considered a hero in TDKR) or is there something wrong in the article? FrB.TG (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem is that the information provided in that section goes in this order; first the Best Hero award, then The Dark Knight Rises. The two categories of "Recipient(s)" and "Category" have been mixed up. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my bad, and thank you for the fix. I do apologize for these little mix-ups. FrB.TG (talk) 14:56, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, no worries. Besides, it doesn't hurt to help out and make a few edits here and there during a FAC or FLC. Regardless, given its current state, I gladly give my support to this page for promotion to featured list status. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FLC director and delegates: Sorry for the ping but could I get a status update on this, if possible? Thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 11:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2012 NFL Draft[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. The 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Done. NSNW (talk) 13:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
;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)[reply]
    Done. NSNW (talk) 12:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
    All done. NSNW (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Fixed. NSNW (talk) 15:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Any more comments? NSNW (talk) 15:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take another look over the weekend -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
  • In the "Early entrants" section, "non-seniors" is linked on the second usage, not the first
  • "Prior to the 2012 draft, six out of the previous seven first-overall draft selections have been players who have entered the draft early" - tense is wrong, it should be "Prior to the 2012 draft, six out of the previous seven first-overall draft selections had been players who had entered the draft early"
  • There are still two images with fixed pixel sizes - remove the fixed sizes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All done. NSNW (talk) 22:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not done. The first two images beside the table still have fixed pixel sizes, which need to be removed. You need to remove the "185x185px" from the end of the Luck image and the "194x194px" from the end of the Tannehill image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:43, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Should be fixed now, for some reason a previous edit removing the pixel sizes didn't go through properly. NSNW (talk) 14:24, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hulk video games[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. The {{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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

This article almost looks great, with a few comments:

  • Image needs alt text.
  • Plus, I think that file should have a border, with a caption stating that it is the logo of the '62 comic book; the logo isn't representative of the entire Hulk franchise.
  • Remove the bold in "Hulk" per MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID.
  • "in Marvel Comics' Marvel Universe." Isn't this kinda repetitive?
  • "Several companies have developed entries in the franchise, including Adventure International, Probe Entertainment, Attention to Detail, Radical Entertainment, Edge of Reality, and Amaze Entertainment." Why does Radical Entertainment get two citations while others get one?
    • To cover both of Radical's games; each of the others only had one. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But apart from that, sources look good, and the list is fine as usual. GeraldWL 18:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aight looks good now. Support. GeraldWL 20:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • Couldn't the opening two sentences be combined to: The Hulk is a fictional Marvel Comics superhero who first appeared in the comic book series The Incredible Hulk in 1962? Something about the current format seems choppy to me.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but was there a reason given for why this character did not appear in video games for a decade (.e. between 1984 and 1994)?
    • None that I've seen. I can only speculate that Marvel was still new to the video game scene and more popular properties like Spider-Man and X-Men were safer bets at the time. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense to me and thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment for the last sentence of the lede. Four citations in a row seems like citation overkill to me. Is there a way to avoid this (i.e. citation bundling, etc.)?

Wonderful job with the list. My comments are relatively nitpick-y and once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That oughta do it. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
  • I think duplinking the game systems might be useful, but that's up to you.
  • No other comments, so will support on the basis of prose. Look forward to seeing the GTC. AryKun (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Drama Series[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • @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)[reply]
  • Think that's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

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

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

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

  • "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)[reply]
      • 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.
  • 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)[reply]

  • Support - sorry for the long wait! It drowned way below my watchlist until Aoba commented. GeraldWL 15:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
    • @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)[reply]
Support - good work. FrB.TG (talk) 18:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate some feedback on my FLC but to state the obvious, it is in no way mandatory.

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • For the Wilson Cruz image, I would include when the photo was taken in the caption.
  • Was there an official reason for the award not being given in 1992?
  • For this part, producers, writers, and / or actors, I do not think the spaces around the backslash are necessary.

Everything else looks good to me. Great work with this FLC. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 14:16, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To elaborate Aoba's point 1, typically in a caption extend the (pictured) parantheses to (pictured YEAR). GeraldWL 15:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The clarification was useful, thank you. @Aoba47: I added in the year and shortened the "and/or" part. As for why there was no award given in 1992... I honestly have no idea. GLAAD never released a statement, and given the time period, the GLAAD Media Awards weren't all that well-known and there isn't much information available, as is. I'm guessing GLAAD just didn't deem any drama series during that year as being worthy of nomination in this category, so they just omitted it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for addressing everything! I support this FLC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Version reviewed

  • For magazines like Playbill and Variety (magazine), etc., and maybe even newspapers like The New York Times and Los Angeles Times, etc., suggesting to add ISSN numbers. It is not a definite requirement, but advisable to add. You can easily find ISSN number in the infobox of respective Wikipedia pages of publications. Can also find at https://www.worldcat.org/.
    • Like 2165-1736 for Los Angeles Times?
      • Yeah. Either that one (web version), or 0458-3035 (print version) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • All right, I'll try and do that as quickly as possible.
  • Ref#5, #15, #37, #39 requires an en-dash (–) in place of hyphen. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done.
  • I am assuming that the second and last para of lead is a summary of the table, that is why no citations. Right?
    • Yes. :) All the information in those two sections is taken from the tables.
  • Other concerns:
    • I see blank white space between the infobox and the table of content, due to {{Clear}}
      • Removed. Although the downside is that if the "Contents" box is closed, it sandwhiches the 1990s section.
    • In this/these sortable table(s), each thing which deserves a link should be linked every time. For instance, ABC should be linked in all the instances in the table 2010s, etc.
      • Initially, that was the case but @Gerald Waldo Luis: suggested it'd be better if within a given year / ceremony, I only link a network that appears twice or more only the first time.
    • "1997 (8th)" and "1998 (9th)" rows do not have citations in numeric order ([12] should be before [13]). Check rest as well. Again, not a definite requirement, but advisable to do.
      • Yeah, I understand what you mean. The thing is, with every table, I've always put first the references that deal within a given ceremony's nominees and then the references about the winners. For this reason, would it be appropriate to leave them as is?

