Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia Welcome to featured list candidates! Here, we determine which lists are of a good enough quality to be featured lists (FLs). Featured lists exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and must satisfy the featured list criteria. Before nominating a list, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at peer review. This process is not a substitute for peer review. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured list candidate (FLC) process. Those who are not significant contributors to the list should consult regular editors of the list before nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. A list should not be listed at featured list candidates and at peer review at the same time. Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. Please do not split featured list candidate pages into subsections using header code (if necessary, use bolded headings). The featured list director, Giants2008, or his delegates, PresN and The Rambling Man, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. Each nomination will last at least ten days (though most last a month or longer) and may be lengthened where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. For a nomination to be promoted to FL status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the directors determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the director who considers a nomination and its reviews: actionable objections have not been resolved; or consensus for promotion has not been reached; or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support. After a reasonable time has passed, the director or delegates will decide when a nomination is ready to be closed. A bot will update the list talk page after the list is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FLC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates or adds the {{Article history}} template. If a nomination is archived, the nominator should take adequate time to resolve issues before re-nominating.  – Table of contents – Closing instructions – Checklinks – Dablinks – Check redirects

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

Nomination procedure Toolbox Analysis Before nominating a list, ensure that it meets all of the FL criteria and that any peer reviews are closed and archived. Place {{subst:FLC}} on the talk page of the nominated list. From the FLC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please leave a post on the FLC talk page for assistance. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~ and save the page. Finally, place {{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/name of nominated list/archiveNumber}} at the top of the list of nominees on this page by first copying the above, clicking "edit" on the top of this page, and then pasting, making sure to add the name of the nominated list. When adding a candidate, mention the name of the list in the edit summary. Supporting and objecting Please read a nominated list fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the list nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FLC page). To support a nomination, write * '''Support''', followed by your reason(s). If you have been a significant contributor to the list before its nomination, please indicate this. To oppose a nomination, write * '''Object''' or * '''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, the director may ignore it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>), rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may hide lengthy, resolved commentary in a cap template with a signature in the header. This method should be used only when necessary, because it can cause the FLC archives to exceed template limits. If a nominator feels that an oppose vote has been addressed, they should say so after the reviewer's signature, rather than striking out or splitting up the reviewer's text. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, break up or add graphics to comments from other editors; replies are added below the signature on the reviewer's commentary. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider. Graphics (such as {{done}} and {{not done}}) are discouraged, as they slow down the page load time. To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write * '''Comment''' followed by your advice.

Nominations urgently needing reviews edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated almost 2 months ago and have had their review time extended because objections are still being addressed, the nomination has not received enough reviews, or insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met. If you have not yet reviewed them, please take the time to do so: Michael Jackson singles discography (FLC) Melon Music Award for Song of the Year (FLC) List of didelphimorphs (FLC) Frances McDormand on screen and stage (FLC) List of songs written by Ricky Vela (FLC) List of prime ministers of New Zealand (FLC) List of accolades received by Shiva Baby (FLC) Manga Taishō (FLC) Women's Professional Billiards Championship (FLC) edit · history · watch · refresh The following lists were nominated for removal more than 14 days ago: List of Cathay Dragon destinations (FLRC) List of awards and nominations received by 30 Rock (FLRC)

Nominations

List of Coppa Italia finals

Nominator(s): Dr Salvus 21:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Since March 2021, I have often read the second nomination and I think I have fixed every user's concern about it. (If I haven't, it may be because I had written many cazzate in it.) I hadn't nominated it before due to a fear to fail it for the fourth time, but I now think the article is OK. I couldn't find the attendance prior to the 1980s, but remember the cup didn't even have television broadcast at that moment, so I think the attendance information wasn't registrated.. Dr Salvus 21:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Angels in Neon Genesis Evangelion

Nominator(s): TeenAngels1234 (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because, after several months and years of work, I believe it has reached a level of quality where it can be nominated here. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - 475 citations. That's a tall order. GamerPro64 02:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Very good work on this article. But I think it's more accurately described as an article, rather than a list. This is just a suggestion, but I think it'd be better to nominate this as a featured article instead; or a good article. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@PanagiotisZois: I think he tried once but got reverted due to this.Tintor2 (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose not a list, this is clearly an article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I am rather confused now. On the 4th of July my nomination for GA was cancelled because it was considered list, and now I am told that I should do a GAN or FAN instead. The article in TP is still marked as a list, anyway. I honestly wouldn't know what to say.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is what the page looked like before you started working on it, so I can understand why it'd be classified as a list back then. But given the extensive amount of work you've put into this page since then and the plethora of information available, this page is not just a mere list. Especially given the existence and extensive size of the "Conception", "Characteristics", "In other media", "Cultural references and interpretations", and "Cultural impact" sections. Whoever looked at the page at its current state and told you it was a list that couldn't be nominated as a good article didn't know what they were talking about. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 09:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Apologies for piling on, but I agree with the above conversation that this is an article and not a list so this is not the appropriate venue for this nomination. Sorry. Aoba47 (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't worry. You have nothing to apologise for, Aoba. By now it is obvious that the article is not to be considered a list and that the user who sent me back here by cancelling the GAN was in all good faith wrong. I'd suggest to archive this, since it's now apodictic.-TeenAngels1234 (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I respect and appreciate your response. It is never a great feeling to get these kinds of comments, but you have taken a very positive and constructive perspective on that. I wish that I was able to keep my cool that well during situations like this one lol. You have done a lot of great work on this article and that should be commended. Best of luck with the future GAN if you decide to pursue that path. Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1953

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Here's the next of my nominations from the history of Billboard's R&B charts. Among the most notable chart-toppers this year was "Big Mama" Thornton's original recording of "Hound Dog", a song later made legendary by Elvis Presley. Anyone who has heard the recent song "Vegas" by rapper/singer Doja Cat will have heard Big Mama's vocals being sampled on that track...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Pseud 14

• Another solid work. Only comment is whether "The "5" Royales" should be sorted as the numeric 5 and not as "five"? --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @Pseud 14: No idea if there is a rule on this. WP:SORT doesn't seem to offer any help.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
    • I don't know either. The 5th Wave (film) and The 5th Dimension are both sorted as "5" (according to their DEFAULTSORT). - Dank (push to talk) 12:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Same reason as to my clarification too, per Chris's comments . But if we would be going by precedence, I guess Dank's examples would be the way to go? --Pseud 14 (talk) 14:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
        • @Pseud 14: fair enough, changed :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
          • Support --Pseud 14 (talk) 16:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Barbie's careers

Nominator(s): Antihistoriaster (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Antihistoriaster

I am nominating this for featured list because it is comprehensive, thoroughly documented, well-organized and, to me at least, pretty fascinating as a window into culture and toy history.

Antihistoriaster (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Antihistoriaster

Comments from Lil-Unique1

• Oppose - Clearly this has taken a lot of time, well done on your dedication and committment. I do have some concerns though. The article lacks context, it is in essence an index of jobs that Barbie has had. I also have trouble with that very terminology. Is it about the doll or about the character as she has appeared in anime/Tv/movies? If its about the doll, then dolls do not have professions people do. Dolls are inanimate objects. Therefore is this not about the costumes/outfits and accessories Barbie comes with? as e.g. Barbie dressed as a doctor NOT Barbie as a doctor. All of that aside, I don't think it passes our quality standards either:

1. Barbie's Careers sounds awkward. Is there a better title?
2. Does this pass WP:NLIST? Has the topic of the careers of Barbie received significant coverage?
3. At the moment, almost everything is matter of fact - primary sources saying there's a doctor barbie etc. but no context.
4. The second paragraph is one sentence and reads According to Mattel, Barbie has had over 200 careers, recently including more STEM fields. The word recently is without context, recently according to when?
5. Reference one (The Times article) is missing information like its author etc.
6. Reference five Barbie.mattel.com/shop is a WP:VENDOR source which are frowned upon
7. What makes Barbiedb.com a reliable source? There's no editorial information and its borderline WP:VENDOR / akin to eBay?
8. Is there not an over-reliance on WP:PRIMARY sources? Where its not Barbiedb.com, its all almost Mattel Global Consumer, which is clearly related to the topic very close.
9. None of the current sources are archived.

Unless I've missed a notability guideline that applies specifically to toys, its my understanding that the WP:RS and WP:MOS would frown upon primary sources, vendor sourcing and it may even border on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 21:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !Year becomes !scope=col | Year. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |1959 becomes !scope=row |1959. If the cell spans multiple rows with a colspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:19, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Member states of the International Labour Organization

Nominator(s): Goldsztajn (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it contains a comprehensive overview of the member states of the ILO. I've been working on the list on and off for 18 months and believe it is probably now the most complete article on the member states of any international organisation on Wikipedia. This is my first FLC. It was nominated for peer review, but received no feedback. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• Per MOS:COLOR, a background colour alone cannot be used to indicate something, you need to add a symbol as well -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  A different option might be to add a column with a green tick or yellow tick denoting founding member or invited, respectively...? Goldsztajn (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  The ticks would have to be in different columns, as having ticks of different colours in a single column would also violate MOS:COLOR.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  That'll be a no, then. :) Thanks, again. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

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

• Done.

• A few rows seem to be missing their rowscope- for example Republic of Vietnam and People's Democratic Republic of Yemen in the Former members section, and State of Palestine in the next section.

• Done. I've done a check of every row, throughout all the tables, it should be there for all 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 18:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for spotting these and brining to my attention. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "presently has 187 member states"- per MOS:CURRENTLY, change this to a statement along the lines of "as of August 2022"

• Done. Revised paragraphs one and two of the lede to accommodate.

• "The ILO was founded in 1919" - you only just said that

• Done.

• Third para of the lead is unsourced

• Only first sentence of the paragraph is not sourced elsewhere, added source for that sentence. Acceptable?

• "Prior participation as part of the Soviet Union." - this is not a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop. Check for other such cases.

• Done

• "citing the organisation's lack of support to anti-colonial liberation movements" - here the British spelling of organisation is used, but earlier the American spelling was used

• Done (technically, use here is Oxford English, but still a mistake in consistency nevertheless!)

• Image caption "Visit of Haile Selaisse of Ethiopia to the ILO, August 1924." is also not a complete sentence

• Done

• Nor is "Stamp issued by the GDR (East Germany) commemorating the 50th anniversary of the founding of the ILO."

• Done

• "in the northern Spring of 1990" - spring is not a proper noun so doesn't need a capital S

• Done

• Ref 116 gives a Harv error (the date is wrong)

• Done

• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for spotting these! Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

59th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I've been working on more recent Emmy ceremonies, but I saw the sad state this list was in and decided to completely redo it. Fun fact: This ceremony saw the first "broadband" nominee. To quote one article, "Twenty years from now, when Emmy [sic] only recognizes programming found on the Internet, historians will point to the mostly forgotten Drive as the show that started it all." Seems pretty accurate to me. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee received five wins from 11 nominations, leading all programs in both categories" - what are "both" categories? The last mention of categories said there were 66? Do you mean across the two ceremonies?
• If the presenters are in alpha order, Miley Cyrus should be after her dad
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Birdienest81

• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of TV series and movies should be italicized even in citations.
• Per MOS:QWQ, quotations within quotations (namely quotations inside the article title) should be formated with half quotation)

Bob said: "My favorite episode of Cheers is 'Thanksgiving Orphans' which aired in 1986."

Otherwise this is good.

--Birdienest81talk 09:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Birdienest81: Done. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Good work.

