Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortcut

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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

Source reviews needed

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

Nominations[edit]

List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1949[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Presenting another year in the history of Billboard's R&B charts. Feedback as ever will be gratefully received and acted upon promptly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Judy Ann Santos[edit]

Nominator(s): Pseud 14 (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having worked and brought Judy Ann Santos's filmography to FL status, here's another one of her related list article that I am nominating, with my earlier FLC seeing substantial support and no outstanding issues. This article had a complete rework done, including adding a concise and readable introduction/lead, formatted to a singular table, thoroughly searched 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) 16:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment by Ixtal[edit]

I'd recommend shortening width-wise the first column in the table as it takes up a bit too much real estate. Allowing more space between the other columns would improve readability. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ixtal, I think I found where the issue lies, I removed style="width: 100%; after the plainrowheaders parameter so the columns adjust to the text. Let me know if that fixes the issue from your view. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That looks much better Pseud 14 :D — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 17:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also recommend adding the posters of some of the films she's won awards for or other such images if possible (copyright and such) for just making the article look nicer. Those are the drive-by comments from me really. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 17:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ixtal, while that seems a genuinely nice recommendation, I don't think that format is generally deemed suitable for FLs since movie posters fall under non-free images and we try to avoid using those in FLs or FAs (unless necessary in the article) IMHO. See examples of our most recently promoted FLs (Anne Hathaway, Pretty Zinta, Gwyneth Paltrow). Pseud 14 (talk) 17:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • Literally my only nitpick is that in the table you where someone appears more than once you link it every time (which is correct for a sortable table) with the exception of Kay Tagal Kang Hinintay, which is linked once but not the other time. That's literally all I could find - awesome work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the catching that ChrisTheDude and for your review. It should be linked now. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

I will try not to screw this up

  • "Three years later, she starred opposite Fernando Poe Jr. in the comedy drama Isusumbong Kita sa Tatay Ko (1999), the first Filipino film to earn more than ₱100 million at the box office,[4] for which she was awarded the Box Office Queen title." — I'm having trouble following this sentence, since it has quite a few facts in it. Can it be split?
Done
  • "for which she was nominated at the FAMAS and Star Awards and garnered a Comedy Actress of the Year win at the Box Office Entertainment Awards" — feels... kinda clunky and awkward
Reworded to include just the win
Fixed

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 04:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: thank you for your review. I have addressed the above comments. Let me know if there's anything I may have missed. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

72nd Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This list is my second FL nomination for a Creative Arts ceremony, following the 73rd Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards; my work here has been heavily modeled on that list. The list also pairs with the 72nd Primetime Emmy Awards, which was itself promoted to FL recently, to fully cover the Emmys* for this year. (*Okay, just the Primetime Emmys, not all of the other, lesser-known ceremonies, but you get the idea.) Assuming this goes well, I'd like to keep going with the awards for the 71st ceremony. All feedback is appreciated! RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson singles discography[edit]

Nominator(s): TheWikiholic (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets FLC criteria. Any comment is very much welcomed. Thanks to all who participate :).— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment
  • There is a lot of unsourced content. Any single which did chart in any of the listed territories will need referencing to confirm that it existed..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Any single which did chart in any of the listed territories are referenced to confirm that it existed. For example, reference number 23 have all the information about each Jackson song that charted in the US. If you have not found any references to confirm that it existed, please let me know. TheWikiholic (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, my comment should have read "any single which did not chart". There are over 30 entries in the "Promotional or limited release" table which at present are unreferenced -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snooker world rankings 1977/1978[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the same standards as the recently-promoted Snooker world rankings 1976/1977. Coverage of the 1977/1978ranking list seems to be confined to snooker-specific sources, with only brief passing mentions in the press. Any suggestions for improvements are welcome. Relevant extracts from sources can be provided on request. Thanks and regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
  • The only significant thing I can see at first glance is that the article does not explain how three players with 0 total points got into the rankings - why were these players ranked and the other (presumably dozens) of professional players who had not gained any points at the last three WSCs were not......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see if I can find anything in sources about this. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've checked other sources that cover the rankings (including Jack Karnehm's World Snooker, Ian Morrison's Hamlyn Encyclopedia of Snooker, the Snooker Scene article on the rankings for 1978/1979, snooker.org (link), and none of them list anyone beyond 25th for that year. Nor does cuetracker, which while not accepted as a reliable source, is worth consulting IMO. Kobylecky's The Complete International Directory of Snooker Players – 1927 to 2018 mentions seedings for each player at each World Championship. He has Marcus Owen as seeded 23rd and Bennett as 24th for the 1978 tournament, but Morgan "unranked"; I looked at a couple of other players from the 1977 championship not on the list of 25, and they were also "unranked" according to Kobylecky. I can't think of anywhere else that is likely to cover this. Mysterious. Any suggestions ChrisTheDude? Thanks and regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest adding a sentence above the table saying something like "It is unclear why three players with 0 points were included in the rankings" or similar. I presume there was a reason for it, which just hasn't made it into available sources, but it just looks really odd to see someone like M.Owen listed there whereas someone like David Greaves, who also seems to have competed in two WSCs during the relevant period without achieving any ranking points, is not included....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, Greaves actually did better in the 1976 WSC than Owen did, which makes it even odder that the latter got a place in the 1978 rankings but the former did not....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the text as you suggested. I had a look through Snooker Scene magazine for the year following the list, as that would be the most likely place to report on any changes or further details, but without getting anything else relating to this. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Comments by MWright96
  • Lede: players eliminated in the quarter-finalists gained two" - this sentence can be written as players eliminated in the quarter-finals gained two, defeated quarter-finalists gained two or something similar MWright96 (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede: "Ray Reardon retained top place in the rankings from the 1976/1977 'rankings' ." - try not to repeat the same word when they are close together MWright96 (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede: Perhaps state in the prose how many points Reardon and Spencer had in the season's rankings list MWright96 (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede: "The eight-highest ranked players were placed directly into the last-16 round of the 1978 World Snooker Championship, whilst all other entrants were placed in a qualifying competition" - repetition of the word "placed" MWright96 (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Table: scope=col(s) are missing from the 1975, 1976, 1977 columns in the table MWright96 (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I have MWright96 (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
  • Support since I don't really have anything actionable, although I wonder if there could be a source added for the last line in Rankings ("It is unclear why three players with 0 points were included in the rankings."). AryKun (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AryKun: - see discussion above in response to my query. No sources have been found to indicate why these players were included and others with 0 points were not. If any sources said why they were included then that sentence wouldn't need to be there. In essence, it's hard to produce a source to explain why something can't be sourced. Does that make sense.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Heritage Sites in Italy[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 07:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go! Italy is the country with the highest number of World Heritage Sites, so this article is appropriately massive. The map is a bit busy but I think I managed to keep it readable with some organizing. The list of Romania, which is currently also nominated, is already seeing support. Feel free to fix some minor grammatical issues etc. on the run, so that this discussion does not get excessively long. Thanks! Tone 07:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "Over 300,000 carvings have been created" => "Over 300,000 carvings were created"
  • "Galileo Galilei who was conducting his experiments there" => "Galileo Galilei, who conducted his experiments there"
  • "built between the 11th and the 13th century the noble families and upper middle-class merchants" - think the word "by" is missing
  • "Fourteen of these towers have survived to present day" => "Fourteen of these towers have survived to the present day"
  • "Naples, Founded in 470 BCE by Greek colonists" - founded should not have a capital F
  • "during the Italian Renaissance of the 15th and 16th century" => "during the Italian Renaissance of the 15th and 16th centuries"
  • "They have been constructed at least since the mid-14th century" => "They were constructed from at least the mid-14th century"
  • "that mix motives from Western and Byzantine arts" => "that mix motifs from Western and Byzantine arts"
  • "There are also three islands off coast" => "There are also three islands off the coast"
  • "It played a major role in spreading of Christianity" => "It played a major role in the spreading of Christianity"
  • "The complex includes residential and recreative buildings" => "The complex includes residential and recreational buildings"
  • "originating in Roman times and preserving structures from the 11th century, was renovated in the 15th and 16th century" => "originating in Roman times and preserving structures from the 11th century, was renovated in the 15th and 16th centuries"
  • "Winegrowing and processing area for Piemonte wine took place already at least in the 5th century BC" - I can't figure out this sentence. I think what it's meant to say is "Winegrowing and processing for Piemonte wine took place in this area since at least the 5th century BC"
  • "The frescos are innovative in view of in their way" => "The frescos are innovative in view of their way"
  • "and use new way of perspective" => "and use new ways of perspective"
  • "with constructing villas and gardens on the coasts of lakes and on the islands for the wealthy owners" => "with villas and gardens constructed on the coasts of lakes and on the islands for wealthy owners"
  • "reached its peak between the 6th 4th century BCE" => "reached its peak between the 6th and 4th centuries BCE"
  • "Between the 6th and 11th century" => "Between the 6th and 11th centuries"
  • "Sea floor is covered" => "The sea floor is covered"
  • "indicating that the area was at some poin" => "indicating that the area was at some point"
  • "Technical herigate from different periods" - second word is spelt incorrectly
  • "In Italy, this practice has origin in pre-Roman times and continues in present day" => "In Italy, this practice has origins in pre-Roman times and continues to the present day"
  • " The Lagerstätte around Verona is exceptionally rich with fosils" - last word is missing an S
  • "Fosils include fish and marine mammals" - and again :-)
  • "Studies of fosils have been taking place" - and again again :-)
  • "The design of the theatres was changing through centuries" => "The design of the theatres changed through centuries"
  • That's what I got. Looking forward to visiting two of these sites next week :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude Fixed all, many thanks! And enjoy the trip :) Tone 09:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
  • Made some edits that were quicker to do than list here and seemed uncontroversial.
  • Could the lead map be shrunk down? At over half the page width, it is far too big.
    • It works better on a bit larger screens (I checked on some different ones). I think this is a compromise, map as small as possible but the items still not overlapping. What can I say, over 50 sites marked, and I don't want to put numbers.
  • "58 inscribed properties" → "58 listed sites"
  • "Albula / Bernina" → Why the gaps before and after the slash?
    • This is the official name in the source, I left it just in the table but removed from the intro.
  • "theatre, or sports centre" → "theatre, and sports centre"?
  • "took place in this area since at least the 5th century BCE" → Should be "has taken place" if it still occurs.
    • It was suggested to use past in the above revision.
  • "extra-European exotic" → non-European exotic"?
  • "monasteries, often in caves" → "monasteries, often situated in caves"
  • All mentions of "x million" years needs a nbsp between the number and "million".
  • The Caserta garden photo needs alt text.
  • That's what I got.
    • @AryKun: Done, thanks! Btw, you forgot to sign the revision ;) --Tone 19:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the basis of prose. AryKun (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of accolades received by Encanto (film)[edit]