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passes the source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Bulgaria[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Fixed, thanks! Tone 21:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
    @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)[reply]
  • Support as my concerns have been addressed. AryKun (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

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

@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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Comments by A. C. Santacruz[edit]

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

Do we have a discussion about the single table vs multiple tables? I went multiple tables because I've been told it screen readers to use rowspans and colspans (I actually was trying to find a way around it for citations...) as well as allow the article to be illustrated. Of course, I can convert it back.
As for the row winners, done. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 03:27, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The single table format has been the trend for a while; ChrisTheDude recently traced it at another FLC. I've also used single-table formats for most of my FLCs, and I've found it useful because it allows sorting to be added. I wouldn't mind something like the FL Academy Award for Best Actress, which splits by decade, but splitting by year just adds too much whitespace, in my opinion. As to the rowspan/colspan part, I'm not sure what you're getting at, but those should be added to the tables. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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
  • 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)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 02:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* 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)[reply]
Looks all good now. Support and source pass. Nice work! GeraldWL 02:07, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A single comment from Panini![edit]

Accessibility and sources look good per the two above me, so only one thing is barring my support; I find it quite odd that Austin Wintory doesn't have a photo here, despite having the most awards and nominations. Could this image be cropped down and used? Panini! • 🥪 22:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to already be a cropped version available, here. GeraldWL 01:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done Image (re-)added. ~ Matthewrb Talk to me · Changes I've made 05:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good Job! Panini! • 🥪 13:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

58th Academy Awards[edit]

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

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

Comments
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*"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.

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • @PresN: Done: Added scope="row" to the tables.
--Birdienest81talk 02:50, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

  • "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)[reply]

  • @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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

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

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)[reply]
  • @Aza24: I have addressed your comments and made some adjustments based on them. For the LA Times sources, I found new links to the same article. Birdienest81talk 08:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

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)[reply]