-- Birdienest81talk 00:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Drive My Car (film)

Nominator(s): Harushiga (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Drive My Car is a Japanese film that received numerous accolades from various outlets. This is my first FLC, and I believe this list meets the criteria. Any feedback is appreciated. Harushiga (talk) 08:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "while taking inspiration from "Scheherazade" and "Kino,"" - the comma should be outside the quote marks
  • Done.
• "two other stories from it" =? "two other stories from the collection" would read more elegantly IMO
  • Done.
• "The film had its world premiere [.....] on 11 July 2022, and was released in Japan on 20 August" - how is this possible? 20 August is still three weeks in the future
• On that note, if the film only had its world premiere 19 days ago, how can it have already been nominated for all these awards? Can we assume that you meant to write 11 July 2021?
  • Yep, I meant to write 2021. Fixed.
• Was it really the entire country of Japan that was nominated for the Academy Award?
  • Other tables for films nominated for Best International Feature Film also use the country in the recipient section, so I assume this to be the standard?
• That's what I got on a first pass -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi, I gave some comments above. Harushiga (talk) 02:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• In citations, if you choose to rewrite titles using italics instead of quotations (example: source 3, "'Drive My Car' Cannes Review..." to "'Drive My Car' Cannes Review..."), the quotations can be removed ("Drive My Car Cannes Review...").
  • Done.
• Nikkan Sports Film Award is in the wrong spot alphabetically (move two spots down)
  • Done.
• Check if the Newcomer of the Year award is directly tied to the film – it may only recognize Miura as an individual without citing the film in the nomination. This is supported by the citation saying the film won 8 awards when 9 are listed.
  • The article directly cites Drive My Car for Miura's win. The award was given to multiple people, which is possibly why it was not counted towards the total.
• Source 53's reference has issues with italics
  • Fixed.
• The New York Times should be marked with |url-access=limited
  • Done.

Overall, this is really good for a first nomination! RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I addressed them above. Harushiga (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:23, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

List of presidents of the United States

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The list of the lists! With an annual readership of about 6.67 million, it is the most viewed list on Wikipedia and one of the most viewed page on the entire encyclopedia. A highly important list, this was a FL from 2005 to 2008, until it was delisted. This is a humble attempt by me to take this list back to the featured status.

A few fundamentals first. The structure of the list received a consensus in a recent RfC with the view of not to duplicate cells when using the sorting feature. The images for individual presidents have been decided to be same as those in the info-boxes of their respective pages (in a RfC). Exceptions to this include Barack Obama and a few others; in those cases, talk page discussion had consensus to use the other images. As for the lead image, we had a RfC without any consensus for a particular image, but the overall consensus was for image of some kind (See RfC). Any suggestions about that are also welcome.

I, along with the help of few other editors, to whom I am grateful, worked on the sources of the list and added citations for everything. The prose and "Notes" have also been re-worked till some extent. All constructive feedback is more than welcome!!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Source review – Pass

Thank you for all of this KS! Due to this list's prominent status on WP, I may be a little extra picky, just so we can get it right. Aza24 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Formatting

• Source formatting is generally excellent
  • Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• You could consider adding more author links, as I suspect some of the ANB biographers have WP articles
  • I don't usually add author links, and have removed the sole author link from the sources. They appear consistent now, is it fine? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Merely a suggestion! Consistency is the goal here so your choice is fine by me. Aza24 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• You could also consider archiving the urls
  • I tried using the "Fix dead links" from the history page, but it is not archiving the references. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
    • No worries, I tried doing so and didn't work for me either. Aza24 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Reliability

• If alternative sources are available, I would strongly suggest switching out the rather old sources Goldman 1951, Fairman 1949, Seasongood 1932 and perhaps Willis & Willis 1952 (each of which have a single ref use I believe). AP (1932) is on the older side as well.
  • Done mostly all except one. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
• Surely there is a more recent Coolidge biography that could be used instead of Fuess? Not a huge deal since the only thing being sourced is a single date, but thought I'd throw it out there.
  • Removed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Verifiability

• Is a page range really needed for the Fuess (1940) ref? Surely the date August 3, 1923 is not said over five pages? Aza24 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Changes Ref. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Aza24, I responded to the points above. Thanks for the source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I fixed up a few smaller things myself and added an oclc to the book too old to have an ISBN. Sourcing looks great, pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Golbez

• I have accessibility concerns with the split cells. I do not have a screenreader so I don't know how they're handled but semantically I don't think they fly. For example, the Election column for George Washington contains two discrete entries separated by a visual element. This was done because consensus was that, if we had sorting, we couldn't allow the sorting to split up rowspanned cells (... It's hard to explain unless you've seen it, I can find a diff if anyone's interested), so they got rid of the rowspans. But the replacement, a visual (i.e. not structural like a table cell) divider, I don't know how that will be handled by screenreaders. This type of splitting is also used in the Party and Vice President column.
  • That said, I personally disagree with many of the decisions made here but I won't be petty and oppose solely on that. The accessibility issue, however, needs to be addressed. --Golbez (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
    • The basic idea behind this table format was to avoid duplication of cells when using the sortability feature. We had to get rid of multiple column cells within a row of a single president to avoid unnecessary duplication. An image of the issue could be seen here. The current table format was proposed and had consensus. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
      • I understand that. Consensus does not trump accessibility, however. --Golbez (talk) 03:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
        • I strongly agree with you. But it appears that, per FL criteria and MOS:DTAB, that the list meets general accessibility requirements of table caption, scope of headers, and the general table layout. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Also pinging @PresN if they can tell us if the current table format is an issue for the screen readers. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
      • I actually don't know how screen readers handle the "four-dash" lines; I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility#Question about how screen readers handle List of presidents of the United States. The list seems fine from an accessibility perspective otherwise. --PresN 18:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
        • They'd read them as either "separator", something like "four dashes", or maybe nothing at all ... all of which are fine by me. Graham87 03:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
          • Thanks a lot, Graham, much appreciated! @Golbez, it seems that those four dashes are not causing any accessibility issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from GoodDay

• Were the changes made to the page-in-question, also made to the List of vice presidents of the United States page? GoodDay (talk) 22:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  That is simply irrelevant to the matter at hand. If you have concerns about the List of vice presidents of the United States, bring them up there, not here. Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Was not the last RFC meant to cover both pages? GoodDay (talk) 11:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  I have no idea, and either way it is still irrelevant to the FL candidacy of List of presidents of the United States, which is judged on its own merits. I have no idea where you're going with this. Aza24 (talk) 18:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  I agree with Aza24. Feel free to let me know if you have any specific constructive concerns about this list. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:48, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  @GoodDay: FLC is solely the process for promoting (or not) individual lists to featured status after review; it is not a mechanism for enforcing RFC, Wikiproject, or content discussion standards (beyond how they shape reviewer opinions), and is especially not for shaping the content of pages beyond the nominee. In my opinion, yes, the VP list should use a similar structure to this list for accessibility (and general presentation) reasons, but that's a discussion for that list and has no bearing on this FLC. Nominators are under no obligation to edit other, un-nominated lists, even if it makes sense from a consistency point of view. --PresN 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  One page at a time. I see. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Is there an image that could go in the lead? It looks a bit bare without one......
  • I agree. As I specified in this nomination statement, the overall consensus in the RfC on lead image was that we need image of some kind, but couldn't agree on which one. I think which image needs to go in the lead can be discuss independent of FLC. (See RfC) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• "45 people have served" - may as well say 45 men
  • Sure, but I wish this to be changed to "people" again soon! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Notes e and t are not complete sentences so do need a full stop
  • Done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot, Chris. All addressed except the first! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• Support - I suppose the lead image isn't that big a deal. And well done for picking up on what I actually meant with my last point considering that I inadvertently typed the exact opposite of what I meant! :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks! And yeah, coincidentally, even I misread it is "do not need a full stop"!! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Pseud 14

A well-written and informative lead for an article that is rather prominent.

• Very minor comment, perhaps we can link "Four presidents died in office of natural cause", since this refers to heads of government or people in position.

That's all from from! Fantastic work.--Pseud 14 (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Pseud 14, done. Thanks for the comment. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries by Babar Azam

Nominator(s): CreativeNorth (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because pretty much every other cricket century list is featured and I have worked to get it to the standard where I feel it could be featured as well. Thanks in advance. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• I am aware that names from the Indian subcontinent don't necessarily work the same as western names, so can you confirm that it's correct to refer to him as simply "Babar" per MOS:SURNAME?

I'm pretty sure he is refered to as Babar. This tweet from the Pakistan Cricket Board seems to confirm this. Could be wrong though. CreativeNorth (talk)

• "Babar Azam is an Pakistani cricketer" => "Babar Azam is a Pakistani cricketer"

YChanged. CreativeNorth (talk)

• Full stop at the end of the Vaughan quote should be outside the quote marks

Y Done

• "He has been named in the ICC Men's ODI Team of the Year on 3 occasions" => "He has been named in the ICC Men's ODI Team of the Year on three occasions"

Y Done.

• "four different opponents at five cricket grounds" - I think just "grounds" would suffice, as he's not likely to have scored a century at a football ground

Y Removed

• "His first century came in 2016 where he scored 120" - against.....?

Changed to "His first century came in 2016 where he scored 120 against the West Indies"

• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments @ChrisTheDude:, I think I have adressed them all, anything else? CreativeNorth (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Quick comment – This isn't a full source review from me as of yet, but ref 6 needs a publisher (ESPNcricinfo). Giants2008 (Talk) 21:22, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Giants2008: Corrected. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• It's mostly fine, but I question why the second column of the tables (score) is being set as the "primary" column, rather than the "number" column, seeing as the score is not unique and does not "define" its row. --PresN 18:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@PresN: I think have changed it so that the primary column is the number column. Can you have a look and confirm? Thanks. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep, looks good! --PresN 16:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

List of municipalities in Arkansas

Nominator(s): Mattximus (talk) and Straughn (talk)

We are nominating this for featured list as it follows the same format of successful nominations from the other twelve featured lists from other states. With reviewer help, our goal is to bring the lists for all states up to the same high standard. These lists are fairly standardized by now and this one should be of the same high standard but there is always room improvements. We are happy to make any recommended changes. Thanks again for your input. Mattximus (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "City of the First Class has [....], City of the Second Class has [....] and an Incorporated Town" - add the indefinite article to the first two to match the last

• I remvoed the indefinite article from the third so all three match, does that work?

• "Any expense over $20,000" - can you be more specific about what this covers? Currently it could be interpreted as referring to any time that anyone in the city wants to spend $20K eg when Dave wants to buy a new car :-)

• Good catch, the source document doesn't specify but I added "municipal expense" to eliminate Dave's car.

• "at least 5 members" => "at least five members"  Done
• "Incorporated towns" - needs a capital T for consistency  Done
• Photo captions are complete sentences so need full stops  Done
• Inconsistent use of Arkansas'/Arkansas's in the photo captions  Done
• Two rows have no date of incorporation - is this genuine or an accidental omission?

• This is genuine, there were actually more but Straughn did some digging and filled in what they could (with appropriate references).

• Yes, I got in touch with the State Library, the Encyclopedia of Arkansas, and the Secretary of State, but none of them could provide information on dates of incorporation for Corinth or Patterson. -- Straughn (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Some rows have two dates of incorporation - would be good to explain how/why this is

• Added note; some towns and cities were reincorporated at later dates. -- Straughn (talk) 13:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)  Done

• Note d - accounts vary between what and what?  Done

• I added a specific note for each case, I believe I have all the cases sourced, so I removed the general note in favour of the specific. Does this work?