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Encanto is... well, you probably already know. It's huge... oh, whatever! Just read my previous nom statement! OK, so since the previous nomination, Encanto has won an Oscar and a lot more awards. Now, there's only one award left, which will be announced in... five months. I personally don't see it as much of a problem since the Hugos seem to mostly be well-documented in RSes and, really, it's only one or two sources that'll change. Hopefully, this one'll pass! Pinging previous participants: ChrisTheDude, AryKun, The Rambling Man and Bilorv. Pamzeis (talk) 06:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Can't see any changes from last time that would make me change my mind. Although should "$228 million" be put in inflation templates (I know it released only a year ago, but future-proofing or something). AryKun (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Bilorv[edit]

I'm happy that my previous oppose reason (stability) no longer applies. Thanks for the ping and I've enjoyed doing a source review on this list. All ref numbers as of Special:Permalink/1082471235.

  • No issues with the reliability of any sources—I had a look at the NextBestPicture and Cinema Daily US websites and journalists (previously unfamiliar to me) and am satisfied that each is reliable for the claim they are cited for.
  • Link Variety in ref #23.

Spotchecks on refs #2, #5–6, #23, #29–30, #33–35:

  • "Premiered at the El Capitan Theatre in Los Angeles on November 3, 2021, the film was released theatrically in the United States and Canada on November 24 for a limited 30-day run due to the COVID-19 pandemic" – I can't see that either Variety or Box Office Mojo verifies this in full (the latter just says it debuted in some places on November 24).
  • Ref #23 doesn't say that it was Lin-Manuel Miranda who received the nomination (just the song "Dos Oruguitas").
  • Ref #30 doesn't say that it was Germaine Franco who received the nomination.

Thanks for your work so far—the sources are good and the reference section and list are excellently formatted. I see no issues with the prose. Once the above are resolved, please check for any other issues with name credits missing from references to the awards, as I'll be doing more specific spotchecks on these in a second round. — Bilorv (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv:  Done Chompy Ace 08:15, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, all my issues are resolved and more spotchecks turned up no other problems, so I'm happy to support on sourcing. — Bilorv (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • There's not much to change, but: If the row header cell spans multiple rows (e.g. has rowspan=3 or whatever), 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 00:36, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN:  Done Chompy Ace 08:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of cingulates[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 16:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Next up in our perpetual journey of animal list FLCs (3 lists for Lagomorpha, 10 for Carnivora, 4 for Artiodactyla, 1 for Perissodactyla), we leave the set of lagomorph lists and begin a series of single-list orders. We start here with the 22 species of Cingulata, aka armadillos. If like me you live in North America, you may not have known that there is more than one type of armadillo, but it turns out that there's 20 species in South America, one in Central America, and one—the nine-banded armadillo—that has been spreading from Central America through America since the 1800s. They're all pretty similar—while there's a variety of sizes, they all share a basic body plan, and eat either just insects (mainly ants and termites) or also plants and maybe carrion. Like many South American orders/families, there's been a flurry of reorganization over the last couple decades, as new research (and especially new DNA tests and statistical modelling) drive splitting species and moving around subfamilies, but this is up to date on the latest research. As always, this list should reflect comments from prior FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 16:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • "the northern naked-tailed armadillo is mainly in Central America" => "the northern naked-tailed armadillo is found mainly in Central America"
  • "Dasypodidae, containing containing a single genus" - repeated word
  • Screaming hairy armadillo might be my new favourite name for an animal :-)
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit for this at the WikiCup.
  • Made a couple of minor edits.
  • The "primarily" used twice is a bit repetitive.
  • Done.
  • "11 cm (4 in) plus tail" → How long is the tail?
  • I wasn't able to find a source before, but this time around I found a book that actually had it, so, added.
  • "Chlamyphorinae subfamily" → "subfamily Chlamyphorinae" sound better, also for the other two
  • Done.
  • Don't think the duplinks (genus and species) for the monotypic genera in classification are needed.
  • Done, someone had asked for them in a prior FLC but I agree with you.
  • The cladogram is weirdly placed and runs halfway into the left margin in my view.
  • Oh that's weird, that does happen on narrower resolutions. I got it to at least not overlap the margin by floating right instead, though I haven't figured out why it wants to do that in the first place.
  • The range maps need alt text. AryKun (talk) 09:49, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with all prior FLs in the series, they don't have hidden alt text as instead the maps get what that alt text would have been written above the maps. --PresN 01:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comedy Series[edit]

Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not wasting any time y'all, lol. This article is about the GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comedy Series, one of the categories at the GLAAD Media Awards that recognize various works of media across many mediums for their positive depictions of the LGBT community. As one can infer from the title, this award is about comedy series. One unique aspect about this category is that it is one of the few to have been present at every single ceremony since 1990. I worked on this article during my FLC of GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Drama Series, and incorporated many of the comments I received there (such as ones relating accessibility) for this page. I believe this page has what it takes to become a featured list, and hope anyone who comes across it might uncover a comedy series they weren't aware of before; one that gets a good laugh out of them. PanagiotisZois (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Great work - the only thing I would suggest is to merge the final one-sentence "paragraph" of the lead with the one before..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Done. :) --PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14[edit]