  • "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.
  • Fixed: Added a sentence about Pasetta's role as director since Donen is mentioned in the first paragraphy. As for the sentences regarding the Sci-Tech awards, it feels out of place since the Ceremony Information section deals only with the main ceremony itself.
  • A summary of the reviews would be nice to see in the lead, maybe the second paragraph.
  • Fixed: Added phrase that mentions the ceremony received both positive and negative reviews similar to the 93rd Oscars intro.
  • At what parts do you think it should be referred to as the Academy Awards, and what parts as the Oscars?
  • Both terms should be used interchangeably. The Academy Awards should be used in the intro since it is formally introducing the reader to the award itself. The Oscars is used only for simplicity as an adjective like "Oscar history" or "Oscar winning".
  • "Flying Down to Rio" --> "Flying Down to Rio (1933)"
  • Fixed: Linked song to said film.
  • "MGM" --> "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer"
  • Fixed: Changed abbreviation to full name.
  • "Of the 50 grossing movies of the year"-- change movies to films for consistency.
  • Fixed: Changed "movies" to "films".
  • 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.
  • I'm extremely weary of using Rotten Tomatoes as a way to objectively generalize the critical consensus of a ceremony. I'm perfectly fine with using the Rotten Tomatoes listing for Oscars ceremonies to obtain an individual review of the show for reference. However, I caution make any sort of generalization In an earlier discussion on my talk page, I with other editors determined that using Rotten Tomatoes to measure the critical consensus of a particular show is pretty sketchy at best since its sample of reviews of a ceremony is quite small compared to say film reviews or television reviews. An example would be the 72nd Academy Awards which is missing some positive reviews from the Boston Herald and the Los Angeles Times. Furthermore, according to Inside Oscar 2 by Damien Bona, reviews of the show were more on the positive side of things as opposed to lukewarm as Rotten Tomatoes suggests. So the score of Rotten Tomatoes may have missed other reviews of the show that were positive. Finally, I think that three positive and three critical reviews are enough to maintain a neutral point of view or objectivity regarding ceremonies that aren't completely on the acclaimed side of things but not on the reviled side of thing either.
  • In the external links, "Official" --> "official"
  • Fixed: Un-capitalized "official".
  • "Channel" --> "channel"
  • Fixed: Un-capitalized "channel".
  • "at YouTube" --> "on YouTube"
  • Fixed: Changed "at" to "on".
  • Is the YT channel parentheses needed?
  • Fixed: Removed parentheses.
  • 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.
  • Fixed: Removed Filmsite link.
  • 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.
  • Fixed: Removed the first IMDb. Anyways, like the Filmsite link, it was just a rundown of the winners.
  • The Exlink subsections are redundant.
  • Fixed: Removed Exlink subsections.
  • Infobox: in the duration, there shouldn't be a comma
  • Fixed: Removed comma,
  • Credit roles must be in sentence case: "Art Director" --> "Art director"; "Set Decoration" --> "set decorator"
  • Fixed: Un-capitalized "director" and "decorator".
  • In the presenters table, I think you can put the Hank ref to the preceding sentence.
  • Fixed: Moved the Hank ref to the end of the sentence.
  • "Announcer of the 58th Annual Academy Awards" --> "Announcer of the award"
  • Sims was the announcer for the entire ceremony. Using the phrase above would imply he only announced the awards for the ceremony. In fact, Sims role in the ceremony did not involve awards. He simply introduced a few presenters, introduced the telecast, or announced what was coming up next or the telecast's sponsors ("Live from the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion in Downtown Los Angeles...", "Ladies and Gentle the president of the Academy of..." "The 58th Annual Academy Awards are being brought to you by...").
  • In the performance table, suggest adding year brackets to the films..
  • I don't see how that is necessary given that almost all of the songs performed on the telecast are were the Best Original Song nominees which were presumably from films released in 1985 (implied since the ceremony was meant to reward achievements from said year).
  • "MGM" --> "Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer"
  • Fixed: Likewise in the peformers table, changed abbreviation to full name.
  • "Here's to the Losers" "Once a Star, Always a Star" "Oh, Lady Be Good!" from what film?
  • Here's to the Losers is not originally from any film. It's actually a song by Frank Sinatra which I attributed to in the table. "Once a Star, Always a Star" was an song that was written exclusively for this ceremony. "Oh, Lady Be Good!" is from the musical Lady, Be Good which I attributed to in the table.
  • @Gerald Waldo Luis: I have made changes based on your comments unless stated otherwise.
--Birdienest81talk 10:13, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Drive-by comment
Thanks for your comment. Is there a discussion about the format's change? I would like to read it.--Brankestein (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know, but I will take a look around. I do know, though, that every "awards and nominations" list promoted to FL for at least the last three years has used the "one table" format..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the change can be traced to this FLC from 2018..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much!--Brankestein (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More comments
  • "80....28....nine" - as these are all in the same sentence and directly comparable, they should all be written as numbers
  • "eight Billboard Music Awards—the most by any Latin artist—," - that "-," looks really weird, is there a way to avoid that? It also occurs a bit further on
  • Wikilink reggaeton
  • "garnering his first and only recipient" - recipient is not the right word here. Probably just say "his first and only win"
  • "Daddy Yankee received the Latin Songwriter of the Year award by the" => "Daddy Yankee received the Latin Songwriter of the Year award from the"
  • In the table, all the entries starting with a " sort at the top followed by everything else. They should all sort based on the first actual letter(s), ignoring punctuation marks
  • The Big Boss Tour should sort under B
  • As the table is sortable, anything that is linked should be linked every time
  • Notes d and e should not have full stops as they are not complete sentences
  • "As of April 2018, the stream count for "Despacito" is 7.5 billion" - that was nearly four years ago, is there not a more up to date figure? If not, change "is" to "was"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your input! :) I have followed your comments, but is there a quick way to link everything? Also, I'm not managing to sort "¿Qué Tengo Que Hacer?" correctly, possibly due to the "¿". (EDIT: Nevermind, I just kind of sorted that song successfully). --Brankestein (talk) 00:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bunch of links for you. Usually when I need to add a load of links to the same thing, I open the page to edit, copy the appropriate chunk into WordPad and then do a search and replace. So I copied the whole of the table then did a s+r to replace "|Daddy Yankee" with "|[[Daddy Yankee]]" and it linked them all in one go -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! :) --Brankestein (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also fixed the sorting for "Despacito" but the other song titles still need doing so that they sort based on just the words, not including the inverted commas..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I sorted the rest of the songs but "El Amante" and "Problema", since they don't have Wikipedia pages, are automatically linked to wrong articles. Also, other songs with no Wikipages appear red and I can't add inverted commas without messing up the sorting. (EDIT: Nevermind, I resolved that). --Brankestein (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! No sabía que hablabas español :P --Brankestein (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Google Translate es muy útil :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by AJona1992
  • Latin music should be wikilinked
  • Article is riddled with weak prose: "all of them", "but none of them won", "as the only one to receive a", "his non-album singles"
  • "without wins." - unnecessary
  • "his singles" - he is not part of any group, not sure why emphasis is needed here.
  • Didn't know they gave out awards for songs that earned the title "Latin Song of the Decade". This is a list compiled by Billboard using MRC data, it's not a separate award that is voted on, but a distinguished feat.
  • Not sure why Time magazine's annual list of most influential people is even mentioned here.
  • Since when are hall of fame inductions included in the list of awards articles? – jona ✉ 18:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Do you suggest to remove Billboard's "Latin Song of the Decade" award? Also, the Hall of Fame induction is included because Daddy Yankee received a physical award for it (the same goes for the Latin Song of the Decade award). --Brankestein (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with any FL lists that contain that information. It is usually found in the artist's main article, that is why I found it strange. Unless any FL moderator or guideline suggest it is fine, then I'd suggest to remove it. – jona ✉ 16:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. I don't know how to change "his singles". Maybe "the singles" or "the albums' singles"? --Brankestein (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. I now support the article's nomination. – jona ✉ 12:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your feedback and support. --Brankestein (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

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

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

  • "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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Brankestein (talk) 17:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support by magiciandude

I 'support this list on the basis of sources being archived and the date format being consistent. Erick (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs written by Alexandru Cotoi[edit]