• Added explanatory sentence but the wording is directly from the source, I hope that doesn't count as plagiarism as it's very hard to reword.

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• I made most changes, need some time for the others. Thanks for the excellent review, you caught some really hard to spot errors! Mattximus (talk) 16:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Looks like we have completed all requested changes! What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Arkansas is divided into 75 counties and contains 501" As the number is not fixed, you should say "As of date"  Done
• "the smallest by population is Victoria with 20 residents". No change needed but as a Britisher I find it remarkable how small US municipalities can be. If half of Victoria residents are voting adults and it has five council members then presumably half the voters have to be councillors? However, the system is much more democratic than the British one, which has boroughs with very large populations.

• No idea how these tiny municipalities deal with the legal obligations for number of council members... it is very odd indeed.

• Maybe have photos of smallest muncipalities as well as the largest?

• A picture of the smallest municipalities would be, without much exaggeration, a person's house surrounded by their property. There might be privacy issues around that.

• All looking good. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Made the one suggestion, but thanks for looking it over! I know they are quite standardized but happy to make any changes! Mattximus (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.  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. | Party becomes !scope=col | Party. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.  Done
• 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. | [[Adona, Arkansas|Adona]] becomes !scope=row | [[Adona, Arkansas|Adona]]. If the cell spans multiple rows with a colspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.  Done
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for looking into accessibility. I'm glad to know about this for all my future edits. I've updated the tables in the article and believe they should meet accessibility standards. Straughn (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Dank

• 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. I normally check sorting on all sortable columns, but not when the table is this number-heavy. I sampled the links in the table. (Otherwise, if you can deal with PresN's concerns above, that should cover the table review.)
• 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, the best I can tell, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 03:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Drive by comment from Goldsztajn

• The captions for the pictures of the top 10 municipalities are somewhat repetitive ... given the title "Largest cities and towns in Arkansas by population" might it be simpler to write "1st Little Rock (state capital)" "2nd Fayetteville" etc? Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I had the same reaction, but I wasn't sure what to say about it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
    • I mixed up the phrasing a bit so that it's less repetitive, how is it now? I still think sentences are best rather than point form (which for me looks strange in a caption), but if it's not diverse enough I'm open to other suggestions for wording. Mattximus (talk) 20:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
      • I've already supported, but if you're asking, and if it were my list, I'd create an additional table with 10 rows ... the first column would be just "1, 2, 3 ...", then the image of the city, then a notes column ... maybe another column. - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

        This is not a make or break issue for me, happy to support, but the changes don't really address the problem. I'm not sure about another table and if using ordinal numbering is a problem, what about adding the actual population number? ie "1. Little Rock (state capital), pop. 202,591" etc and change the title of the image gallery to "Largest cities and towns in Arkansas by population (2020)". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

List of macroscelids

Nominator(s): PresN 21:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Here is number 22 in our ongoing journey of animal list FLCs (3 lists for Lagomorpha, 10 for Carnivora, 4 for Artiodactyla, and 1 each for Perissodactyla, Cingulata, Didelphimorphia, and Scandentia), with the last one in a subseries of single-list orders. In this one we find the 20 species of Macroscelidea, or elephant shrews, which despite the name aren't closely related to shrews or any rodent; the elephant part just comes from the nose looking kind of like a trunk, but it turns out they're actually in the same Afrotheria clade of six orders with elephants. These little mammals are native to a variety of habitats in Africa, generally the southern half, and all look fairly similar, though do note the black and rufous elephant shrew, which eschews the dusty camouflage of most of them for a striking black and red. We're missing a few photos of these guys due to their small and reclusive nature, but the science is up to date and the formatting reflects prior FLCs. This will be last one of these lists for a while—I took a break after this one to change genres. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "They are all around a similar size, ranging from the Etendeka round-eared sengi, at 8 cm (3 in) plus a 8 cm (3 in) tail, to the grey-faced sengi, at 32 cm (13 in) plus a 26 cm (10 in) tail" - I think I mentioned this in a previous FLC, but is there a way to reword this? I appreciate that all these creatures are kinda of a similar size when compared to the entirety of the animal kingdom (i.e. they are small), but is it really accurate to say that they are of a similar size and then list two examples where one has a body literally four times the size of the other? Does that make sense?
• Wikilink biome as a slightly obscure word?
• Is it worth wikilinking savanna on the first usage? It may not be a term that all readers know.....
• Think that's all I got - great work as ever -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:08, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: All done, thanks! --PresN 02:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• An excellent list.
• "Almost no macroscelid species have a population estimate, though the golden-rumped elephant shrew is considered endangered with a population of around 13,000.": I prefer something like: "The only macroscelid species with an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) population estimate is the golden-rumped elephant shrew, listed as endangered with a population of around 13,000." (And then of course you can use just "IUCN" in the Conventions section ... see my next bullet point.)
• "Conservation status codes listed follow the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species. ... Ranges are based on the IUCN Red List for that species unless otherwise noted.": I prefer: "Unless otherwise noted, ranges and conservation status codes listed follow the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species." I have no preference on whether you keep the "otherwise noted" or where it should go.
• Alt text seems to be missing for the dusky-footed and Karoo rock elephant shrews.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. The prose is fine. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the table.
• 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
• 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
• 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
• 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
• 4. It is navigable.
• 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
• 6. It is stable.
• Close enough for a support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 18:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

• Text points done; not sure what you mean about the alt text as neither of those two has a species image (and all the ranges have visible text instead). --PresN 18:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Oops on the alt text. I get that "unless otherwise noted" complicates the question regarding the two "Red List" sentences, and I don't have any strong preference. Everything else looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations

List of most expensive books and manuscripts

Nominator(s): Hochithecreator (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it is a well written, well cited article that clearly and with readable prose brings together a lot of information on an important topic that is not available to my knowledge anywhere else on the internet (or at least anywhere of general accessibility) to the same degree of detail and comprehensive coverage. In fact, several of the first results if you google "most expensive books" appear to be direct cribs of the article, though now somewhat out of date. For instance this article is the only place that mentions that the first printing of the Constitution of the United States is now the most expensive. Hochithecreator (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• The article starts with "This is a list of....", which has long been deprecated as a way to start an article (in the same way that an article which was not a list would never start with "this is an article about....."). You should find a more engaging opening sentence. I'd also remove the other semi-meta references to "this list" from later in the lead
• Refs column would look better centred, and I would make the heading Ref(s) as most rows only have one
• Where the description consists of only one sentence fragment eg "Two letters, sold as a set from Yuan dynasty artist Zhao Mengfu to his friend." there should be no full stop. If there are multiple sentences or sentence fragments then full stops are needed.
• "First issue of the first Superman comic book series" - arguably Action Comics was the first Superman series, so maybe clarify as "First issue of the first dedicated Superman comic book series" or similar
• "Illuminated Book of hours on vellum" - no need for capital B
• "First appearance of Superman" - Superman wikilinked on second mention but not first
• "Autograph manuscript" - inconsistently wikilinked/not wikilinked
• Same with "book of hours"
• "Book of Hours originally owned by Galeazzo Maria Sforza" - no reason for capital H
• Marvel Comics links to the company rather than the specific comic, the article for which is at Marvel Mystery Comics. Also, there should probably be a # in front of the 1 to be consistent with the earlier listing of Action Comics #1
• Detective Comics 27 needs # as above
• Also it has its own article at Detective Comics 27 to link to
• That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Also: Martin Goodman was the publisher of Marvel Comics #1, not the author. Might be more consistent to credit Carl Burgos and Bill Everett, who did the Human Torch and Sub-Mariner stories respectively. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments

A really interesting list, but shouldn't it be called something like "List of printed books and other documents which have sold for more than US$1 million"? A copy of the Codex Sinaiticus was bought for the British Museum for £100,000 in 1933 which, with inflation, surely makes it more expensive than some of the items on the list, but it fails to meet the criterion of costing more than $1m. Also, I don't mind for an article like this that it "may never be able to satisfy particular standards for completeness" (e.g. we could not include unreported private sales), but how can readers be confident about the list being a reasonably complete one of publicly known sales? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !rowspan=2|Author becomes !scope=col rowspan=2|Author. If the cell spans multiple columns with a colspan, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |''[[United States Constitution]]''</code> becomes <code><nowiki>!scope=row |''[[United States Constitution]]''. If the cell spans multiple rows with a rowspan, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. Note: This would make your third column the "primary", which is correct since it's the one that "defines" the row- the first row is the row for the Constitution, not the row for "43.2 million". If this looks odd to you, it would be best solved by moving the title of the work over to the first column, not the third.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 18:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• I realise that there has been a lot of work done here, but I worry this treads into original research. Were it a list of documents sold for more than US$1 million it would be very clear. The difficulty is how does one arrive at a contemporary value to rank the documents, without engaging in original research? The conversions to current value all use the {{Inflation}} template, however, it seems to me that there are two problems with the use of that template. First, that template indicates changes in price for consumer goods, it is not for use in regards to capital goods. That problem cannot be overcome by using the GDP inflator, which is for use for assets/capital goods, but cannot be used for change in value for collectible items which are notoriously fluid, rather a specific index informed by asset pricing theory in collectibles is needed. The second problem is the sale prices are not universally in US$ - a item purchased in one market in-/de-flates at different levels than that purchased in another (and these items have all realised their values, ie were sold, in different countries). Again, how to account for exchange rate change? How to account for differences between prices realised in national markets versus an international market? Unless there is a source that can give a recent value for all these items, (or possibly an agreed index, reliably sourced, to apply to the sale prices), the adjusted contemporary prices/value all appear to me as original research. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1952

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone, here's my 11th nomination of a list of number ones on the precursor of the Billboard R&B/hip-hop chart. This one goes out to my dad, who absolutely loves the music of Fats Domino, who had his first chart-topper in this year...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Pseud 14

• Great work on another well-written series! My only comment is how "5–10–15 Hours" is sorted as "Five Ten Five" instead of being sorted in numeric order? --Pseud 14 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pseud 14: - amended -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support --Pseud 14 (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Source review

• This is not required for the FLC, but I would encourage you to archive all your web citations to avoid future annoyance with link rot and death. This suggestion was brought on after I saw Citations 6, 7, and 10 are not archived.
• I know this is a pain, but for the Billboard citations through Google Books, I would include the ISSNs so the citation has all the information.
• All the citations are reliable and high-quality for a featured list. They are all from publications that I would expect to see in this kind of list.
• I have done a few spot checks, and from what I have seen at least, all of the information in the article is accurate and supported by the citations.

Solid job as always. This will pass my source review once the Billboard citations are complete. The citation archiving is more of a suggestion than anything. Best of luck with this FLC! Aoba47 (talk) 00:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• @Aoba47: - added the ISSN. Can you remind me of the bot/script/thingy that I can run to archive the citations? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for your response. Here is the link to the IABot. Since archiving is not a required part of the FLC process. This passes my source review. If possible, I'd appreciate any help with my current peer review, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Dank

• Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
• There may or may not be a copyright issue with the B.B. King image, judging by the uploader's talk page on Commons; also, this doesn't look to me like a photo taken by a fan. Regarding the Dominoes image, is there any indication that Maurice Seymour Studio has waived their rights?
• A table caption is required, with or without an sronly template, so I added one.
• Checking the FLC criteria:
• 1. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. 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. The images seem fine apart from the points already mentioned.
• 6. It is stable. - Dank (push to talk) 19:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Dank: many thanks for adding the caption, I can't believe I am still forgetting that. I have replaced the two images you queried -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Support. Looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Ella Henderson

Nominator(s): >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 11:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has been newly created in the last few days following other FL examples such as List of songs recorded by Madonna. I want to demonstrate that an artist does not need to have a long career and 000s of releases to have things like a List of Songs page, and that for an artist like Ella Henderson who has written for others and released lots of featured singles good quality information can be found. I think this article is a good example of how these types of pages can look. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 11:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Support Comments from K. Peake

Resolved comments from K. Peake

Merge the first para with the second one per overly short size and the usage of full-stops is inconsistent on img text; this does apply to both sentences with or without commas. Remove or replace Daily Mirror, Evening Standard and Metro per WP:RSP. Outside of these concerns, good job on this list that is well-written and sourced! --K. Peake 20:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC) Thanks KP! I copied the first para from List of songs recorded by Madonna but appreciate this does look odd. I've addressed your comments :) >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC) This is looking better, but what exactly makes Vagalume a reliable source? --K. Peake 07:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC) According to Vagalume is a media outlet and streaming app, the biggest in Brazil. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Support, congrats on fixing the issues and I already expressed the clear positives about this list above! --K. Peake 20:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "both as a guest and collaborative vocalist" - aren't those just the same thing?