  • Fantastic work on this article - only have a couple comments. Since some rows have single citations while others have multiple the abbreviation should be "Ref(s)", the full form should also be called "Reference(s)".
  • Since it is a sortable table, suggest linking every instance of television networks.
  • That's it for me. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14: Thank you for your kind words. :D I did change it to "Ref(s)." and "Reference(s)". Regarding linking every instance of the networks, this was something that was brought up during the FLC of the GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Drama Series, where it was suggested that, in a given year, if a specific network appears twice or more only the first instance should be linked. Do you think it's better to leave it as such, or link it every time? Since you brought up that it's a sortable list, I personally do consider that to be a good argument for linking every instance, but I'd like yoru thoughts on it. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for bringing this to my attention as well, I've come across this from one of the coords comments, for sortable tables there's no way of knowing which repeated item will come first so they need linking every time. It wouldn't fall under WP:Overlinking. --Pseud 14 (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pseud 14: Done. I might go back to the other two GLAAD featured lists and do the same thing there at some point. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support this for promotion. Great work! --Pseud 14 (talk) 23:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have some spare time or inclination, would appreciate feedback on my FLC as well. Though not mandatory at all

Pamzeis[edit]

Let's not screw this up :)

  • "only twice has there ever been a tie" — this wording feels rather awkward and clunky to me...
  • Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works in citations like Glee should be italicised
  • There are a few MOS:QWQ issues within the refs
  • Can the citation capitalisation be consistent, per MOS:SMALLCAPS, I guess?

Not a lot; great article. I hope you don't mind, but I've made a few tweaks myself, which you can revert if you disagree with. Ping me when these are resolved :) Pamzeis (talk) 00:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: All right, I changed the wording to something I feel, albeit longer, is an improvement. In every instance where a show or other work was mentioned, I italicised it. Regarding the capitalization of citations, I capitalzied nouns and whatnot leaving only words such as "of" or "and" completely in lowercase format.
As for the QWQ, I'm not really sure what the issue there is. From my understanding, it has to do with quotations. But none of the sources quote something in their title, right? --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There were quote marks in the title... but they're gone now; regarding capitalisation, words like "with" should not be capitalised per MOS:5LETTER. Since this issue is very minor, however, you got my support! Pamzeis (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think I understand what you mean. Those quote marks were probably there to indicate a specific work, where italicizing it was not possible. Funnily enough, I remember having a discussion years ago with one of my instructors about which words are never capitalized and whatnot, but I lost track of the link she had given me. Anyway, thank you for the support, and I'll go fix "with" as quickly as possible. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of Music Bank Chart winners (2021)[edit]

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk), Ladidadida123 (talk) and Ïvana (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This list contains the winners of Music Bank in 2021. This is my second FLC nomination. I had previously nominated the 2020 list which is now a featured list. I have expanded the article in the past few days and believe that the article now meets the FL criteria. I added Ladidadida123 and Ïvana as nominators since they have significantly contributed to this article. -- EN-Jungwon 13:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*"a methodology that had been used since November 2020" => "a methodology that has been used since November 2020"
    • Done.
  • "Oh My Girl member Arin and Tomorrow X Together member Choi Soo-bin had hosted the show since July 2020 and continued to do so until October 1, 2021"
    • Done.
  • "The year began with "Dynamite" by BTS at number one; it had been in the top spot on the last chart of 2020"
    • Done.
  • "The single along with "Celebrity" by IU won" => "The single, along with "Celebrity" by IU, won"
    • Done.
  • "BTS had 3 number one singles" => "BTS had three number one singles"
    • Done.
  • "The three songs spent a total of 8 weeks" => "The three songs spent a total of eight weeks"
    • Done.
  • "Brave Girls won their first Music Bank award for Rollin'" - song title should be in quote marks
    • Done.
  • "over four years after it's release" => "over four years after its release"
    • Done.
  • "Blackpink member Rosé received first number one trophy" => "Blackpink member Rosé received her first number one trophy"
    • Done.
  • "Lisa was one of a number of soloist who achieved their first career music show win in 2021" => "Lisa was one of a number of soloists who achieved their first career music show wins in 2021"
    • Done.
  • "Girl group Aespa won their first Music Bank trophy with "Savage" on the October 15 broadcast." - unsourced
    • Removed.
  • "Up10tion's Kim Wooseok (upper left), Astro (upper right), The Boyz (lower left), and Stray Kids (lower right) won their first broadcast channel music show awards with their Music Bank wins for "Sugar", "After Midnight", "Thrill Ride", and "Thunderous" respectively." - all unsourced
    • Removed Wooseok. Done for others
  • "TXT (top), Enhypen (middle), and Ive (bottom) received their first broadcast music show wins on Music Bank for "0X1=Lovesong (I Know I Love You)" "Drunk-Dazed", and "Eleven", respectively." - unsourced
    • Done.
  • Think that's all from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude thank you for your comments. I have finished making the changes you requested. Thank you. -- EN-Jungwon 12:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of birds of Tuvalu[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another bird list for a small Pacific island country. Reworked it a few weeks ago and I think it's ready for FLC now, so have at it. AryKun (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14[edit]

Great work and a fantastic read overall. A few comments from someone who is unfamiliar with the topic and is generally not my area of Wikipedia-interest:

  • Perhaps you can link the first instance of atolls instead of the one in the second paragraph. As I see you have already defined reef islands in the enclosure.
    • Done.
  • Would there be a way to briefly define avifauna similarly to how you did with reef islands?
    • Done.
  • That's all for me. --Pseud 14 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pseud 14 (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have some spare time or inclination, would appreciate feedback on my FLC as well. Though not mandatory at all

Older 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]

Oppose from TRM[edit]