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

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

Comments on the lead
  • Image caption is not a complete sentence so does not need a full stop
  • "and has been releasing music" => "and has released music"
  • "Cotoi became a registered composer in 2003" - what does it mean to be a "registered composer"? Never heard of such a thing before
  • "In 2015, he contributed on" => "In 2015, he contributed to"
  • "for which he won a Grammy Award for Best Latin Rock, Urban or Alternative Album" - Cotoi did not win this award
  • "at number seven in Bulgaria as well" - last two words are not needed
  • "The album's lead single "Flashbacks"," => "The album's lead single, "Flashbacks","
  • "was the most played song in 2021 in the country" - which country? Two countries were mentioned in the first half of the sentence
  • "The Motans's and Emaa's "Insula"" => ""Insula" by the Motans and Emaa" is better IMO
  • I will look at the rest later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Hi there, thanks for reviewing the lead. I edited the lead accordingly except for your third point. By "registered composer" I meant that that was when he became a member of the Romanian union for composers and songwriters, which would allow him to legally publish songs and earn the rights to whatever song would have him as one of the composers. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, never heard of that as a thing. I would just say that he published his first songs in 2003. Also, I would remove the reference to the Grammy Award for Best Latin Rock, Urban or Alternative Album completely. Cotoi was one of seven credited co-writers of one song on a 12-track album, so his contribution to the whole album was relatively small and it's UNDUE to talk about the award the album won -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on image captions
  • "Cotoi was one of Baddest Girl in Town's songwriters, which appears on Pitbull's (pictured) studio album Dale." => "Cotoi was one of the writers of Baddest Girl in Town, which appears on Pitbull's (pictured) studio album Dale." Again, I would remove the mention of the album's Grammy, as it isn't really relevant to Cotoi.
  • "He further co-wrote her 2021 single "Up"." => "He also co-wrote her 2021 single "Up"." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on the table
  • Anything that starts with the word "The" should sort based on the next word
  • That's it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed! Sebbirrrr (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on references
  • If possible replace Tidal references to credits with articles (a lot of work to check if there is article about particular song and exactly mentions "Writer(s)" not composers etc.) or other store with no login required. To the rest of Tidal's references add note like "login required to acces content" or is there other way to acces credits? From what I can see there is no way to access data with "View page source" option. I think credits were available at Tidal a few years ago so you can check if there are old archived versions in Web Archive. Eurohunter (talk) 07:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are links to archived versions of Tidal pages to credits but you can't login there to access content so there is no rason to keep them (atleast that one I have checked). As above they would have to be replaced with older open archived version or replaced with article or the other store. Eurohunter (talk) 07:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't have any luck with the web archive but I replaced all Tidal sources with Spotify, where you don't need to log in. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • The ALT text for double-dagger should not be 'dagger', but what it represents, in this case: 'single release'
I'm a bit confused since I'm using a dagger (not a double-dagger) and the alt text for it is 'Song released as a single'. Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per [3], only one dagger has ALT text "Song released as a single". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The image was not uploaded nor received by me though. Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I mistaken "uploaded" with "nominator". Though I can WP:AGF on its licencing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But that archived link does not verifies the licencing ... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the image to File:Pitbull,_2012_(2).jpg whose licensing is verified.Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !style="background-color: #d54974; color: white;" |{{abbr|No.|Number}} becomes !scope=col style="background-color: #d54974; color: white;" |{{abbr|No.|Number}}.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ![[Paškal Buconjić]] becomes !scope=row | [[Paškal Buconjić]].
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 19:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PresN (talk · contribs) I think I've got it. Thank you! --Governor Sheng (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

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)[reply]

  • "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)[reply]

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

Snooker world rankings 2020/2021[edit]

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

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

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

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

I have made all of the changes above @Kavyansh.Singh and ChrisTheDude:. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for image review. Would appreciate if you could just do an image review for this nomination (just 1 image) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
    OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Suggest running IABot to archive all sources possible. (e.g. 9, 10, and 26)
  • 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).
  • Refs 7 and 11 are the same source as each other.
  • Ref 12 looks incomplete.
  • With some script or other, Refs 12 and 13 show "CS1 maint: url-status"
  • "The events that made up the 1976–77 snooker season were the first to award players with ranking points" - Source says "Rankings were only introduced after the World Championship of 1976." The first offical ranking list (Snooker world rankings 1976/1977) used points based on 1974 to 1976 results, using a system that was published in 1975 (or possibly even earlier). I think the text could be reworked (e.g. "...were first used in the the 1976–77 snooker season...") even though what's there now is a fair reading of the source used. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Probably all a bit of a muchness, but I have made the change. I think it's mostly relevant that the points only made a difference during this season. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Book of Boba Fett characters[edit]

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

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

Source review[edit]

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)[reply]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
====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)[reply]
  • "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
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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
  • "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"?
  • "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
  • "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)[reply]
    • Thanks for the amazing detailed review so far. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 18:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @ChrisTheDude: Hey I've done what you have said, but I also had some questions. Thanks again! ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 23:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
====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
  • "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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]


Further comments
  • "The main villans of the series is the Pykes Syndicate" - the third word is spelt incorrectly, and as the subject is plural the verb should be "are" not "is"
  • "She also went on to say that there's" => there is, not there's
  • "Cinema Blend's Erik Swann praised Fenned Shand" - spelt wrong
  • "help Boba Fett with the imminent war coming" - imminent and coming mean the same thing, so remove the latter
  • "Clint Eastwood’s character a The Man with No Name" => "Clint Eastwood’s character The Man with No Name"
  • "Blake Hawkins of Comic Book Resources liked 8D8 writing " => "Blake Hawkins of Comic Book Resources liked 8D8, writing "
  • "TheWrap's Drew Taylor disliked 8D8 calling, him" => "TheWrap's Drew Taylor disliked 8D8, calling him"
  • "Krrsantan doesn't listen" => "Krrsantan does not listen"
  • "he saw him rip off the arm of a Tradoshan" - last word is spelt wrong
  • "When asked about if whether she knew" => "When asked whether she knew"
  • "She also said that most of the filming was done on the backlot with some of it in the volume" - what's "the volume"?
  • "He continues to say that a cyborg gang keeps stealing his water and ask Fett to stop them" => "He continues to say that a cyborg gang keeps stealing his water and asks Fett to stop them"
  • "After Fett finds Shand half-dead, he aides her" => "After Fett finds Shand half-dead, he aids her"
  • In the Tusken Kid section, "kid" is sometimes capitalised and other times not
  • "Later, she teaches Fett how fight" => "Later, she teaches Fett how to fight"
  • "the scales of a giant sand creatures" - either creatures or a creature, but not a creatures
  • "who are of the Order of the Night Wind, and try to kill Boba Fett" => "who are of the Order of the Night Wind and try to kill Boba Fett"
  • Refs at the end of the Pyke Traveler and Pyke Boss sections are not in correct numerical order -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of lagomorphs[edit]