• I was trying to imply that Henderson has appeared as a co-lead and featured artist with other singers. Is that better wording?

• I would have thought just "guest vocalist" would cover it...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Addressed >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 13:35, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Henderson began at a young age" - we all began at a young age :-) Think there are some words missing here

• fixed

• "according to her father Sean, At the age of two" - sentence seemingly ends with a comma

• fixed

• "entered the series nine" - either "the ninth series" or just "series nine", not "the series nine"

• fixed

• "Henderson would sign with" => "Henderson signed with"

• fixed

• "and begin work on her debut album" => "and began work on her debut album"

• fixed

• "Henderson would experience severe anxiety" => "Henderson experienced severe anxiety"

• fixed

• "between her first and second album" => "between her first and second albums"

• fixed

• "Between 2015 and 2019, Henderson would appear" => "Between 2015 and 2019, Henderson appeared"

• fixed

• Image caption: "American producer worked with Henderson on the song "The First Time"." - might be handy to mention his name :-D

• fixed

• There are multiple instances where you list different recordings of the same song separately. These are not different songs, so I see no real reason to list them separately. For example, for "Give Your Heart Away" or "Rockets", all the cells are identical, so you could simply have one row and put a footnote saying that an acoustic version was also available.

• fixed

• Notes are all complete sentences so need full stops

• fixed

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for the comments ChrisTheDude. I believe these have all been addressed. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Quick comments

• Note a: "This is a cover of the 1998 Cher of the same name." Pretty sure "song" needs to be added after the name here.

• fixed

• Note h: "A week later, second EP" needs "a" before "second".

• fixed

• This isn't a full source review, but I noticed that a bunch of references are missing publishers. I'd suggest added those before a source reviewer takes an interest in this page, to save time later. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Giants2008 in the past when I've tried to get GAs and FLs, publishers have been removed from websites and newspapers. If this is what is needed though, I've gone ahead and added in. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 13:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Despicable Me 2

Nominator(s): Chompy Ace 11:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Despicable Me 2 is one of the best films of 2013 that received the most accolades that any Despicable Me film did. Here's a list of its accolades, as always I am open to constructive criticism on how to improve it. Chompy Ace 11:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I couldn't find anything. great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• The infobox doesn't seem to match the table. The infobox lists 11 wins/54 noms but the total says 8 wins/51 noms, and the table itself includes 8 wins/52 noms.
• who is used three times in two sentences in the lead – suggest rewriting to remove at least one occurrence
• It garnered – the film or the soundtrack?
• Move note 1 to the recipients column

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

RunningTiger123  Done except for the fourth point: Notes are distinct from References. Chompy Ace 05:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123 last amend made. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 07:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

• No concerns with the lede
• Lots of wikilinks in the chart which are not needed. While not necessary for a support, consider MOS:REPEATLINK and if every instance of "Despicable Me" should be wikilinked.
• Image check - pass
• Source check: Version reviewed
• Ref 11: Suggest archiving
• No other concerns with formatting or quality of sources.

Support: no major concerns, everything listed above is optional for my support but I hope will be considered. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

52nd Academy Awards

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 09:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating the 1980 Oscars for featured list because we believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I followed how the 1929, 1979, 1981, 1984, 1986, 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 09:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support - I got nothing at all. Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• "23 categories" – I count 22? (Unless the Special Achievement Award counts, I can't remember)
• Duration in infobox needs better source if possible (source 25 is okay but not great)
• Any reason ratings are omitted from infobox when other years include them?
• "posthumous nomination" – citation needed
• "E=MC2 mon amour" should be written as "E=mc² mon amour", based on this French Wikipedia article and other sources
• "Its So Nice..." → "It's So Nice..."
• I think the ceremony was nominated for some Emmys per this, but I'll search for more sources to confirm.
  • Update: This Hollywood Reporter article confirms it, I can add the information later. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• @RunningTiger123: - Done: I have read your comments and have responded to them by making the proper adjustments based on them. Thank you.

--Birdienest81talk 09:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

No prose concerns

Source review

Version reviewed

• Ref 29: If this is a single page, it should be "p", not "pp"

Image review

• No licencing concerns
• No caption concerns
• No formatting concerns

Please ping when the source review comment is addressed. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 01:02, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Z1720: Done: Fixed the page number by change the field from plural to singular.

--Birdienest81talk 09:42, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. No other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

List of Music Bank Chart winners (2015)

Nominator(s): EN-Jungwon (talk) and Jal11497 (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

After taking the 2020 list to FL status and nominating the 2021 list (which will hopefully be closed soon), here is the 2015 list. This is the third Music bank related list that I am nominating for FL status. Looking forward to your comment. -- EN-Jungwon 14:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "actor and singer Park Bo-gum and Red Velvet member Irene became the host of the show" - host should be hosts (plural)
• "The single, along with "Lion Heart" by Girls' Generation ranked" - need a comma after Generation to close off the clause
• "The year began with "December, 2014 (The Winter's Tale)" by Exo" - doesn't read brilliantly, suggest "The first winner of the year was "December, 2014 (The Winter's Tale)" by Exo"
• "Super Junior's sub-unit Super Junior-D&E consisting of members Donghae and Eunhyuk won their first ever music show trophy" - source?
• "Girl group Red Velvet achieved their first music show win" - source?
• That's what I got on a quick first pass -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude, all done. Thank you for the review. -- EN-Jungwon 18:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

List of FIA World Endurance champions

Nominator(s): EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This list is about all the drivers who have won a title in the FIA World Endurance Championship, an endurance auto racing championship that has been run since 2012. I have recently expanded and redone the list and I believe it meets the necessary requirements to become an FLC. EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• Which version of English is this article in? I can see both "co-organised" (British) and "center" (American)
• In the World Endurance Drivers' Championship table (and subsequent tables), what does the "margin" column mean?
• Using the grey background in the World Endurance GT Drivers' Championship to indicate something contravenes MOS:COLOR. You also need to use a symbol.
• If the grey background relates to the season as a whole, how come in 2014 and 2016 there is one person with it and one without?
• In fact, how come some rows in that table have multiple people listed generally?
• Similar comments to the above on the World GT Manufacturers' Championship table
• "The championship is open to all manufacturers participating in the LMGTE categories, although only entered manufacturers are eligible for points" - what is an "entered manufacturer"?
• "The Trophy for LMP2 Pro/Am Drivers was introduced in the 2021 season for LMP2 driver crews featuring at least one bronze-rated driver" - what's a "bronze-rated driver"?
• Notes a and b are not complete sentences so don't need full stops
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Changes have been made based on the above points EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• 6 LMP1 Private Drivers' Trophy winners → six LMP1 Private Drivers' Trophy winners (MOS:NUMERAL)
• in either of the Pro and Am categories → in either the Pro and Am categories
• A grey background... – this is a complete sentence and should have a period in both locations it occurs.
• Alexandre Imperatori sorts incorrectly
• Signatech Alpine earned their second LMP2 teams trophy in the 2018–19 season, – wrong punctuation at end?

Overall, this seems like a really solid list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• @RunningTiger123: Have made changes based on the above points EnthusiastWorld37 (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Cambodia

Nominator(s): Tone 06:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I know I still have to work on some lists of WHS in Europe, but I'll take a detour to Southeast Asia now. Cambodia has 3 WHS and 8 sites on the tentative list. Most of the sites are ancient cities and temples. The style is standard for WHS lists. The list for Italy, which is currently nominated, is seeing some support already (I know that list is massive, so this one is on the shorter side). Tone 06:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "The site was immediately placed to the" => "The site was immediately placed on the"
• "was the site of the capitals of the Khmer Empire" - is capitals (plural) correct?
• "along a 800 m (2,600 ft) axis" => "along an 800 m (2,600 ft) axis"
• "Koh Ker was the capital of Khmer Empire" => "Koh Ker was the capital of the Khmer Empire"
• "king Jayavarman II declared the independence" => "king Jayavarman II declared independence"
• "and then often took to the nearby execution site of Choeung Ek" => "and then often taken to the nearby execution site of Choeung Ek"
• "The temple is decorated with Buddhist motives" => "The temple is decorated with Buddhist motifs"
• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  Done, thanks! Yes, capitals, plural. I added the word "different" to make it clearer. Tone 09:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Concerns by Z1720

Thanks for nominating this FLC. I want to raise my concern that the only publication used in this article is UNESCO. Since this list is selected by UNESCO, I think they would be considered a primary source and thus some secondary sources would be necessary to help verify the information. Furthermore, the description section has lots of information that can be verified in other sources that would be of a higher quality than UNESCO such as academic sources. I am not saying that the UNESCO references should be removed, but that secondary sources need to be added to this article. I am not posting this as an "oppose" because I want to give the nominator and others a chance to respond or make changes to the article. Please ping me if there are any questions or responses. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of the issue, it has been raised in some previous WHS nominations. There seems to be a rough consensus that the UNESCO is the reliable source that is sufficient here. Of course, most information could be sourced to other sources but the key thing is why some site is on the list (or tentative list), and this is always according to the UNESCO justification of outstanding universal value. I sometimes add third-party sources when the UNESCO one is lacking information, though. Tone 08:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I am reading through the descriptions more closely, and the text is doing a great job describing the site, but it doesn't explicitly mention why it was picked to be a WHS. I suggest adding secondary sources for the descriptors and a brief, one sentence explanation that says something like "UNESCO chose to recognise this site because..."