  • "the Center for Inquiry. It was" what is that? Some context would be useful here, i.e. what they are, where they're based etc.
    • Done.
  • "awarded by the Atheist Alliance of America coordinating" according to our article it was called "Atheist Alliance International" at that time.
    • The source refers it as "Atheist Alliance of America", and our article on the same is a redirect to "Atheist Alliance International"
  • You link nontheism but not atheism?
    • Fixed.
  • I would avoid the "according to" for the organisation's own reason for giving the award, maybe stick with "The award is presented for ..." and just reference it to the organisation.
    • Fixed.
  • "by Dawkins." maybe "by Dawkins himself." to ensure no confusion over him individually and his organisation.
    • Done, but I was reluctant as I don't think 'Dawkins' could be confused with his organisation.
  • "by the Prospect magazine" reads odd to me, no need for "the".
    • Done; I believed having a definite article is not an issue as long as it is consistent within the article.
  • Oh you do link atheism, just not first time.
    • Fixed.
  • "and wrote books like" -> "has written books including".
    • Done.
  • Probably also worth noting up front that Dawkins is British as this article's ENGVAR is USEng (for the awarding organization I assume).
    • Done.
  • Why did you pick one of his bibliography that isn't considered notable enough for an article on Wikipedia??
    • Well, it is notable book, we just don't have an article. Redlinked.
  • "received by James Randi.[7] In" who is Randi? Where is he from? What did he do?
    • All that is in the table. Added a line here as well.
  • "jointly as Penn & Teller received" comma after Teller, and suggest you note them as "television magicians" or something.
    • Done.
  • "due to Maher's views on vaccines" no need to repeat Maher, and what were his views, it's unclear here.
    • Done.
  • "David Gorski referred" why does his opinion count here?
    • Specified (maybe)
  • "became the first Indian" were all recipients to that point American then?
    • Here is the case: Almost no WP:RS report that "XYZ was first American/British/Canadian/etc" to receive the award. But, there are a whole bunch of sources ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], etc., etc.) referring that particular person as the "first Indian" to receive the award. I have just summarized what many of WP:RS report.
  • "awards have been awarded" awful repetition.
    • Sorry, fixed.
  • "was an magician" -> "a magician".
    • Fixed (I honestly don't know what I was thinking then!)
  • Why is "mind reading" not hyphenated while "fortune-telling" is?
    • Done.
  • "he was a recipient of the MacArthur award.[13]" what was that for?
    • The source does not mention that.
  • Odd you have a ref column but most of the refs are in the notes column.
    • That is because the "Ref." column has references supporting that the individual has received the award in that particular year. The "Notes" column has biography and views of the individual. Almost none of the sources in the "Notes" column mention the Dawkins award.
  • "early interest in science stemmed from a fascination" grammar and tone issues.
    • Removed.
  • "are Emmy Award winning magician-duo" really odd grammar here, maybe "are an Emmy Award-winning magician duo".
    • Done.
  • "famous for her work" famous? Notable perhaps?
    • Done.
  • " the Tufts University" I don't think anyone ever refers to it as "the Tufts University"...
  • "converted to an atheism" nope, no need for "an".
    • Removed.
  • "critic of Quran" of the Quran.
    • Done.
  • Jacoby's notes have literally no explanation as to why she might have been suitable for the award.
    • Added that she is an atheist.
  • "who famously wrote the book" tone issues.
    • Done.
  • "which Susan Sontag called" who is she?
    • Specified.
  • "at the Harvard University; he has" not "the" Harvard...
    • Okay.
  • " an author holding Ph.D. in philosophy" again, weird grammar, I would say "an author with a Ph.D. in philosophy".
    • Done.
  • "book 36 Arguments for the Existence of God" this is interesting, so she argued in favour of God?
    • Not entirely; specified.
  • "supporter of Evolution, and" no need for capital E.
    • Done.
  • "quality, ... and" delete the comma and ensure the ellipsis meets the requirements of MOS:ELLIPSIS.
    • Done.
  • "referred by Melissa Pugh as" who is this non-notable person and why do we care what she thinks?
    • Because she was the president of Atheist Alliance of America; specified.
  • "an American has served " grammar.
  • "Fry is an comedian" British.
    • Done.
  • Perhaps (since you made a big deal out of the "first Indian" recipient) nationalities should be included as a new column here.
    • I don't think that would be helpful for the reader. And I have explained my reasoning for "first Indian" above.
  • "who received the Richard Dawkins Award because of" I don't think you need to use the full formal title here, just "the award" probably as that's what this entire article is about.
    • Sure.
  • "Gervais is an comedian" not "an" and add British in here again.
    • Sure.
  • "Indian to receive the Richard Dawkins Award" so why not the first Briton? Or the first "American-Canadian"? And again, no need to repeat the full name of the award.
    • Reasoning specified above.
  • "comedian, who received the Richard Dawkins Award for "inspiring" same again re: award.
    • Done.

That's it for content for me at the moment. I'm a little disappointed to find so many fundamental issues in a list which appears to already have sufficient support to promote. Maybe standards aren't quite what they used to be. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks a lot for your review. I think I have replied to your every comment. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs attention. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Hi! Can you please take another look? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14[edit]

General non-expert review. I have very few comments as it seems the major ones have been addressed above. So apologies if it comes across as nitpick-y.

  • In 2005, Penn Jillette and Teller, jointly as Penn & Teller, received the award.[10][11] In 2009, Bill Maher received the award; due to his views on vaccines and his criticism of evidence-based medicine, oncologist David Gorski referred to him receiving the award as "inappropriate".[12] In 2020, Javed Akhtar became the first Indian to receive the award.[13] -- I would avoid this so the prose does not come across as listing dates, as the year is already in the table itself. Since the inclusion of some recipients in the lead is because it is notable, perhaps you can mention that Penn & Teller was jointly awarded, or were the first co-winners.
    • Well, the recipients are also in the table. I feel that since we have few notable people in the lead, mentioning the year is not a big issue. It would rather feel incomplete without years. Thoughts? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point. Perhaps just switch it up a bit, so that every sentence doesn't begin with the year. E.g. [recipient] received the award for his work/contribution on ... in 2009. Something along those lines, to make the flow better. Otherwise, doesn't hinder my support for this work.
  • In 2021, Tim Minchin received the award -- perhaps it's worth mentioning that he is the current recipient of the award, similar to other FLs like Academy Award for Best Actress, Academy Award for Best Actor.
    • Done.
  • Since 2003, 19 awards have been received by 20 people. -- I think it would read much better with "Since its inception, the award has been given to 20 individuals.", as you've already mentioned at the onset of the lead that the award was established in 2003.
    • Done.
  • In the table, the abbreviation should be "Ref(s)" since you are using "Reference(s)" as the full form.
    • Done.
  • That's all I have. A very interesting read! --Pseud 14 (talk) 20:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14: Thanks for the review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a very minor (nitpick-y) suggestion on the first point. Otherwise, I'm happy to provide my support. Good job. By the way, if you have some spare time or inclination, would appreciate feedback on my FLC. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:21, 25 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]

Comments[edit]

  • In the juried awards section, the recipients currently sort in order of forename. They should sort in order of surname.
  • Same with the critics' awards
  • also, shouldn't the heading for that section be Critics' awards....?
  • Same sorting issue with the media awards
  • (The recipients in the festival awards section do support correctly, but I think that may be by coincidence :-) )
  • "Shared with Woody Norman for C'mon C'mon." and "Shared with Passing and Pig." are not complete sentences so shouldn't have full stops
  • Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: I think I've addressed all these. I've added sortname parameters, suppressing redlinks for all but the first instance. I also haven't sorted by anything other than the film title in the instances of the film and then named cast/crew being nominated/winning - should those be sorted by the first alphabetical surname (e.g. the two Apolo Awards for the film, should one be sorted as "Filmin" and the other as "Agron", or as "Shiva Baby Filmin" and so on?) Kingsif (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

I am still getting used to reviewing FLCs, so feedback and comments are appreciated.

  • "it won a variety of critics', festival, and media titles;" I think it should be "critic"?
  • "it was included on many best-of lists." Who compliled these best-of lists? Was it media companies? Was these best-of film lists, screenplay lists, or something similar?
  • "The short film from which it was adapted, also called Shiva Baby and written and directed by Seligman, was released in 2018 and nominated in the Best Narrative Short category at the 2018 South by Southwest film festival." Since this list is about the 2020 film, and not the 2018 short film, I think this sentence is a little off-topic and belongs in the movie's main article instead.
  • The lede spends a lot of time on the movie's possible Academy Awards nominations, with one and a half paragraphs talking about it. Since this list is for all awards, not just the Oscars, I would move all the Academy Awards information to one paragraph and trim it.
  • " the ceremony marked a return to fully in-person events following the COVID-19 pandemic[22] and, when the film won, the cast and crew all accepted the award on stage." I think this information is more about the award, and less about the film winning the award, and is off-topic for this article. It can be removed.
  • "One of the film's stars, Agron, also presented an award at the ceremony." I definitely think this is off-topic for this article and too much detail, and should be removed.
  • "Shiva Baby placed on various best-of lists for both 2020, the year of its festival debut, and 2021, when it was released in movie theaters and on streaming. It has been included on overall lists as well as lists specifically for independent, debut, comedy, horror, Jewish, and LGBTQ+ movies." I think this sentence should be cited.
  • I think the notes in the list should be in the rank column, as it is explaining why there is no rank for the film on this list.
  • Should note a and b have citations?