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

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

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

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Goood, why did you have to make me blush with the lead image ;-;

But anyways, comments: GeraldWL 17:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Members of this order are called lagomorphs. Lagomorpha currently comprises 107 extant species"-- kind of a weird repetition when read, "lagomorphs. Lagomorphia". "It" can be a good replacement for the latter, considering the previous sentence is "Members of this order are called lagomorphs."
  • "the larger rabbit and hare group and smaller pika group"-- multiple use of "and"
  • "11 cm (4 in) long"-- shouldn't this have hyphens? Like "11 cm (4 in)-long"? Most likely not, just wondering.
  • No, it shouldn't have one; there's some examples at WP:HYPHEN that show it, though it focuses on not doing e.g. "11-cm long" --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The domestic rabbit subspecies of the European rabbit has been domesticated"-- I suggest a link to the last word, as having two words of "domestic" that are unrelated to each other is just weird.
  • "Leporidae, containing the hares and rabbits"-- I suggest changing "containing" to "comprising" for consistency, and "containing" just sounds kinda off in context.
  • Should "families" be linked?
  • "The 73 extant species of Leporidae"-- extant duplicate link
  • Link cottontail rabbits
  • Sylvagus (linked just prior) redirects there, since it's the common name for the genus (I prefer to link to the formal genus names when possible for consistency, since most genera don't have articles at their common name). --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should digit-ize "thirty-three", "twenty-seven", and "thirty-four", considering you wrote 12 in digits; plus many people including me have trouble reading numbers above 20 in words.
  • Done, was trying to be consistent but I agree it's a pain. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the bullet lists, shouldn't each of the animals be linked?
  • Additionally, within the conventions and classification sections, you might wanna link "genera", "extinct", "extant", "order", "Lagomorpha", and "families". The body is a whole different part of the article than the lead, so typically relinking is needed.
  • "The following classification is based on the taxonomy described by Mammal Species of the World"-- perhaps a lil bit description of the work? Like "the book" or "the reference work" etc? Don't want readers to keep on tapping links.
  • "Members of the Leporidae family"-- assuming my previous point on the linking is implemented, this link here must be removed as duplicate.
  • In the table, the Oryctolagus image is also the same as the lead image. Isn't it a kind of repetition? I suggest changing another image for the table (not for the lead please I love that lead image so much)
  • Swapped the table image, hope you like the new one too. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also for the Oryctolagus row: the map images have two colors but you only highlight one as relevant; is there a way the orange can be removed? Also I don't think it's pink, more like purple.
  • Oh, looks like someone made a new version of the image a couple weeks ago that changed the color. Mentioned what orange is for instead of removing it, I think it's notable that it's not native to most of its range --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like this is a clearer picture for the Romerolagus, what do you think?
  • Agreed, changed. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Annamite Range in Southeast Asia and Sumatra"-- but Sumatra is part of SEA, though (i should know i live here). That sentence also implied that the Annamite also comprises Sumatra but the article says "Laos, Vietnam, and a small area in northeast Cambodia".
  • Ah, yeah, that was worded badly. One species is in Sumatra, and the other in the Annamite mountains (in Laos and Cambodia, aka in SEA); reworded to "Sumatra and the Annamite Range in Laos and Vietnam" --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Thanks so much for the detailed review! Addressed all of your points, sorry for taking so long. --PresN 19:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks all good now, and that new Oryctolagus-- ajfvksjdbcdcs how can I not like it! But anyways, it seems like this article is all good now, so Imma support. Good stuff! :) GeraldWL 02:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

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

Comments from TRM[edit]

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

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

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

Pershing House[edit]

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

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

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

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

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

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

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

I support the list for promotion as a FL. Would appreciate if you could review this FLC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
reference info for Pershing House
unnamed refs 58
named refs 3
self closed 4
cs1 refs 96
cs1 templates 121
sfn templates 7
use xxx dates dmy
cs1|2 dmy dates 25
cs1|2 mdy dates 2
cs1|2 last/first 11
List of cs1 templates
  • cite book (2)
  • cite news (19)
  • cite web (100)
List of sfn templates
  • sfn (7)
explanations
This citation template misuses |location=. That parameter is to hold the publisher's location (city usually) when the source was published; does not usually apply to on-line sources.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Removed - thanks for catching this. — Maile (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

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

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • I do agree with you that lead sentence needed to be punched up a bit. I may have not done what you had in mind, but I did change it so the reader immediately knows its importance. — Maile (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was admitted to the Union" link. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Comanche. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider linking Fort Sill. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "happened in" passive, maybe "took place in" Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "equivalent to $457,931" probably only need nearest $1000. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "lived in the house.[7] The house has.." new para but still repetitive reading. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the American Expeditionary Forces in " link. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "five-star General of the Armies" link. Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Isaac D. White, who" why not linked here if he's linked in the table? Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
It is now looking fine for me. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:29, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Good, then. — Maile (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
Done - taken care of. — Maile (talk) 15:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • Several notes are fragments so don't need full stops, check them all.
Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peninsula Campaign," our article doesn't capitalise the C.
Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Spanish-American War" en-dash not hyphen. Several of these.
Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Philippine Insurrection" link?→Philippine–American War
Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Army Chief of Staff.
Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Philippine insurrection" capital I for consistency.
Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) - see above, this is correctly the Philippine–American War[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
I've removed the term "Southern Dept" altogether, but linked VIII Corps Area. — Maile (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Veteran of the Spanish–American War and the Philippine–American War," full stop, not comma.
Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moro Rebellion" link?
Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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[reply]
  • "the Guadalcanal Campaign" small c.
Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Distinguished Service Medal" link.
Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 442nd RCT - any point in this as you never use this abbreviation.
Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC) removed[reply]
  • "Ryukyu Islands" link.
Done - — Maile (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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.[reply]
Added note: "director J13 operations" no longer exists in the table. — Maile (talk) 22:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Source review – Pass[edit]