I also think that most, if not all, of the statements currently in the description section should be cited to higher-quality, academic sources. Statements like, "The Angkor area, one of the largest archaeological areas in the world," can probably be verified to a better source. It makes sense for the UNESCO data column to be cited to UNESCO, but I find it harder to support the descriptions using only one source. Z1720 (talk) 13:44, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Citing each detail to academic sources is probably an overkill. The UNESCO sources are considered reliable and everything is there, so this should be sufficient. The justification is in the descriptions, if you look at the sources, this is under criteria i-x, when writing, I am always paying attention to that part and try to summarize it in the description. The description ideally always states what the site is and why it is important, so we don't need specifically state that "UNESCO chose to recognise this site because...". In the 20 or so previous nominations, the sources were always fine, so I think we can keep it as it is. Tone 14:03, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Fernando Alonso

Nominator(s): Radioactive39 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because it seems like a very informative list about arguably both one of the best and most popular Formula One drivers of this sport. In my opinion, this list also gives a detailed overview about the driver's statistics and achievements (in this case: Grand Prix wins) throughout the driver's career. This could attract the attention of the readers, mainly because he is a popular Formula One driver, as I said before in my brief text. Radioactive39 (talk) 19:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

*"currently competing for Alpine, who won 32 Formula One Grands Prix and two world championships." - is it Alsonso or Alpine that won this? "moved to Renault after just one season for initially being a test and reserve driver => "moved to Renault after just one season, initially to be a test and reserve driver" "before he was being promoted as a regular driver" => "before he was promoted to a regular driver" "managed to win consecutive world championships" => "won consecutive world championships" "in 2005 and 2006 as he won each seven races in both seasons" => "in 2005 and 2006, winning seven races in both seasons" " the then-youngest world champion in the history " => " the then-youngest world champion in history " "Alonso signed for the McLaren team in 2007 following a contract expiry with Renault[5]," => "Alonso signed for the McLaren team in 2007 following his contract expiring with Renault[5]," - also the ref should go after the punctuation, not before "narrowly losing out the title" => "narrowly losing out on the title" "due to a split between him and the McLaren team[7]," - ref should be after punc "first Spaniard to win a Formula One race.[8][c]." - why are there two full stops there? "including his both victories" => "including victories" "In all, Alonso won a total of 32 races at 19 different circuits" - has he retired? If not, this should be "In all, Alonso has won a total of 32 races at 19 different circuits" "achieved with cars being designed and powered by Renault" => "achieved with cars designed and powered by Renault" "subsequently making him the most successful Spaniard" => "making him the most successful Spaniard" "He was most successful at the Bahrain International Circuit in Bahrain" => "He has been most successful at the Bahrain International Circuit in Bahrain" "he curiously never achieved to win in Brazil." - "curiously" is not NPOV so remove "Alonso took a controversial victory at the 2008 Singapore Grand Prix, after his teammate Nelson Piquet Jr. was ordered to crash deliberately." - source? Refs 23 to 28 are not correctly formatted, missing almost all parameters Other refs are inconsistent in how works/publishers are shown eg 21, 40, 41, 43, 45 are all from the same site but show the work/publisher five different ways That's what I got on a first pass -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC) Hello ChrisTheDude, thank you very much for both taking a look at the list and subsequently making suggestions of improvement. I have amended the list based on your suggestions. Hopefully, the list fits well now. Regarding to your last suggestion in terms of the inconsistent refs, I need to look at it later closely, but the remaining errors have been fixed. Please feel free to comment again if I might forgot to edit something. Radioactive39 (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Further comments

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

*Piquet Jr image caption - ref should be after punctuation, not before "Fernando Alonso is a Spanish racing driver, who won" - has he retired from the sport? If not, then this should be "Fernando Alonso is a Spanish racing driver, who has won" Image caption: "Fernando Alonso in 2016, winning a total of 32 races and back-to-back world championships with Renault." He is not winning them in the picture, so this should probably be "Fernando Alonso in 2016. He has won a total of 32 races and back-to-back world championships with Renault." No need to mention Kimi Räikkönen's full name both times he is mentioned in the lead - just use his surname the second time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC) Hello ChrisTheDude, the further comments have been added as well. Thank you very much for giving me your feedback and your suggestions in order to improve the list. Radioactive39 (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Dil To Pagal Hai

Nominator(s): —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it is comprehensive enough. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need 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 these, but: if the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup instead of !scope=row.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 19:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• My only comment is that the various Chopras all sort randomly if you resort the "recipient(s)" column. When I just sorted it, all the Chopras were together but in the order Yash > Aditya > Yash > Pamela > Aditya > Yash > Aditya. The best way to resolve this is to use the sortname template rather than sort. So, instead of having {{sort|Chopra|[[Yash Chopra]]}} have {{sortname|Yash|Chopra}}. Same with the two Singhs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

List of roles and awards of Oscar Isaac

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) and Chompy Ace (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

After recently taking Oscar Isaac's biography to FA, here's his work and awards list in collaboration with Chompy Ace, who created the list and sourced the table. Have at it. FrB.TG (talk) 10:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Pseud 14

• Titles starting with The should sort based on the next word of the title
• Roles should sort under last name (e.g. Abel Morales under M)
• Abbreviation should be consistent Ref(s) = Reference(s)
• I would put the "legend/key" box after table of contents.
• Isaac won his first major role in the biblical drama -- tweak to avoid confusion, since this is his first major role, and he did not actually win (an award/recognition) for the film.
• Beginning the 2010s -- In 2010 would be simple and direct, since he only did one film.
• Isaac followed by playing -- Isaac followed this by playing
• That's all for me. --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, Pseud. All changes incorporated here. FrB.TG (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support - Great work! Pseud 14 (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

If you have time and interest FrB.TG, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current BLP peer review.

Comments

• "Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse Miguel O'Hara / Spider-Man 2099 Cameo; voice role; character credited as "Interesting Person #1"" - so which is it? We've got a specific role named in the second column but then a different credit in the third.......?
• That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment, Chris. I've clarified it now. FrB.TG (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• "parts in Joseph Adler's 2000 productions" it's not 100% obvious that these are stage performances.
• "the biblical drama " also then no way of knowing this is a film.
• "next few years" doesn't feel very encylopedic.
• Second para uses Isaac a lot when the subject is unambiguous, could use "he" every so often.
• "to play Hamlet in a major" our article on the character is at Prince Hamlet.
• "included playing roles" no need for "playing".
• Where is, for example, his role as "executive producer" of Lightningface? Producer in Operation Finale? Etc.

You mean in the lead? It already mentions his role as a producer in OF. I've also added his role as an exec. producer in Moon Knight now.

• Title says this includes his "awards" but it also includes all his nominations. Is it the right title?
• Note d, seems odd, he was nominated alongside them, he didn't share the nomination did he i.e. if one of them won, all three of them wouldn't have won together, right?

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, The Rambling Man, for your comments. These are the changes I made in regard to them. FrB.TG (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: do you think you could finish your review one of these days? Thanks. FrB.TG (talk) 09:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

List of Hyouka episodes

Nominator(s): Takipoint123 (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it is a comprehensive list that meets the FLC criteria, and I think it looks similar to other anime-related FLCs. Thanks! Takipoint123 (talk) 13:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Pamzeis

Hope I won't screw this up

• "is a 22 episode" → is a 22-episode
• Optional but I think "animated television series" would flow better than "television animation series"
• "novel of the same name, Hyouka" → novel of the same name (naming the novel is unneeded as the reader already knows it has the same name)
• Does "series composition" mean writing? The way it's worded... I thought the job was like a producer or something
• "around the events Houtarou Oreki" — I had to read this a few times before I understood... because I thought the character was an event... maybe that's just an issue for me...
• "released on August and" → released in August and
• "North America on July and" → North America in July and
• Link Crunchyroll at its first mention
• Is the theme music relevant enough for the lead? It seems like mere trivia and fancruft to me
• Make sure all citations conform with MOS:CITEPUNCT
• The theme music singers need a source
• "Two volumes of Hyouka's drama CDs were released." — kinda awkward and clunky
• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works like Hyouka need to be italicised in citations

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Thanks for you comments! I think I got everything that you pointed out... but as for the music I think it should be fine to keep it there as it seems other anime FL articles seems to point it out like List of Puella Magi Madoka Magica episodes and List of Yuri on Ice episodes. Thanks! Takipoint123 (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Sorry, I just realized I had to italicize the citations! I've italicized them. Do you have any other suggestions? Thanks :) Takipoint123 (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Pamzeis (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

*"series composition by Shoji Gatoh" - what's "series composition"? series composition is a role like director, typically used in Japanese entertainment. A lot of anime-related articles use this term.[1] "The series centers around the events first-year high school student Houtarou Oreki faces" => "The series centers around the events which first-year high school student Houtarou Oreki faces" Corrected Is there an appropriate wikilink for whatever a "drama-CD volume" is? Linked to Drama CD, a redirect to Radio drama "who wants to know how the room was locked in" => "who wants to know how the room was locked" Corrected What's an "eyecatch"? An eyecatch seems to be something like an endcard (Forgive the reddit link, but this is an example from the anime) [2]. I've just found that eyecatch redirects to Bumper_(broadcasting)#Japan so link that...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for pointing that out! I just linked it to the first episode "Eyecatch" since I thought it would be repetitive to link it to every single one of them, but I'll do that if you prefer it. Takipoint123 (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC) "name the Classic Literature Club anthologies as Hyōka" - is this the same word as the title of the series? If so, why is it spelt differently here? I've corrected them to Hyouka. (Hyōka is the same spelling with Hyouka and is just a different way of romanizing Japanese.) "which turn out to be a yukata" - should be "which turns out". Also, is there a wikilink for whatever a "yukata" is? corrected and linked. That's what I got as far as episode 9 but I need to break off now. Back for more later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC) More comments from ChrisTheDude "a solution with which almost satisfies everyone" => "a solution which satisfies almost everyone" Corrected "he forgot to find a role to the rope" => "he forgot to find a role for the rope" Corrected "he shares his views with Eru on what Hongou probably wanted, who is" => "he shares his views on what Hongou probably wanted with Eru, who is" Corrected "Eru does excellent" => "Eru does excellently" Corrected "He asks some help from Satoshi" => "He asks for some help from Satoshi" Corrected "Hotaro knew that school president and vice president was" => "Hotaro knew that the school president and vice president were" Corrected "volunteer to retrieve sake lees" - what are "sake lees"? It is an alternative name of Sake kasu, and I added the appropriate link. "Satoshi attributes on the quality" - "attributes" really isn't a valid word in this sentence, but I'm not 100% sure what you are trying to say so I can't suggest an alternative....... I've changed the sentence to: Satoshi attributes on the quality -> Satoshi refuses to receive her chocolate, criticizing the quality of the chocolate she made. "contemplates on the fact that Satoshi" => "contemplates the fact that Satoshi" Corrected That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC) @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for a thorough review of the article, it is quite a lengthy one :) I've clarified/corrected based on your comments.--Takipoint123 (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Tintor2

Nice article. I hope it becomes FL so I'll just mention the few issues:

• Give an alt to the image.
  • Done
• Add trans-title to the Japanese references.
  • Done
• There is no obligatory rule but dates format in references should be consistent.
  • Done
• Wikilink anime in the first sentence.
  • Done
• Who published the DVDs in Japan?
  • Added BD BOX citation that shows that it was released by Kadokawa Shoten, if that is sufficient(?)
  • Also added the label for the Drama CDs
• The second paragraph is kinda big. I would suggest splitting the Japanese content from the English ones.
  • Done
• Is it necessary to add eyecathes? Might come across as trivia or fancruft based on MOS
  • Removed
• Are macrons used by the publishers? Cos it's kinda inconsistent.
  • I've changed them all to Hyouka unless they were the titles of the article in citations.
• Is it possible to have a brief premise about the the drama cd narrative? See this FL as example.
  • Unfortunately I don't think I have any reliable sources nor access to the actual Drama CDs, so I'm not too sure if I can add a premise.