Those are my thoughts on the prose. Z1720 (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the comments, @Z1720:, I'll again go through from top to bottom. Kingsif (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please ping me when you are ready for me to take another look. Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720: See below - I made two edits, but, yeah, your comments had me think a bit, but treating it as the whole coverage as intended/expected? calls for detail. Kingsif (talk)

(edit conflict)

  • I don't think so - take away the rest of the list, that would make it "critic titles", and the section to which it refers would have to be "critic awards". Since each award is given by a collective of critics, not a single critic, then pertaining to multiple critics (so, critics') is correct and standard. Both for the titles of awards and as I have seen it across Wikipedia.
  • Re. what kind of best-of lists; it is a film, so that seems redundant to restate. Like, it hasn't specified film festival awards, just festival. Of course, one of the lists mentioned in the section is for "moments of 2021"; this and the fact the scope of each list is different would make it impossible to concisely summarize such. So, I think any amendment here is both unnecessary and would result in poor prose.
  • The reason I included the mention of the nomination for the 2018 short film, is something that I will refer to when addressing some of your other points: I wrote the prose as if it was an in-depth article looking at the entire background and history of coverage of the awards season for this film. So, its "precursor" film being nominated for an award seems important in that respect. Regarding your suggestion it goes at the film (2020?) article: another, less strong, really, reason for inclusion is that people might be looking for the information at this awards article; the pageviews tool suggests very few people are even looking for the article altogether, but both films share a title (among nearly everything else), and the title of the article is not disambiguated - i.e. the title is "List of accolades received by Shiva Baby", not "List of accolades received by Shiva Baby (2020)". As there is no article for the short film (though there's definitely enough media coverage for one, it's well-covered at the 2020 film article), there isn't a more-appropriate place for this mention, either.
  • There is a lot more media discussion of the Oscars than all other awards combined. Cutting down on such would be creating false balance. We base articles on sources; if most of the features on the film's award season discuss the Oscars, a lot of the article prose will discuss the Oscars.
  • See the above comment on writing about the whole award season for the film. This includes some context, including the effect of the pandemic, so the first completely in-person ceremony is context for saying the cast and crew were all together accepting the award - which I'd contend is directly about the film winning the award - (continued in next point, about the same part)
  • and someone in the cast presenting is the (implicit) contextual information that the organizers were confident in the film's chances. Of course, this is also mentioned more directly, so though it's still part of the film's whole awards season, I'll remove this line as you suggest.
  • It's a summary of the table, I don't know it would be "cited" besides adding a note that says "look down"...
  • Those notes are in rows that have reference boxes at the end; the refs at the end are for the whole row, including the note. Note c has an inline citation as it uses a quotation. This has reminded me to add such a cite for the FOX alpha note, though.
  • This feels like a lot of saying no; I'm not attached to the prose as-is, I honestly don't think the changes suggested in your comments would be an improvement to the article. I hope I've explained why well, and I'm happy to discuss, and welcome to other opinions. Kingsif (talk) 14:06, 26 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]

Comments by Z1720 (with a source review)[edit]

I am still new to reviewing FLCs, so feedback and comments are appreciated.

The last sentence of the lede should probably have a citation.

Source review:

  • Refs 5 and 6 are supporting the following statement: "The film was critically acclaimed, with praise aimed towards Coen's screenplay and direction, Bruno Delbonnel's cinematography, the production design and score, and the performances of Washington and Hunter." However, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are review aggregates and they don't have editorial oversight of what they publish (since lots of their information is from an algorithm). Instead, I would quote two specific reviews that say this information. These reviews can be found from the links in Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic.
  • I have no concerns about the formatting.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 14:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 25 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 Support 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]
Apologies for the late reply. Regarding the first point, I initially thought it was a sentence fragment so I was referring to MOS:CAPFRAG, but I feel like it does make up its own sentence so ignore that. But overall it looks better now, so support :) GeraldWL 02:21, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • "Bandleader/pianist Sonny Thompson": This is probably a WP:SLASH problem, and even if there's a technical reason that it's not, slashes like these still draw unwelcome scrutiny.
  • "'Long About Midnight" in the 4th column isn't sorting correctly.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. Otherwise, the prose checks out. 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.
  • Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dank: - thanks as ever for your review, both the points you raised above should have been addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FLC director and delegates: - just to let you know, I will be logging off shortly and will be off WP until some time on Friday. If any more comments are raised here, I will address them upon my return..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720 (including a source review)[edit]

I am still new to reviewing FLCs, so feedback and comments are appreciated. I read through the lede and have no notes on that.

Source review:

  • The author of the AllMusic source is a freelance journalist who has written for several reputable publications, so I am not concerned about that.
  • The other sources are of high-quality and reliable.
  • I have no concerns about formatting.

Overall, I support this nomination. Z1720 (talk) 13:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
  • Support nothing I could find to complain about. AryKun (talk) 11:21, 26 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]

Comments by Pseud 14[edit]

  • his first Screen Award of the category. -- "his first Screen Award" should suffice and link it to the award for Best Actor.
  • as a Bachelor of Law student-turned-alcoholic -- as an alcoholic law student
  • he received many Best Actor awards - received various
  • Khan was nominated for a Filmfare award under the Best Actor category -- To make the lead a little less repetitive. I would replace a few instances of "Best actor category" with the "Award for Best Actor"
  • which he ultimately won the award -- it is not clear which film won him the award. If it is the last, then mention as the latter film
  • He later received with the IIFA Award for Best Actor -- He later received the IIFA Award for Best Actor
  • That's it from me. --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk)
If you have some spare time or inclination, would appreciate feedback on my FLC as well. Though not mandatory at all

Comments by DaxServer[edit]

<placeholder>

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
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*"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]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

I am still new at reviewing FLCs, so comments and feedback are appreciated. This review will focus on the lede, prose, and understandability.

  • "he was described by Screen Actors Guild president Ken Howard as "a performer of limitless versatility, equally adept at comedy and drama, whether scripted or improv".[1][2][3]" Are three citations necessary for this quotation? If some of these references are for preceeding sentences, I suggest that they be moved to be placed after the sentence that it is verifying, to avoid WP:OVERCITE.
  • "To expand his horizons as an actor," expand his horizons feels a little MOS:IDIOM. Perhaps, "Persuing more diverse roles,"
  • "Leszczak, Bob (2012)" All of the references have ISBN numbers that contain dashes except this one. Suggest adding the dashes for consistency.

Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 13:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Z1720, thank you for your comments. FrB.TG (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Hopefully not gonna screw this up

  • Williams' → Williams's (MOS:'S)
  • "he wanted to do more serious work as an actor" — ...in 1997? When?
  • Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works should be italicised in citations... I see some are and some aren't?

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done, Pamzeis, thank you. FrB.TG (talk) 17:32, 26 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]
  • Apologies, I forgot about this one. The article now seems to be sourced entirely to six "general references" at the bottom. Per WP:IC, inline citations are mandatory for featured content, so everything in the article should have a reference against it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:01, 23 April 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]
    • @PresN: Just went ahead and updated both the main table and the key tables (which I split) with these formats. The only thing of note was in the position key, I did not find any reason to have row headers. It just doesn't make sense for how the key is constructed. One last thing to have your opinion on: I split the keys in a way that saved space (one underneath the other left a lot of blank, white space which did not look very nice. This construction (with column breaks) looks a little bit better, but the keys being differently shaped looks somewhat awkward. Let me know your opinion on the matter. Thanks! Debartolo2917 (talk) 08:06, 13 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 [[12]] 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.
 Done
  • 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.
 Done
Not done- where you have !scope=col colspan=3 (e.g. 'Term of office') it needs to be !scope=colgroup colspan=3, and for the sub-header cells ('From', 'To', and 'Days in office'), you need colscopes, so ! From becomes !scope=col| From. --PresN 00:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Apologies. Please have a look now.
  • 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.
 Done
  • 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.
 Done--25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 13:14, 12 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 23:24, 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]

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]

Comments by Maile66[edit]

I've read through this multiple times. It's a really tight, well-done piece of work. The only thing that stands out to me, is that the last paragraph of the lead has no inline source. — Maile (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: thank you for your kind words and review. I have added citations to the last paragraph in the lead. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. — Maile (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support and I appreciate your time in doing the review. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

I am still new to FLC, so feedback and comments on my review are appreciated. This review will focus on the lede, prose, and understandability of the article.