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Ref 3 is asked to support material re Comanche chief Parker. I don't see it in the source material.
  • "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)[reply]
  • Refs 6 and 7 appear to be the identical document.
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Yeah ... the result of a decade of little tweaks. 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
  • @Wehwalt: I've had my second wind now, and am ready to finish this.
  • The sources should now match what is in the Notes column. There are 50-plus names on this list, and I went through all of them. As noted elsewhere above, the NRHP list ends with 1973 - beyond that year, we would be dealing with BLP.
  • Because the NRHP form is 18 pages long, I moved the sourcing reference down to "Bibliography", and have used SFN references to point to specific pages. In particular, if you look at SFN reference by the heading of the table, you'll see the names and dates of their residency can be found on pp. 6-7. Hopefully, this will cut down on confusion as to why this is a list article - because the NRHP provided the list itself.
  • There are numerous sites out there in support of military history, and I've checked them out as best I could for reliability. — Maile (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, will be back to this ASAP.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Resuming. Seems cleaned up. I haven't checked every ref, but done a sampling and they seem in order, with a few quibbles.
  • You say "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." but reference 5 says "In August 2009, the 502d ABW reactivated at JBSA-Fort Sam Houston to provide installation support to Joint Base San Antonio, which encompassed JBSA-Fort Sam Houston, -Lackland, -Randolph, -Camp Bullis and other DOD locations in and around San Antonio." That reads to me like Joint Base-San Antonio was in operation in 2009.
  • Reference 11 has limited/subscription access and should be noted as such. page
  • I can't access it now myself. Swapped it out for ref NRHP page 4, says the same thing. — Maile (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an aside, this and associated pages are a good reference on the career of officers who were West Point graduates.
  • Regarding Isaac D. White, our article on him says he was buried in Pine Hill Cemetery, Peterborough, New Hampshire. I don't have a good source on that though.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cannot confirm the burial except to say Find A Grave, which we aren't supposed to use, says both he and his wife are buried there. My perception is that this was a very private man, as there were very little San Antonio mentions of him in the various newspaper archives while he was commanding officer. I think he kept a low profile. — Maile (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wehwalt: are you finished with this source review, or are you just taking a pause here? I know it can be a lot to wade through. — Maile (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done. Passes.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delegates question[edit]

  • @ChrisTheDude, PresN, Giants2008, and The Rambling Man: Curiosity - what happens if this stalls out here? Looks like TRM possibly doesn't feel I've adequately addressed all of his issues, probably on his question of why this should be a list, but my answers are within the style I've learned from a decade (or so) time period I've been working on NRHP lists-articles, and I've done a lot. So, while I'm in line with the American NRHP style regarding lists, he and I have to agree to disagree on that point. So, if this nomination never has any other feedback but what is here, is the nomination dead on arrival? — Maile (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Melon Music Award for Album of the Year[edit]

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

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

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

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

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)[reply]

  • "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)[reply]

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)[reply]

List of ochotonids[edit]

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

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

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

Image review — Pass[edit]

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

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

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

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • "Diet: ... bird brains": unexpected.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose and made-to-order table coding seem fine. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 11:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • @AryKun: All done, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 14:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

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

List of Angelic Layer episodes[edit]

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

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

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

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • 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)[reply]

Timeline of the 2020 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

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

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

Image review from Kavyansh — Pass[edit]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

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

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • 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)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, The Rambling Man, I have addressed these comments. Thank you. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 20:43, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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


Comments from Dank

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

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • 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)[reply]

List of female chess grandmasters[edit]

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

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

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

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

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

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

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

Drive-by comment[edit]

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

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

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

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

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

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
      • 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)[reply]
        • 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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "in large part by" -> " largely by" or "mostly by"?
  • "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)[reply]
  • "As of 2021, all female...." it's now 2022...
  • "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)[reply]
  • "and just the second" remove "just".
  • "women still make up a small fraction of the total" could be specific here.
  • "obtain the Grandmaster (GM) title" you don't need to show us the abbreviation again at this late point in the article...
  • "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)[reply]
  • "using an Elo rating system, which" ditto.
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Image review — Pass[edit]

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

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

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

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • "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)[reply]
  • "over a history that has spanned over " over/over, maybe make the second one "more than"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • Plus quick repeat, perhaps use "disbanded" the second time?
    Wording switched per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • Could link Mechanized infantry as it's jargon.
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mid-90s" 1990s.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Roman emperors[edit]

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

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

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

Source review - pass[edit]

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

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

Passing source review. User:Iazyges

More comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

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

Support Comments from Iazyges[edit]

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

Comments from Reywas92[edit]