Remember to ping me once you fix it.Tintor2 (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tintor2: Thanks for the suggestions, and I've made corrections made above--Takipoint123 (talk) 01:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Giving my support.Tintor2 (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

List of The Book of Boba Fett characters

Nominator(s): ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 23:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because for the last review I got a pass from the article reviewer and a pass from the source reviewer, but the article only got two votes, therefore not having enough to pass. I am sure this meets the criteria per the last review and am renominating the article in hopes of getting more votes. See last review here ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 23:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• Lead is a little brief for such a long article, per MOS:LEAD.
• "amount" -> "number"
• "that appear in the series are " include, rather than "are"? And why cherry pick these ones?
  • If I do not cherry pick wont the list of name become quite lenghty
• "before in The Mandalorian and has also" overlinked.
• "back to life.[21][11] Rich " ref order.
• " ship Slave I back and" overlinked.
• "Ming-Na Wen portrays" ditto.
  • Another editor and I in the last review agreed that it is ok to keep this link here in case someone reads just that section
• TV Insider's -> TV Insider's (check the markup here if it's confusing.
• "protagonist in the series The Mandalorian.[39] In" overlinked.
• "and Salvador Larocca for Marvel Comics" overlinked.
• "Comic Book Resources' Brenton Stewart" overlinked, and see formatting with the {{'s}} template here and elsewhere.
• "Lucas' film American Graffiti.[128][129][19]" ref order and "Lucas's".
• "two or less episodes in The Book of Boba Fett and are considered to play a significant part" fewer, not less, and considered by whom?
• "of ComicBook.com described" italics or not? Be consistent. And don't overlink.
• "comedian Amy Sedaris performs" overlinked.
• "Britt of Inverse said that " ditto.
• "the Star Wars: The Bad Batch series" ditto.
• "considered to be minor characters or make a significant cameo" considered by whom?
• "conversation with ComicBook.com, Rodriquez" unlink this dab.
• Plenty of spaced hyphens in the references, should be spaced en-dashes.

That's it for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Everything has been fixed except for ones I put responses under and I'll get to the last one later. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 00:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Question where is the guideline that says I should change the hyphens to dashes in citations. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 11:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

MOS:DASH. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: - are you able to resolve the issues across this article and List of The Mandalorian characters? Another editor is attempting to (badly) merge all the content from this article into the other one and this one isn't likely to get promoted to FL if all of its content has been merged elsewhere...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

ChrisTheDude Do you think the best way about this would be to remove the content from over there because it is not the list of The Book of Boba Fett characters, but it is the list of The Mandalorian characters. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 11:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That would be my preference. I tried to sort out the other article earlier, but I didn't realise quite how much of a mess it was and I ran out of time before I had to go out..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: I have finished all you have said except for the ones I had questions for. Also @ChrisTheDude: I have fixed the issue at the List of The Mandalorian characters. ― Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

List of United States Military Academy First Captains

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 — Maile (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This is being nominated as featured list because it includes significant American military figures, as well as others who went on to successful civilian careers. Instituted in 1872, First Captain is a leadership position, the senior ranking member of the 4,400 Corps of Cadets at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. (Not to be confused with the salaried Army enlisted rank of Captain (United States O-3).) Note that the PDF United States Military Academy sourcing for the list of names is only a chronological list of all who have held the position . — Maile (talk) 16:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

• After reading this list, I still have no idea what the first captain is. How are they selected and why? What is "overall performance" of the Corps – academic performance, military preparedness, general campus concerns? What is the "class agenda"? Is this basically a student body president? At most universities the students elect a leader of the student government who runs on a platform and works with the administration to ensure student-focused programs are funded, expanded, inclusive, and transparent. Does West Point have such a representative student government or how does this compare? You describe the brigade that the first captain leads as being divided into battallion and companies but don't answer the so-what: do each of them have a leader that the first captain herself directs or what?

  @Reywas92: @Hawkeye7: can answer this better than I can, but comparison to a student body president is not adequate. This is war college, and the First Captain is the Brigade Commander, with graduates often going directly into combat zones. In short, please see United States Military Academy#Rank and organization. War is their business, so any comparison to student body president at some civilian school, is not workable. All that academic stuff aside, the First Captain is charged with making sure they are prepared for war. But, as I said, Hawkeye7 can probably explain better. — Maile (talk) 14:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Reywas92: @Hawkeye7: I found an answer, and a press release, and have posted the info in the first paragraph of Selection and Organization of the Cadet Corps The Academy selects the First Captain, as well as its other leadership positions. It doesn't give the details, but it most certainly was via an established criteria set by the Academy itself. Hope this helps explain somewhat. — Maile (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Pratt should be recognized in the lead as the incumbent but her post-graduate majors are irrelevant here

  Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• "Establishment of the university" section doesn't seem relevant, please tie in better to the article's subject or remove.

  I think it provides background. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  I completely agree on the background info, which is why I put it here. Without that section, non-Americans are not likely to know the why and how of the institution's establishment. And I think it's really important to note when the first women were allowed into the academy. That was a really big deal in American history. It also provides the background as to why no women were named First Captain until 1990. — Maile (talk) 23:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• If you're not using US-style MDY dates, a comma doesn't ever belong between a month a year.

  How right you are! I had done a pre-nom sweep to catch such things, but must have blinked. I believe they're all taken care of now. — Maile (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• "Global influence" is a pretty vague header. Of course top military brass have a global influence, but how does that mean this position has global influence? It's great to note that high achievers at the military academies are often high achievers in the military and that many former officeholders later become generals, but there should be a bit more tying of them together than details like what Pershing did.

  Headings are normally vague. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Removal of "global" still ignores the rest of the comment. This shows that a number of have had significant roles decades after being FC, but not the "influence" of the position itself. Reywas92^Talk 18:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  The position itself has little influence per se outside the Corps of Cadet, where it is a highly-sought after honour among highly competitive people. (This is particularly notable nowadays as the corps is very large, so they tend to be over-achievers). However: the appointment marks the cadet as a likely candidate for future greatness, and this is seen by the high proportion who achieve general officer rank. I created the list because it kept cropping up in biographies. It is also not unknown for First Captains to become patrons of other First Captains, which is important because the US Army runs on a system of patronage. In particular, Pershing took an interest in the careers of other First Captains, hence the run of them as his successors. Graduates are normally ranked on graduation, but this refers to academics, whereas the position of First Captain is based on scholarship, sportsmanship and leadership. As the quote in the article indicates, by first year the cadets have been assessed for a long time. It is not unusual though for them to also rank high in the class, often first like MacArthur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:08, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• "Pershing, MacArthur, Malin Craig and William Westmoreland all served as Chief of Staff of the United States Army" helps with that, but it's missing Summerall, Clark, and Rogers as listing in the table.

  Who was Clark? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Francis William Clark — Maile (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Fixed I rechecked the source on Clark via his obit. He was Chief of staff of only the Third division at Fort Lewis. I have so noted on the list. — Maile (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

• Are there any other notes about the first captains' actual service beyond the examples in "Interrupted terms"?

  Hawkeye7 answered this with the section "Selection and Organization of the Cadet Corps". Each First Captain has that set of responsibilities, that does not vary from one year to the next. — Maile (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

• "All Ameican" typo

  Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• "WW I, WW II" isn't spaced

  Removed abbreviations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Salzman is the only "Brigadier-General" with a hyphen, please check for consistency in the formatting of these comments in general.

  Alas not; corrected them all. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:29, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Lots of inconsistency of U.S. vs. US

  Standardized on "US". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Inconsisency like a simple "Rhodes scholar" for Morales and a wordier "Recipient of a post-graduate Marshall Scholarship" and then "Rhodes scholar scheduled to attend the University of Oxford" that's redundant since Rhodes scholars by definition attend Oxford.

  True, but not everyone knows that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• With the comments column, there is value in recognizing their later achievements and major positions, but there shouldn't be comments merely for the sake of being comments for each one. Lots of people get an "MBA from Harvard Business School" or "MBA degree from Stanford Graduate School of Business" (another inconsistency with "degree"!) and that's just not as relevant here.

  Removed some. Will do another pass through.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

  Also I altered the column heading a bit to say "Comments/post-cadet career" This could probably be tweaked. — Maile (talk) 00:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Why is "who retired three times" meaningful? Retired from what?

   Done Note that this is re George H. Olmsted. It's a bit complicated, but I hope I've expanded it adequately now. — Maile (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'm really confused why the comment for Robert S. Brown is "AKA Capt. Robert (“Todd”) Sloan Brown", what does this add to spell out his middle name?

  West Point tends to have similarly-named relatives also attending the academy, especially in the cases of fathers and sons. This one has name variations from source to source. I wanted the reader to understand that this is the same individual who, for reasons unknown, used alternate variations of his name in different time periods. As a cadet, he was listed as Robert S. Brown. But he wrote a journal for West Point under the name Todd S. Brown. And depending upon the published editon of that journal, his name is listed both ways. Sometimes as Robert (“Todd”) Sloan Brown. No explanation of why. It's confusing, but the only way I could indicate they are one and the same person. — Maile (talk) 22:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• Why is The class the stars fell on a relevant see also?

  Because it's an FL about the 1915 Academy cadets, 36% of whom rose to the rank of general. — Maile (talk)

There's potential here but there's a way to go, namely that it needs more than "these people who did things after attending USMA held a leadership position at USMA". Back to the student body president question – student body president is *not* a Wikipedia notable position! This being a service academy and the success of many alumni can justify this article, but it doesn't really show it. Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

We'll keep working at it. It would be WP:OR to find their student records while at the academy. Which the academy would not give us access to, even if Wikipedia had no dictate against that. We can only go by existing public information. What makes them notable, is what they achieved after the academy. The whole point here is that a leadership at the academy gave them the skills to achieve notability otherwise.

@Hawkeye7: Do you have time to eyeball the Comments column, and help add pertinent info beginning around 1900-15, if lacking? I've started to add brief blurbs about their military careers. Once we get into the 21st century, cadets serve out their required post-cadet military service, and then go into financially successful careers in the private sector. I think it's important to note that. — Maile (talk) 16:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

✓@Hawkeye7: The ball is in your court now. I've given this all I can find, and I think the format and general information is what it ought to be. If you think you can improve on it, then full steam ahead. My intent with the notes column, has been to give a little blurb about the post-West Point path the First Captains took. Overall, that column tells an incredible story of the calibre of people West Point chose for that resposibiliy. @Reywas92: if this works for you, fine. If it doesn't, ah well, you hit the boards running with an Oppose - but overall, you raised some really valid points that led to much improvement and clarity therein. — Maile (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7 and Reywas92: FYI - I stepped back from this a couple of days and then read it cold. Coming back to it, I do believe anyone who never before heard of West Point, needed a little more information as to why this is such a big deal. Especially if this is being read by non-Americans. I added a little paragraph at the top of the "Background" to explain its attachment to the US Department of Defense, and how requests for enrollment are handled. I think the application process alone might make the Army, Navy and Air Force academies a little unique. I also expanded the lead section. — Maile (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comment

• "Holland is one of only seven women cadets...." - per MOS:SURNAME, individuals should not be referred to by their forename in this way -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed - Nice catch there. — Maile (talk) 11:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hasn't been changed as far as I can see...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed for the second time. It was fixed. An editor changed it back while doing other editing. I've made the change again. — Maile (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --Pres<sp an style="color:blue">N 19:53, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done*@PresN: If I understand, you are simply talking about the one line right below |class=. If that's what you meant, thanks for reminding me - taken care of. If you meant something else, please let me know. — Maile (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing

FYI for @Hawkeye7: and also whoever does the sourcing review. YouTube is not necessarily a reliable source. But per WP:RSE regarding that matter, "official channels of notable organizations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed". First captain Austin C. Welch - I just linked him to a YouTube interview video from WCIU-TV in Chicago. The interview was conducted in Dec 2014, the first half of the 2014-2015 academic year. Wikipedia's YouTube guidelines might be a little out of date, inasmuch TV stations and other legitimate entities use YouTube as an outlet. — Maile (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh

• "The First Captain is responsible for the overall performance of the 4,400-strong Corps of Cadets" — Exactly 4400, or approximately?