  • " as the young Robina Gokongwei in the biopic Ping Lacson: Super Cop (2000)." I don't like the wikilink for Ping Lacson: Super Cop because it links to an article about Ping Lascon and not the movie, creating an MOS:EGG situation. I suggest removing the wikilink or redlinking it.
Unlinked
  • "Locsin subsequently had minor appearances" Delete subsequently, as the years in the Mano Po movies will inform the reader that these were subsequent to her previous work, and thus the word is redundant.
Done
  • "a role she later reprised in its 2005 film adaptation." Delete later, as the reader will know this is later based on the dates.
Done
  • 'She then starred opposite Richard Gutierrez in the romantic dramas Let the Love Begin (2005)" Delete "then"
Done
  • "The following year, she reunited with Richard Gutierrez in the coming-of-age drama The Promise (2007)" Delete "The following year" as the year after The Promise will inform the reader of this information.
Done
  • "In 2016, she appeared in the comedies Everything About Her and The Third Party." This needs a citation.
Added
  • Why is her role blank in "Twin Hearts", "Love to Love" and "All Together Now"? What character name was she credited with in these shows?
A previous source review from one of the coords mention that if you can't reliably source the name, remove it and put a dash in the table. There are no high-quality sources for these character names outside of IMDb that I could find, and Wikipedia:Citing IMDb is considered unreliable.
Yeah, IMDB is unreliable. Perhaps there's a Filipino film board that stores this type of information? Regardless, this is not a big deal. Z1720 (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried, unfortunately it isn't available on any internet archives. And sadly there isn't a Filipino board that maintains these types of information. News sources are generally my go to, aside from TV Guide, Rotten Tomatoes, movie reviews or press releases from the film studio/production/network.

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: thank you for your review. I have actioned the above. Let me know if there are things that remain unaddressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: much appreciate your support! Pseud 14 (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AK

  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
  • Just a note, Template:' is for placement after something in italics, not something that is just linked.
Thanks for this and noted.
  • "2005 television series Darna based on Mars Ravelo's comics" → "2005 television series Darna, which is based on Mars Ravelo's comics"
Changed
@AryKun: thanks for your review. I have actioned the above. Let me know if I might have missed something. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing else I could find, so support on the basis of prose. AryKun (talk) 15:52, 26 April 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]

Comments by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

  • Is the "This list is complete and up to date as of April 202" needed? Assuming it'll be updated monthly; if there's no updates it'll most likely just be given an [needs update] template. GeraldWL 02:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is used by several lists to show that they are up to date, so I think keeping it is not a bad thing. Can delete it, though, if you insist.
  • "and five television channels" --> "as well as five television channels" to avoid repetition of "and"
  • "As of 2022, around 40 singles"-- link singles
  • No rows with the green key? Or is it there just in case there comes a number-one song? Either way is acceptable by the way, just need clarification.
There will most probably come an instance in the next years where this can be used, so I just placed it there for the moment :)
  • The footnote C "Two songs tied for the number one position." shouldn't have a full stop per MOS:CAPFRAG
  • In the first image, (member pictured) isn't really needed since the only person in that image is Dreams. Perhaps state when Dreams was pictured-- (pictured 2021)
Carla's Dreams is a band, and I think it is important for the reader to know that it is only one member of the band in the picture. The fact that they're anonaymous makes things even harder, so I think keeping it the way it stands now is the best option.
  • ""Breaking Me" by Topic" --> ""Breaking Me" by Topic (pictured YEAR)"
  • Same goes with the other images
Added that for Topic, thank you for pointing out, but years should only be added if pictures are significantly older or more into the future than the year the article's topic is in (which is not the case for any picture here).
  • In ref 9 and ref 10, link Media Forest for consistency
Not linked in ref 9 because it is already linked. This is common practice to avoid overlinking.
  • Ref 5, linked to Romanian-Insider, is detected as a marginal source, "Reliability depends on contributor or topic." Do you think it's a high-quality source here, and if no I suggest changing.
Given the fact that it only sources the non-controversial fact that Carla's Dreams is Moldovan, I think the ref is good enough to stay.
@Gerald Waldo Luis: Hey there, thank you so much for your review! I have solved most of your comments and added some opinions here and there. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:51, 17 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]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

I am still new to the FLC process, so feedback and comments on my review are appreciated. This review will focus on the lede, prose, and understandability.

  • "to select newly eligible American football players." Select them for what? Perhaps, "to select newly eligible American football players for their teams." or something similar
  • "and never showed the same ability since" -> "and struggled to regain his ability"?
  • "and never showed the same ability since, Griffin would later be released by the Redskins after the 2015 season." Replace the comma with a semi-colon.
  • "The draft was highly regarded for its quarterback talent, with six out of the eleven quarterbacks selected (Luck, Griffin III, Ryan Tannehill, Russell Wilson, Nick Foles, and Kirk Cousins) making at least one Pro Bowl." I want to tighten up this language a little bit, and replace the verb "making" with a more descriptive word to help describe what the Pro Bowl is (without needed to click on the link). Perhaps, "The draft was highly regarded for its quarterback talent; six out of the eleven quarterbacks selected (Luck, Griffin III, Ryan Tannehill, Russell Wilson, Nick Foles, and Kirk Cousins) were chosen to play in at least one Pro Bowl."
  • "At the same time the draft also had several notable quarterbacks who are now regarded as draft busts." Delete "At the same time" as it is unnecessary
  • "in NFL history at 28 years old after being selected by" -> "in NFL history at 28 years old when he was selected by"
  • "making him Mr. Irrelevant for 2012." -> "causing him to be dubbed Mr. Irrelevant for 2012."
  • "The draft was held between April 26, 2012 through April 28, 2012." Replace "between" with "to", as this will make it more grammatically correct.
  • "For each player selected in the supplemental draft," -> "For each player selected in this draft," to tighten up the language,

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All should be done now. NSNW (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support my concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 21:17, 25 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]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • How do we know that licensing a screenshot from that professional video uploaded to Vimeo is covered by CC 3.0?
  • "Latin Grammy Award for Record of the Year " is overlinked in the lead.
  • Awards such as "El Premio de la Gente" which aren't deemed notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article shouldn't be included in a list like this.
  • ""De Vuelta Pa' La Vuelta"" is linked but redirects back to his discog while "Problema" is unlinked. I'd be consistent.
  • "Sígueme y Te Sigo" appears to have a lower case "y" in our article.
  • Likewise, the "en" in "Barrio Fino En Directo" appears to be in lower case for us.
  • Several spaced hyphens in the refs which should be spaced en-dashes per MOS.