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

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

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "after major roles played by the populist dictator and military leader Gaius Julius Caesar". This is vague and does not help the reader. I would delete.
Deleted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the position gradually grew more monarchical and authoritarian". A person can be authoritian, not a position.
replaced "the position" with "emperors". Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the late third century, after the Crisis of the Third Century" Repetition of third century. I think you could delete "In the late third century".
Deleted. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Diocletian formalized and embellished the recent manner of imperial rule. The period thereafter was characterized by the explicit increase of authority in the person of the emperor, and the use of the style dominus noster (our lord)." This is vague and wordy. How about "Diocletion increased the authority of the emperor and adopted the title dominus noster (our lord)".
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and there were no true objective legal criteria for imperial acclamation beyond proclamation or acceptance by the Roman army, the event that most often came to signify imperial accession". "legal criteria for imperial acclamation" sounds wrong. It also does not seem from what you say below to signify imperial accession. Proclamation of a general by his troops was often the first stage, but as you say below he had to defeat his rivals to be regarded as legitimate.
I see what you mean; changed to just "there were no true objective legal criteria for being acclaimed emperor beyond acceptance by the Roman army". The point is that there was no legal obligations emperors had to fulfill before being proclaimed that stopped any successful general or politician from being proclaimed emperor by their supporters. Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say that Tiberius was co-emperor with Heraclonas in 641, but Tiberius is not listed. Then Constantine IV ruled with Heraclius and another Tiberius (659–681), but neither is listed. If they do not qualify for the list, then surely they do not qualify to be shown as co-emperors?
There is a note hidden away in the entry for Magnus Maximus that somewhat explains this; co-emperors in the Byzantine period constitutionally held the same title as senior emperors (i.e. both were basileus) and they thus qualify as emperors, both in a general sense and per the inclusion criteria. They are however rarely listed as such in lists of emperors in WP:RS (in contrast to ancient Roman junior co-emperors such as Diadumenian) and are not counted in enumerations of the senior emperors (Tiberius III would be Tiberius V if counted "correctly"). Here we solved the conundrum by not giving co-emperors full entries of their own but still mentioning them - this appears to be how some other lists handle things (the List of English monarchs for instance includes Henry the Young King but not with a full entry). They can't have full entries in the list because that will produce an unrecognizable list and confuse readers in regard to the numberings but they should not be wholly excluded either because then the list is not comprehensive enough. Perhaps this could be solved with adding some more clear explanation somewhere? Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest a footnote for co-emperors who do not have an entry, as with your note explaining the approximate dates in the year of the six emperors. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify; an individual footnote for every co-emperor without an entry (could this help to solve the point below as well) or an overarching footnote for all of them explaining their status as junior rulers (perhaps a slightly altered version of the footnote already in Magnus Maximus's entry)? Ichthyovenator (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was not thinking of separate footnotes for each one, but a single footnote, as with {{Efn||name=sixemperors}}, for co-emperors who do not have their own entry in the table, explaining the reason for their exclusion. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a note with explanation to all entries that mention co-emperors. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be helpful if you distinguished between different emperors with the same name such as Tiberius, for example "Tiberius, son of Heraclian" and "Tiberius, son of Constans II"
I've added "son of" distinguishers to cases were confusion is likely (several co-emperors with the same name in quick succession, co-emperors with the same name as senior emperors etc.). Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
Changed to your suggestions. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:00, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Is this review still waiting on something? I'm happy to take a look if the coords feel like more comments are needed, but frankly, the reviews seem to all be there. Aza24 (talk) 21:29, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of prime ministers of Italy[edit]

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

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

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


Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

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

Comments

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

Ping me when everything is sorted and I will re-visit :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: ok, I think everything is sorted! :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: What about the references column? I think it might be removed. Since all the 100+ references are just links to pages of the same archive website [4], it think it might be sufficient to add a link to the homepage of this website, e.g. in a last row in both tables. Furthermore, other featured list articles like List of chancellors of Germany do not show such references column in their tables. --Yakme (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Simply using the frontpage of storia.camera.it as a single "source" would absolutely not be acceptable in a FL as the frontpage by itself does not reference any of the info in the tables. List of chancellors of Germany was promoted more than three years ago and I don't think would pass FLC in its current form -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: For the Republican period, I found this link which contains all the governments, and also links to each specific government where one can find more details. --Yakme (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just leave the references as they currently are? There's nothing wrong with them...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by Reywas92[edit]

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

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

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

Comments by Dudley[edit]

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

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

Nick.mon nudge. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Ok, I've fixed it. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • 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.
    • The problem here is that we have dozens of parties involved in Italian goverments. I'll try to do something to add them to the key, but I sincerly think it would be quite confusing. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:42, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

@Nick.mon: Are you still working on this nomination? --PresN 00:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson albums discography[edit]