  It is approximate. Cadets come and go over time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• "or to the President or Vice President of the United States" — Review MOS:JOBTITLE

Fixed — Maile (talk) 13:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• "were John J. Pershing, Douglas MacArthur and William Westmoreland." — We'd have an Oxford comma in the general American English usage

Fixed — Maile (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Why is first women started from a new para?

• Open to suggestions on this, as it was part of an expansion of the lead. Do you think it should be combined with the paragraph above it? If so, that's fine with me. Originally, Hawkeye7 had a paragraph about the latest woman First Captain Holland Pratt. While expanding the lead in general, I just included the other women, as Pratt is the latest, but not necessarily the most significant of women First Captains. I do believe that inclusion of women in the position have been so new - and so few - that they should be mentioned in the lead.— Maile (talk) 12:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Yeah, continuing it in the previous para would be better, in my opinion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixed — Maile (talk) 11:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• "The USMA is" — define the the prose the full form of USMA

Fixed — Maile (talk) 13:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• "to US congressional representatives and senators, as well as to the US President and Vice President" — Review MOS:JOBTITLE, and do we have to repeat US that many times?

Fixed I rewrote the sentence. — Maile (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• "USMA was founded in 1802, through the Military Peace Establishment Act signed into law by President Thomas Jefferson." — This should have been told before describing what USMA does.

Fixed Switched the paragraphs around. — Maile (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• "on 7 October 1975" — Do we have to be this precise. Will it matter to the reader if we just say 1975?

  Yes, it follows from our prime objective, which is to gather knowledge. Also, it someone trying to paraphrase the Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  • Not big deal for me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• "the current Commandant of cadets" — our article capitalizes 'C' in 'cadets'

Fixed - Good catch! We seemed to go both ways from one mention to another. — Maile (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• " John J. Pershing, was 1886 First Captain" — Why comma?

Fixed That was an error. Thanks for catching. — Maile (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• "In 1916, he led 10,000 men" — I may be nitpicky, but exactly 10,000 or, most probably, approximately?

  With such figures, it is always understood that rounding occurs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  • But it is always better to specify. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Do we need that background info about Pershing?

  The point is the importance of the officer and future career. First Captain can be seen as a prophecy of future significance, but it has often been a self-fulfilling prophecy.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  • But why is it important to the reader that he taught in a school in Missouri? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

More to come. The article might benefit from a copy-editing. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: in regard to this comment, I would welcome copy-editing from an uninvolved individual. WP:GOCER looks backed up. Anyway to fast track this? — Maile (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I will see if I can get one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Pershing, MacArthur, Malin Craig, William Westmoreland and Bernard W. Rogers" — Oxford comma?
• "as Chief of Staff of the United States Army" — add the definite article, and lowercase 'c'
• "the Chief of Staff of the United States Air Force" — lowercase 'c'
• "He was court martialed" — our article hyphenates, it. I'm not sure which one is correct, though.

  Depends on WP:ENGVAR. In this case, no hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• "There were some unusual cases" — we can start without specifying thin, in Wikipedia's voice.
• "First captains 1872–present" — Add "1872–present" inside parenthesis.
• "List of United States Military Academy first captains of the cadets" — The table caption is repeating the nearby heading. Shift it inside {{Sronly}}
• "Comments/post-cadet careers" could be "Notes"
• Okay, firstly, 'Consistency is the key'. Now, how are we naming the first captains? There is a conflict here. We have "Amos A. Jordon Jr.", but "Carl Columbus Hinkle Jr" (without dot) v. "Ralph P. Swofford Jr.". We have our article calling him "Pete Dawkins", but we have "Peter M. Dawkins" (with middle name). Then why not same for Westmoreland?

  Per WP:COMMONNAME. Names are as they appear on the roll. The MOS rejects the concept of consistency. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• If Ref#3 is repeated in almost all the reference cells, why not just put it in the head of the "Sources" column and not repeat it multiple times?

  Because in the future it will be supplemented with other sources as new first captains are appointed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• The references need to be consistently formatted. We have no retrieval dated for many web sources. What makes https://generals.dk/ a WP:RS? "Washington Post" should be "The Washington Post". Why is https://valor.militarytimes.com/ a RS? "Second page can be viewed at Newspapers.com/clip/105068924/horowitz/" — should be a link than bare url. Ref#92 needs a retrieval date. Ref#132 has a page number, why do we not have it for Ref#136 and many others? Many source titles, which are in ALL CAPS, needs to be in title case. All these sourcing issues are really just over a quick read.

  Generals.dk has been removed, as has the Horowitz note. Military Times is a RS, and it reprints the actual citations of awards. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That is it on a quick read. I am not convinced by the sourcing (formatting, and reliability for few as well). Thus I would not support until a source review has been passed. Currently, I'm leaning oppose. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: I'm going to kick this sourcing issue over to you. With the exception of the original PDF source you used to create the list, I think I did most of the sourcing, so it takes a second pair of eyes address the above-mentioned issue. Can you follow through on this item, please? — Maile (talk) 11:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure. I have made some changes. Will be back with more tomorrow. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

List of Billboard Tropical Airplay number ones of 1997

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

With the Latin pop #1's of 1997 done, here is the tropical #1's of the same year. This year was really good for tropical music, with this list having some of my favorite tunes! Erick (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

• "It was succeed by Grupo Manía's song "Linda Eh" where it remained on top of the charts for four weeks" => "It was succeeded by Grupo Manía's song "Linda Eh", which remained on top of the chart for four weeks"
• "Starr had previously established herself freestyle artist" => "Starr had previously established herself as a freestyle artist"
• "returned to music scene" => "returned to the music scene"
• "She is the only female artist to have a number one on the Tropical Airplay chart in 1997" => "She was the only female artist to have a number one on the Tropical Airplay chart in 1997"
• Grupo Mania photo caption seems to have too many quote marks after the song title
• That's what I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  As always, thank you for the comments! I have addressed them all. Erick (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

Minor: when using rowscopes (scope=row), if the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup instead. --PresN 19:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@PresN: Sorry for the late response, it's been fixed! Erick (talk) 13:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

Lede

• "Negrón spent a total of 12 weeks at number one" -> "Negrón spent 12 weeks at number one" I think this will tighten up the language.
• ""Inolvidable" was named the best-performing track of the year" Who named it this?

Image check

• "File:FrankieNegronAirgo.jpg" The source of the image is not linked. The banner to this image asks to check with the source to verify this, but I am unable to do so. I suggest swapping this image or removing it.

Source check

• Ref 1: Billboard should be wikilinked

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720 Done and done. Fun fact: That image I replaced Negrón is the one I personally took way back in 2011. Erick (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Magiciandude: I'm getting a red link on the Negron image. Was the correct file name used? Z1720 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720 Works fine on my end. Perhaps it needed to cache for the day since I cropped the image yesterday? Erick (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

The image works for me now, but it is quite long on my screen. Is there a way to crop the bottom of the image so that it is more square and focused on his face? Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720 So I've cropped it further as suggested, but the changes don't show up yet. In the meantime, I'm using 150px. How does it look now? Erick (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Coldplay videography

Nominator(s): GustavoCza (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Good afternoon, this is my first FL nomination since the List of awards and nominations received by Coldplay. It's the listings of the band's visual work, as their music videos section on Coldplay discography was getting way too big. All old sources were checked, corrected and replaced. Please feel free to note any detail I might have forgotten.

Comments from ChrisTheDude

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

*"appearing on many television shows throughout their career as well" - this should probably be "as well as appearing on many television shows throughout their career". However, the Television section further only down only lists four appearances. Four is not "many" "with the former receiving a MTV Video Music Award for Best Art Direction." - unsourced ""Strawberry Swing", which received three UK Music Video Awards" - unsourced "The record spawned "Princess of China" and "Hurts Like Heaven" as well" => "The record also spawned "Princess of China" and "Hurts Like Heaven"" "The former won a MTV Video Music Award for Best Rock Video, while the latter received two silver prizes at the Clio Awards. " - all unsourced "Harvey (pictured in 2021) guested on numerous music videos as an easter egg" - show (and link) his full name The captions to all the images beside the table are complete sentences, so they need full stops Some of the captions say that something happened "on [video title]" - the "on" should be "in" "A man enters an elevator" = "A man enters a lift" (UK subject so UK term should be used) "The band performs the song" => "The band perform the song" (appears more than once) "on a slow motion sequence" => "in a slow motion sequence" "Coldplay performs the song" => "Coldplay perform the song" (appears more than once) "enhanced to appear as Coldplay were performing the song" => "enhanced to appear as though Coldplay were performing the song" "The band climbs a hill and reaches" => "The band climb a hill and reach" "It features numerous footage" - "footage" is singular, so it can't be "numerous" "Both versions of the music video has" => "Both versions of the music video have" "at Viva la Vida Tour" => "on the Viva la Vida Tour" "with Jay-Z appearing trough a television screen" => "with Jay-Z appearing through a television screen" "the band appears as puppets" => "the band appear as puppets" "Harvey appears as one the parents" => "Harvey appears as one of the parents" "in front of River Thames" => "in front of the River Thames" "The band plays across various backdrops" => "The band play across various backdrops" "meets up his girlfriend" => "meets up with his girlfriend" "where the band is playing" => "where the band are playing" "where sound and colour is completely forbidden." => "where sound and colour are completely forbidden." "who performs on a traveling circus" => "who performs in a traveling circus" "As their work continue" => "As their work continues" "(including Harvey dressed as a koala" - you open a bracket but don't close it "an aspirant ballerina" => "an aspiring ballerina" "Black and white footages of the band performing the song fade into each other" - "footage" can't be plural, so maybe replace with "shots" "An animated version the Ghost Stories (2014) album cover" => "An animated version of the Ghost Stories (2014) album cover" "come across a Beats Bill" - isn't it called a Beats Pill.....? "Each one of them were designed" => "Each one of them was designed" "two silves prizes" - silver is spelt wrongly "The Chainsmokers performing on a festival" => "The Chainsmokers performing at a festival" "while Coldplay performs the song." => "while Coldplay perform the song." "Inspired on George Orwell's Animal Farm" => "Inspired by George Orwell's Animal Farm" "Martin explore its cities and meet" => "Martin explores its cities and meets" None of the descriptions in the TV section should have full stops Same for the films "Commercials" => "Advertisements" (UK term) "Martin took part on the "Garth & Kat" segment" => "Martin took part in the "Garth & Kat" segment" That's what I got........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Hello Chris, I'll see the other stuff later once I arrive at my house, but the awards are not unsourced, the references are on each video's description. GustavoCza (talk) 16:46, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Gotcha. This sentence is wrong, though: "It was followed by the singles "Shiver", "Yellow", "Trouble" and "Don't Panic" from Parachutes (2000), with the former receiving a MTV Video Music Award for Best Art Direction." In that sentence "the former" is "Shiver", but according to the table it was "Trouble" that won the award -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC) Thank you for the notes, I can't believe I let some of this stuff get past me. You left me with one doubt though: one editor at Coldplay's main article said photos don't need a stop/period on their captions, but you're saying they do. So_what_is_the_truth_oprah.gif GustavoCza (talk) 20:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC) See MOS:CAPFRAG, which says "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments, which should not end with a period or full stop. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then all sentences, and any sentence fragments, in that caption should end with a period or full stop." Hope this helps -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC) I feel like Wikipedians should just put a period in all captions and call it a day. But anyway, just edited the page according to what you said. Any further notes? -- GustavoCza (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Further comments from ChrisTheDude