That's all I have for a quick read. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've edited the list following most of them except the awards without Wikipedia articles. I thought that any award could be included. Also, how do I check if an image is covered by CC 3.0? Brankestein (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Hopefully, not gonna screw this up

  • "his third studio album Barrio Fino in 2004" — commas around "Barrio Fino" per MOS:COMMA?
  • "following singles" — ...uh, what does this mean?
  • "won every nomination he received for the song at the Billboard Latin Music Awards" — is there a... simpler way to say this? It feels kinda long-winded and clunky at the moment
  • "Daddy Yankee received a Billboard Music Award for Top Latin Song for "Con Calma". ... Daddy Yankee received the Latin Songwriter" — a bit repetitive
  • Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works should be italicised in citations
  • Check for MOS:QWQ issues in citations

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I followed your comments but I don't understand if song titles should also be italicised in citations. Brankestein (talk) 01:19, 27 April 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]
    @Eurohunter: apologies for pinging but does it look better now? Sebbirrrr (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sebbirrrr: Thanks for notify me. To be honest Spotify mentions just "authors" instead of exactly "writers". Eurohunter (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eurohunter: would it be better if the "writers" column was renamed to "writer(s)/author(s)" then? Sebbirrrr (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sebbirrrr: No. We want there "writers" than just "authors". I assume by writers it mean lyricists than music writers? Eurohunter (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eurohunter: I assume so. However as spotify has both "written by" and "produced by" listed in the credits, wouldn't "written by" then be synonymous with lyricists rather than authors? And in your last comment, are you saying that authors would be the same thing as music writers? Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sebbirrrr: The last qustion - for sure we distinguish author of lyrics and author of music (these are two aspects of song). Summarizing if someone just wrote lyrics and music for project - he need to produce and master it yet. Eurohunter (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eurofan: Aren't the "author of music" and the producer different from each other? The author is the one who creates lyrics and compositional elements (the music) for the song while the producer is the one responsible for the final sound of the song. Going back to what I said about spotify's distinction, they credit the ones who wrote the song and the ones who produced the song separately. Sebbirrrr (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sebbirrrr: Yes as you said the author is the one who creates lyrics and compositional elements (the music) but it not always mean it's the same person. There are lyricists who never write music so that's why we can distinguish two different writers (lyricist vs composer). Eurohunter (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eurohunter: I wanted to bring up that in some album's liner notes, the credits are listed like spotify, having both "written by" and "produced by" separately. In that case, what would you consider the people under "written by" as? Sebbirrrr (talk) 11:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eurohunter: I assume we've reached a roadblock? I pointed out in my last message that the way some albums list their credits is similar to how spotify lists them. Sebbirrrr (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sebbirrrr: I probably overly complicated it. In case if both "written by" and "produced by" exist I would said "written by" lists lyricists. Eurohunter (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eurohunter: does everything look alright then? Sebbirrrr (talk) 15:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eurohunter: sorry for pinging again, but is this sorted out then? Sebbirrrr (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sebbirrrr: No problem. Yes I remember but I wasn't sure what to say exactly so from my perspective - I would search for source where it strictly shows "writer/s" and "producer/s". Eurohunter (talk) 16:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eurohunter: I think you are getting confused, I've said that spotify shows both "written by" and "produced by" separately, like some albums do. Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sebbirrrr: I know but it shows just "authors" and "producers" so there is no direct source. If there are "authors" instead of "writers" there is always a question what they meant. I think author or whole authorship has greater meaning than writer. You can also distinguish writers and performers at American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. Eurohunter (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eurohunter: I don't understand why you think spotify shows authors for "written by" instead of writers. Sebbirrrr (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sebbirrrr: It shows "Authors" in Polish version. Could you provide name in Romananian and/or English version? Eurohunter (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eurohunter: in the Romanian version it's "scrisă de" which translates as "written by", and on the English version it's "written by" Sebbirrrr (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sebbirrrr: So everything is all right just Polish version has wrong translation. I wonder if any note could and if it should be added for it. Eurohunter (talk) 17:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eurohunter: I think the links go to the English version (could you check?) but I could add one which says something like "in some countries, Spotify lists writers as authors" if that's not the case Sebbirrrr (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sebbirrrr: Spotify automatically recognise language you use. If you can force Spotify to show in English but I don't know how to do it or if it is even possible. Eurohunter (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eurohunter: I was asking because it appears in English on my laptop but I have the app in Romanian. I will add the note then Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC
    @Sebbirrrr: It has to recognise your location as US, UK, Australia etc. Eurohunter (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eurohunter: what should the note say then? Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 152 and 154 works only after second reload or it's just my specification? Eurohunter (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Authors in references - "Arvunescu, Victor" - just name and surname so Victor Arvunescu without the comma. Eurohunter (talk) 17:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use "website" instead of "publisher". Eurohunter (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is ro:Uniunea Compozitorilor și Muzicologilor din România for reference 2 and other if there is any more. Eurohunter (talk) 17:47, 26 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 [13], 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]

Comments from Z1720[edit]

I am still new to reviewing FLCs, so feedback and comments on this review are welcome. I will be focusing on the lede, prose, and understandability.

  • "With the Austro-Hungarian occupation of Bosnia and Herzegovina in f878," This is supposed to say 1878?
  • " Paškal Buconjić, who served 29 years, from 1881 to 1910,[5] who was also the last apostolic vicar of Herzegovina." -> " Paškal Buconjić, who served 29 years, from 1881 to 1910,[5] and was the last apostolic vicar of Herzegovina," Replaces the second "who" with "and" and removes the "also" as I do not think its necessary.
  • "The first secular priest to be appointed the bishop was Petar Čule" -> "The first secular priest appointed bishop was Petar Čule" to tighten up the language
  • "custos of the Franciscan Province of Herzegovina (1874–79);" Wikilink custos to Custos (Franciscans)

Please ping when the above have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 18:14, 24 April 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]

AK

  • Disclaimer: I haven't checked references and will be claiming credit at the Wikicup.
  • Made some very minor edits.
  • Mostly just glanced over the tables cuz of their size, but support on the basis of prose as I don't see anything that requires correction or adjustment. Nice work! AryKun (talk) 14:13, 26 April 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...

Version reviewed

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
        Can you check again? I'm still seeing some issues, as of when I'm writing this
        @Pamzeis: Sorry but I don't see whats wrong with the titles of them. None of them are all capitalized and I didn't see any prepositions with 4 letters or fewer capitalized. So what am I missing?
  • Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works like The Book of Boba Fett or The Mandalorian should be italicised in citations
  • You should be consistent with linking works, i.e. only link works at their first instance OR link them every time OR not at all
  • ref 6, 27 & 42: Cnet.com → CNET
    • Done
  • ref 40: Cinemablend → CinemaBlend
    • Done
  • ref 44: Indian Express → The Indian Express
    • Done
  • ref 55 & 101: Comicbook.com → ComicBook.com
    • Done
  • Inverse vs Inverse.com needs consistency
    • Done
  • ref 162: GamerRant+ → GameRant+
    • referenced was removed
  • ref 197: Cnet → CNET
    • Done
  • ref 199 & 255: missing website/work
    • Done
  • ref 22, 157 & 279: Cinema Blend → CinemaBlend
    • Done
  • ref 128: Observer → The New York Observer
    • Done
  • ref 158: GameRadar+ → GamesRadar+
    • Done
  • ref 33: it's seems to be Vanity Fair, not Variety
    • Done
  • Mark Vanity Fair, Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post, Vulture & any others as |url-access=limited
    • I think I got them

Reliability

What makes the following sources high-quality reliable sources:

  • GamesRadar+
  • Hollywood Insider
    • replaced
  • Screen Rant
    • I thought you could use Screen Rant for things like this
  • Decider – it's owned by WP:NYPOST...
    • removed
  • CinemaBlend
    • They are owned by the same company that owns Tech Radar, Space.com, and GamesRadar+ (Future plc)
  • TV Insider
  • Newsweek – 'cuz it's post-2013
    • removed
  • Inverse
  • Looper.com
  • Metro – see WP:METRO
    • Removed
  • Distractify
    • Removed and replace
  • Uproxx
  • Vizaca Magazine
    • Removed
  • Insider
    • WP:BI says that there isn't a consensus if it is reliable or not. So some think it is and others don't
  • Medium – is Irvin an expert in his field?
    • I just removed it cause I feel lazy right now as it was just a secondary source
  • Geek Ireland
    • Ditto
  • The Direct
    • Removed
  • GameRant+
    • Removed
  • The Ringer
  • PopSugar
    • According to WP:RSN It looks fine the way I used it
  • Film School Rejects
  • The Focus
  • Syfy
    • They are owned by NBC according to their article

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

15 sources chosen at random:

  • 4: I can't find any mention of Shaun, Jabba the Hutt or Fortuna
    • added sources
  • 21: OK
  • 33: can't access, AGF
    • fixed
  • 40: OK
  • 51: OK
  • 115: OK
  • 128: which bits supports that "Drash and Skad both help Boba Fett defeat the Pykes"?
    • added source
  • 132: OK
  • 147: OK
  • 166: OK
  • 196: OK
  • 224: OK
  • 239: OK
  • 243: which bit support that she "stops Boba Fett from running away"?
    • removed that part of the sentence and combined the sentence with the other one
  • 269: OK

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

Hey @Pamzeis: can you please finish this source review. I think it would be cool if this could be the Featured List on the main page on May 4th (for May the 4th be with you) if it passes since the empire strikes back will be the Featured article. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 17:52, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dammit, I completely forgot about this.
    I- I think I'm done. I'm never doing this again. I don't get how people do this on a regular basis. Pamzeis (talk) 10:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah darn and thanks for doing that. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 11:57, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the 4th of May isn't a Monday or Friday (TFL only runs on Mondays and Fridays).