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

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

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

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


Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

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

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

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

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 16:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Why cant those links in the See also hatnote be moved to the See also section instead?
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest using the original crop of the infobox image, since the current one's blurry
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has sold 89 million certified albums in the US"-- change "US" to "United States"
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album peaked at 14" --> "It peaked at 14"
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HHe followed the debut album with Ben in the same year. It peaked at five on the Billboard Pop Album Chart and was certified silver by the British Phonographic Industry." Kinda repetitive, suggest "In the same year, he released another album, Ben, which peaked at five on the Billboard Pop Album Chart and was certified silver by the British Phonographic Industry."
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson's next two studio albums were Music & Me and Forever Michael. These two albums were released in 1973 and 1975 respectively." --> "Jackson's next two studio albums were Music & Me (1973) and Forever Michael (1975)."
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1975, Jackson signed to Epic Records. Jackson's fifth studio album, and the first with Epic Records, Off the Wall, was released in 1979." --> "In 1975, Jackson signed to Epic Records, and released his fifth studio album, Off the Wall, four years later."
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Billboard hot 100" --> "Billboard Hot 100"
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was nominated for two Awards"-- decapitalize the A
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It became Jackson's first"-- change "Jackson's" to "his"
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first to become the United States’" --> "the first to become the U.S.'"
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the links on the texts "Billboard 200", "9x platinum", and "Billboard Top LPs & Tapes" as they're duplicate
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It won a record-breaking eight Grammys at the 1984 Grammy Awards, including Album of the Year. Jackson also won a record-breaking eight Awards at the 1984 American Music Awards." This can be shortened to "It won a record-breaking eight awards at the 1984 Grammy Awards (where it won Album of the Year) and the 1984 American Music Awards."
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "record-breaking five number ones." What does "five number ones" mean?
five number one Singles.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bad was certified 11× platinum by the RIAA. With sales of over 35 million copies sold worldwide, Bad is one of the best-selling albums of all time." This can be shortened to "With a certification of 11× platinum by the RIAA and sales of over 35 million copies worldwide, Bad is one of the best-selling albums of all time."
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album was Jackson's first since Forever, Michael (1975)"-- remove "(1975)" as repetitive.
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one on the US"-- change "US" to "U.S." for consistency
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As part of this deal, two posthumous albums of previously unreleased tracks were released with Michael in 2010 and Xscape in 2014." --> "As part of this deal, two posthumous albums of previously unreleased tracks were released: Michael (2010) and Xscape (2014)."
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The table caption must be in title case. For example, "List of Studio albums" --> "List of studio albums"
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the format types should be linked at first mention
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And the "Records" shouldn't prob be ommitted, for example "Motown" --> "Motown Records"
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Got to Be There column, "World" --> "WW"
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should probably add Template:Abbr in the abbreviations, for example {{Abbr|WW|Worldwide}} which creates WW
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can omit the abbreviation in the section heading, I think it's too specific and the table caption handles that well
Gerald Waldo Luis Is that necessary? I think one editor asked me to add it because it's necessary for mobile phone users. Feel free to correct it or me if they were wrong.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I opened the mobile version, and I also have the Wikipedia App. None of them omit the table caption, so yeah. GeraldWL 16:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "List of Compilations albums" must be "List of compilation albums" without the s, considering our article for it is called Compilation album. Keep the section name tho, the s is valid there
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've worked in an electronic store for two years, but I've never heard of "CD/DVD". Mind clarifying?
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 08:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references are inconsistent. For telegraph.co.uk, you have "Daily Telegraph" in one reference but "Telegraph" in another. You also need to determine whether you want the publication name to be linked or not. Also titles that are in foreign language must have a translation in the "trans-title" parameter.
Gerald Waldo Luis The telegraph issues are fixed. Can you please provide the reference numbers where the publication and a trans-title parameter are needed?.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's ref 60, 107, 147, 152, 153, 154, 155, 158, 161, and 165 for the trans-title. There's also some other foreign-language citations without a language parameter. For the publication, you have ref 2 (CNN), ref 7 (RIAA, which must be referred to by its full name), ref 10 (Simon), ref 11 (New Yorker), ref 15 (Grammy.com must be changed to Grammy Awards), and many more unlinked but in other places linked. There's also consistency: ABC News is in =website at the first citation but is =publisher on others. The list is honestly exhaustive, so I can help you fix it if you want. GeraldWL 16:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis I am open to any assistance on the remaining issues and bettering any part of this article. Please, be my guest. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gerald Waldo Luis I have fixed the publication issues and added trans- title parameter for references 60 and 106. I don’t believe that the remaining need a trans-title parameter since they do not have a title in foreign languages. Please have a look at my edits and please provide the reference numbers if there are more issues. Thanks.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


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

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • 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)[reply]
  • Comparable figures should be all numerals or all words (numbers of each type of album...)
Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "later known as The Jacksons" for consistency, shouldn't that be "the Jacksons"?
Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "still part of The Jackson 5" etc etc.
Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • " on the Billboard Pop Albums Chart and " consistency needed on format of Billboard here. Check all others.
Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 03:15, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • "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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • "It has sold over six million copies" the source says "reportedly six million".
Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and The Essential Michael Jackson" why is "The" outside the link?!
Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 07:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "until at least 2017" it's 2022, so what now?
Fixed.TheWikiholic (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's the lead reviewed. Plenty to do here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:39, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

  • "Since his death, ... posthumously released" — doesn't these both mean same?
Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jackson made his debut at the age of five" — which year? 1963?
No, 1964. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the same year" — remove 'In'
Done. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was certified Gold" v. "was certified silver" — Is there a reason why 'G' is capitalized but 's' is not?
Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "four years later in 1979" — In this particular case, I don't think mentioning year is important. We know 1975 + 4 = 1979
Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It influences artists" — Should be in past tense, I think
Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "9× Platinum" v. "34× platinum" v. "11× platinum" v. "8× platinum" — check capitalization for all of these as well as others
Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on the U.S. Billboard 200 chart" — Italicize Billboard?
Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 5 paragraphed lead is bit too long. MOS:LEAD advises lead to be generally no longer than 4 paragraphs.
Fixed. TheWikiholic (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all those empty cells, wouldn't it be better to just add a center aligned em-dash?
Kavyansh.Singh I've referenced a few FL discographies, and none of them use center-aligned em-dash in empty cells like sales or certifications.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#8: needs en-dash instead of that hyphen
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref#54: "Michael Jackson - Australian Albums Chart": needs en-dash instead of that hyphen
Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for same for all the references, like Ref#56, #57, #58, #59, #60, #68, etc. (Not a full source review)

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of computer criminals[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Delist overwhelmingly US centric, the variation in punishments (community services to 20 years prison) indicate major comphrehensiveness issues, essentially indiscriminate criteria that gives eligibility to every single computer-related crime ever. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – with no clearly defined criteria for what warrants inclusion, the list fails FLCR #3a. The topic probably works better as just a category anyway. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:57, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - no clear inclusion criteria. We need a version of WP:URFA/2020 for featured lists. Hog Farm Talk 05:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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. Reywas92Talk 00:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I agree with the rationale provided by the nominator. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Delist Leaving aside the lack of Black players, unclear to me how a lack of a record of a baseball player's first name is a notable set. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: Per TRM – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=1082222580"