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]
    @ChrisTheDude: done. Sorry that took a little bit, I was on a wiki break ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 19:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, also I have no idea what in the volume means. I thought that was just some term for movies and stuff that I didnt know about. What do you think I should do? ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 19:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This explains it. Not something I had ever heard of before. I suggest changing it to "She also said that most of the filming was done on the backlot with some of it in the volume, an area where motion capture filming takes place" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, thanks ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 19:44, 26 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]

@WP:FLC director and delegates: reminder that since I wrote this list, one of you two has to evaluate it for promotion. --PresN 14:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • PresN, not a full source review, but just noticed that there's several uses of pp. for single pages in the refs that should be corrected. AryKun (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AryKun: Thanks, not sure how I missed all those. --PresN 12:38, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

I am still new to reviewing FLCs, so feedback and comments on my review are welcome. This review will focus on the lede, prose, and understandability.

  • "come in two main groupings of body plans," Recommend wikilinking body plans; as a non-biologist expert, I do not know what this means so the wikilink might help. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Classification" is ref 1 verifying all the information in this section? If so, I recommend that ref 1 also be placed after "Modern molecular studies indicate that the 12 genera can be grouped into 2 families." to clarify that it is verifying the introduction sentences.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Both done, thanks! --PresN 02:09, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My comments have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 13:29, 26 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]

CommentsSupport 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]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

I am still new to commenting on FLCs, so feedback and questions about my comments are welcome. I will be focusing on the lede, prose, and understandability.

  • "and were ranked under the same performance standards for its part in advocating sexual equality" I don't understand what this sentence is telling me. Was the race ranked by some external agency for its advocacy? Is sentence saying that women and men were treated equally? Please clarify in the article
  • "the ACO officially refused to allow women" Before the 1956 race, were they unofficially refusing female entries? If not, remove officially.
  • " to enter the event as a consequence of the fatal accident of" -> "to enter the event after the fatal accident of" to tighten up the language.
  • "The restriction was lifted when the women's liberation movement had reached French motorsport in 1971." This sentence is hinting at events as part of the women's liberation movement, but is not very specific. What actions did the movement take to get Le Mans to reversal their ban? This doesn't have to be very long, perhaps a half-sentence.
    • Reworded sentence since I could not find any further details MWright96 (talk) 06:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " followed by the United Kingdom in second with 16 female drivers and Belgium in third with five female racers." Since you say "followed by" the reader will automatically assume the UK is second and Belgium third, so "in second" and "in third" can be removed.
  • "There have been six countries which have been represented by just one woman racer." I think this is going into too much detail in the lede, as it makes the reader wonder why countries with four, three or two entries have not been talked about.
  • " driving for Richard Mille Racing in the Le Mans Prototype 2 (LMP2) category." I don't think this is necessary, as the article has not mentioned other racing companies earlier in the lede.
  • "Since the first race in 1923, there have been 28 all-female squads, all consisting of either two or three drivers." delete the second all.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support my comments have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:13, 24 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]

Comment from Z1720[edit]

This is my first FLC review, so I welcome feedback on my comments. This review will focus on prose jargon and understandability.

  • "which was first introduced at its inaugural online ceremony in 2005." This can be shortened to "with its inaugural online ceremony in 2005." As inaugural online ceremony indicates that it is the first ceremony.
  • "Since its inception, Album of the Year has been given to nine artists." Delete Since its inception. I would assume that the award was not given before its inception, so it is not necessary.
  • "From 2005 to 2008, award winners of the event were announced online," Delete "of the event". It is assumed that award winners are for this award, and this article is not about an event, so it is unusual that this language would be used.
  • "given from 2007 to 2008." -> given in 2007 or 2008. The article already establishes that this is an annual award, so having a two year range is unusual.
  • "with Album of the Year being one of the ceremony's grand prizes." Replace "being" with "becoming"?
  • "Since then, the ceremony has been held at various venues throughout Seoul." I don't think "Since then" is necessary and can be deleted.
  • " (along with Song of the Year and Artist of the Year)" I think this is a little off-topic, and isn't necessary for the reader to understand this list. I recommend deleting it.
  • "which spawned the best-selling single "Cherry Blossom Ending"" I'm unsure how this information relates to this award, and is perhaps off topic. Consider deleting.
  • "Furthermore, IU and BTS are the most nominated artists in the category," I don't think furthermore is necessary in this sentence and can be removed.
  • "having each been nominated four times." -> with four nominations each. This tightens up the language.
  • "From 2005 to 2008, the Melon Music Award winners were announced online; nominees for the awards were not made available during this period. In 2007 and 2008, there was no album accolade announced by the event committee." This information needs a citation.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 20:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Done ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 03:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 25 April 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]

Review by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

Hey! I have a few comments that can hopefully polish it more. After all are resolved I'll support this FLC GeraldWL 08:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image caption: "The cover of the Angelic Layer collector's edition from Anime Limited." The can be removed as it is not typically seen in sentence fragments like this. I think it should also mention "DVD", since collector's edition can be in any medium.
  • For "Vol.", I think it must be put inside an abbr template.
  • Why is there no references in the "Japanese-language releases", but there are several for "English-language releases"?
  • The "References" can be switched with Template:Refh.
  • In the ADV Films citations, it always starts with "Angelic Layer »" The » is a script-language variant for italics/apostrophe, so I think you must replace that with italics, so it'll be "Angelic Layer"
  • "by Clamp" --> "by the group Clamp"
  • "Character design was by" --> "The characters were designed by" to avoid abstract banality in the prose
  • "The series first premiered on TV Tokyo on April 1, 2001, and finished on September 23, 2001" --> "The series' first episode premiered on TV Tokyo on April 1, 2001, and the finale episode aired on September 23, 2001"
  • "with a total of 26 episdes"-- typo
  • You capitalize HAL here, but the band's article uses Hal.
  • "by HAL" --> "by the band HAL"
  • "the second ending theme is "After the rain" by Moeko Matsushita." You sure it shouldn't be "After the Rain"?
  • Overall, I think the sentence about the theme songs can be merged with the first paragraph (after character design), and the TV Tokyo sentence can be merged with the following paragraph as first the sentence.
  • Link DVD and Blu-ray, and limited edition
  • "The series was then released"-- remove "then" here to avoid repetition
  • "released a Blu-ray collection" --> "released a Blu-ray collector's edition"
  • The episodes summary can be entirely reworked. It's mostly a synopsis teaser than an actual start-to-finish summary. The wording style is also very fan-like instead of encyclopedic.


@ISD: Are you still pursuing this nomination? --PresN 20:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: No. Feel free to remove this nomination. ISD (talk) 07:12, 21 April 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.

Nominations for removal[edit]

List of Jacksonville Jaguars first-round draft picks[edit]

Notified: Nishkid64, Crzycheetah, Debartolo2917 WP Lists, WP NFL

Almost entirely unsourced, which is even more concerning given that this is largely a BLP list. A 2007 promotion that does not meet current standards. Hog Farm Talk 20:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates&oldid=1084916082"