• I found it very hard to believe that Coldplay have only appeared on TV seven times in a career spanning more than 20 years, and needless to say they haven't. Here for example is them appearing on The Graham Norton Show in 2021, here is them appearing on the same show in 2016, here they are on it yet again (unsure of year), here they are on The Voice in 2021, here they are on The Tonight Show in 2021. I bet there are dozens more. Were you intending this section to only include occasions when they did more than just perform one song? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• Yes! I want to make a List of Live Performances page in the future, but that is going to take A LOT of work. Coldplay has performed live an insane amount of times, Everyday Life was their least promoted era and you can still find a lot of stuff, including the broadcast in Jordan (that one was included in Videography due to being a film, and their films are easier to track). GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 12:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

• In that case maybe change the section header to something like "Major television appearances" or "notable television appearances" or something like that, as currently it does kinda imply that these are literally the only times Coldplay have appeared on TV...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I changed it to "Television appearances", in contrast with "Television performances". Anything else? GustavoCza (talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Pamzeis

Hopefully, I will not screw this up

• "released 64 music videos, four video albums and four films," — consistency is needed per MOS:NUM
  • "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". The guidelines don't prohibit me from writing like I did. In fact, it's the most used way I have seen around discography and award pages.
• "appearing on multiple television shows throughout their career as well" — while I understand what this bit is trying to say, it feels quite awkward to me. Can it be reworded?
  • I've tried before, nothing good so far.
• ""In My Place" and "The Scientist", which was nominated" — which one was nominated?
  • Solved. It's "The Scientist".
• "campaign was then completed" — removed then as redundant
  • Solved.
• "anticipation for their fourth album Viva la Vida" — comma after album
  • Solved.
• "two versions of "Viva la Vida" available" — I think more context is needed for what "Viva La Vida" is, as I thought it was the album before clicking on the link
  • Album titles are in italic and song titles are in quotes, I think that's very much clear already.
• "The record also spawned" — ...what is "the record" referring to?
  • "The record" is always referring to the album last mentioned. The Mylo Xyloto record spawned "Princess of China" and "Hurts Like Heaven".
• "an interactive project" — can you clarify whether it's just the last one or all of them or something?
  • Solved.
• "(1979) which had its final" — comma before which
  • Solved.
• "following it with" — is "it" the song or the album?
  • I wrote that thinking about the song, but it also applies to the AHFOD album since "Adventure of a Lifetime" is the only video released prior to 4 December 2015.
• "The record's marketing campaign" — what is "the record"?
  • "The record" is always referring to the album last mentioned. The A Head Full of Dreams record had its campaign finished with "A Head Full of Dreams" and "Everglow".
• "Everyday Life (2019) had six music videos" — kinda awkward
  • Solved.
• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works (such as albums, films or television shows) should be italicised in citations
  • I'm pretty sure all of them are in this list. --GustavoCza (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

List of commanders of the British 1st Armoured Division

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

After a bit of a break, I am back with a new list (will work on the prior failed nom, due to my absence, at a later date and I apologize for not being able to action that more timely). This is the list of commanding officers for the British 1st Armoured Division, which was formed in 1937 and lasted until 1945. It was briefly revived between 1946 and 1947 (a 1st Armoured Division was formed in the 1970s and lasted until the 2000s, but as that was created by the renaming of the 1st Division, its commanding officers are included on a separate list dedicated to the 1st Division). This particular division fought in the Second World War, seeing action in France, North Africa, and Italy with two of its commanding officers becoming wounded in the line of duty. Look forward to all feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "who would receive orders" => "who receives orders" (as the sentence is talking generally about the concept of a GOC - alternatively change the whole thing to past tense but make it refer to this specific division i.e. "The division was commanded by a general officer commanding (GOC), who received orders"
• "and then use the forces" => "and then uses the forces" (or "used" if you follow the second suggestion above)

  I have opted for the latter choice, and have tried to reword accordingly for both these points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• "It was during this period that it was temporarily renamed the 1st British Armoured Division2 - you haven't mentioned its (apparent) earlier renaming, so probably worth adding that in

  Added inEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• "ceased to be an operation formation" - should that say "operational".....?

  Yes, and correctedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• "During Evan's tenure" - apostrophe in wrong place

  Moved to where it should beEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• "the division mobilized" - UK subject so UK spelling should be used

  UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• " Lumsden was wounded in action on 19 July 1942" - complete sentence so needs a full stop. Same with the one on the line below

  Period added to this sentence, and also the one below (which I have just added some extra content to).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• "On 5 April 1943, the division was redesignated as the 1st British Armoured Division" - needs a full stop

  Period added

• Is it really necessary to put "acting commander" in the notes column when you have "acting" in the first column?

  I was just thinking the same when I was relooking over the article, and now removed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to action them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Playfair et all (2004b) is not used and should be removed.
• Support

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review, comment, and support. I have removed the excess book.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. For some reason, for the "primary" cell of each column, you have an empty scope instead of a rowscope; e.g. !scope=align="center" should be !scope=row align="center". --PresN 19:48, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I updated per the above, although it ignored the code to center the text. I entered a semi-colon between the two and that has factored in the center aligned text again. Not sure if that impacts the accessibility part. Are you able to take a look and establish if the change has worked?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

• No concerns about the lede.
• Image check: pass
• Source check: Version reviewed. One concern: Why does Ref 1 say "The Divisional System" instead of a page number?

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above is answered. Z1720 (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@@Z1720: Thank you for the review and the above comments. This particular work I was unable to obtain a physical or e-copy so had to rely on Google Books and a version that did not include the page numbers. As a result, I was forced to cite the chapter instead.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Support. For ref 1, I tried to find another copy of the book with page numbers but was unsuccessful. It'll just have to be left as it is. Z1720 (talk) 13:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Women's Professional Billiards Championship

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it has suitable coverage of the topic. I don't think you will find much else online about the Championship. I wasn't sure if I should attempt a featured list, or GA, nomination for the article but have plumped for FLC. As ever, I'm happy to provide relevant extracts from sources to reviewers. Thanks for all comments and feedback to help improve the article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead seems very short at just four sentences, but maybe that's all there is to say?

• I'm not sure there is much else to include there, but always open to suggestions. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• "women players" reads really oddly to me, as "women" isn't an adjective. Would "female players" work better?

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• "their progress in the game has been held back by sexism" - should this be in the past tense? or are they still held back in this way?

• Given that the relevant sources cited are from 1987 and 1999, I'll see if I can find something more recent. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• "It was agreed with the Billiards Association and Control Council that the WBA would take over the running of the competition as a world championship, with the same trophy used in 1930, from 1932" - so who organised the 1931 tournament?

• Nicely spotted. I've amended the article and addded another source. For some reason the later books start with the 1931 tournament, so I think I just assumed that was when the WBA ran it from, without checking for consistency in the article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• Think that's all I've got....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks, ChrisTheDude. Let me know if there is anything else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:03, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Lee Vilenski

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede

Prose

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

Fascinating read.

• Mild concern that this is more likely to be a GA than an FL. If we had more critical coverage of the tournaments and finals (and after all, this article is about the competition itself, not just the finals) then we could probably get double the prose here.

• There is very limited coverage of most of the finals. Some of them get a few paragraphs in The Billiard Player, others almost nothing. There's not much depth in newspapers either. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC) Oh, and same applies for the other matches. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I've had a look at some of the reports, and a lot of the details are not suitable to be summarised in Wikipedia. Examples from The Times, 18 May 1938; "[Billiards] it may be, is one of the most difficult of all games for women to play. Careful thought and assiduous practice have to given to it ..."; that year, The Billiard Player contained only passing coverage. Gardner's letter to the editor querying this was published, with a response "we will ... publish all news according to its value". (The June issue, which could have included the women's championship, did have room for reports on the London Busmen's championship and about Horace Lindrum intending to take a holiday in Italy.) On balance, I think keeping the article as a list (perhaps with some refocusing?) might be better than converting it to more a prose-based article, but I'll take advice. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• In fact, it's almost like the notes should be part of the main prose, in an expanded "History" section, and the table at the end just summarises the year/finalists/result etc.

• Perhaps, but it might be hard to make engaging prose out of it. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Four-sentence lead is too brief for me by far.

Not done, yet. See below. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• Shouldn't " Burroughes and Watts" be in the infobox as well as organisers?

Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• "1,000-960" en-dash. And was the aim to get to 1000 points? What were the winning criteria?

• Let me see if the sources cover the winning criteria, i.e. which years were first to a target and which were timed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
• Looks like there are sources on this for some years, but not for all. Shall I add a sentence along the lines "In some years the match winner was the first to reach a pre-determined points target, and in other years the winner was the player to score most points in a set playing time."? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• "John Roberts Jr" missing a full stop after Jr?

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• "company Burroughes and Watts organised" you linked this previously...

• De-linked. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• Dislike the split in tables, maybe just footnote or have a row span for the different titles.

• Combined with row span, happy to amend again. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• "Carpenter averaged 11.92 " unexplained what this "average" means.

• Added, to the effect that it's "points per visit", with a cuegloss link to visit. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• "1,000-563" en-dash. There are several of these, check throughout.

• I think I amended them all now. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• "1,992–1,531, ,2162–1,795, " odd stuff here.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

So I enjoyed it, but have some concerns... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thank you. I look forward to your further advice following my responses; I'll expand the lead after hearing from you. (Scope of the lead might change depending on other changes to the article.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | 1 in the second table becomes !scope=row | 1. If the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup instead, e.g. |rowspan=2|British Women's Billiards Tournament becomes !scope=rowgroup rowspan=2|British Women's Billiards Tournament
• 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 19:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Thank you, PresN. Please could you have a look to see if I have properly addressed this? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk)

• Looks fine. --PresN 16:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

• Since the article is for a tournament that ended in 1950, I am confused as to how events in 2018, 2019 and 2021 relate to this tournament. I think this information would be better placed in a general article about woman's cue sports, and not in this article

• this was my over-enthusiastic response to the review comment "should this be in the past tense? or are they still held back in this way?". I've relegated it to a footnote, but happy to remove it completely if that's better. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• "with the same trophy used from 1930, from 1932." I am very confused by this and I'm not sure what it's trying to tell me. I think the sentence needs to be rearranged

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• I see that there was a 7 year gap from 1941-1947. Why is this not mentioned in the history section, and the reason why it did not run?

• Added this in, with some tweaks around it. I couldn't find anything in sources about why the tournament didn't happen in 1946 or 1947; in September 1946 it was announced that there were three entrants, and in April 1947 that a tournament would take place two weeks after the men's championship, but 1948 was the first post-war staging. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Image check: pass.
• The caption for the last image is missing a bracket.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• File:Strebor v Collins at English billiards (1906).jpg (the first image) is missing alt text

• Added. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Source check: Version reviewed
  • Ref 2: Suggest archiving the link.

• Done. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• • Ref 4: Since this is an offline source, is there a page number?

• There wasn't in the database I used, but the article can be found online so I added the url. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• • Ref 15 and 19: These appear to be the same refs. I suggest merging the citations.

• Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for this, Z1720. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 13:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Manga Taishō

Nominator(s): Morgan695 (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The Manga Taishō is one of several annually-awarded manga industry prizes recognizing critical achievement in manga. It is somewhat unique in its field in that is judged by a committee of "manga enthusiasts" – mostly bookstore employees – rather than the editors of a given publishing company. I have recently reorganized the list of nominees and winners into a sortable table and significantly expanded the lede, and believe it now meets FLC requirements. I welcome any comments that would improve the list further. Morgan695 (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Support from ChrisTheDude

• A Bride's Story should sort under B not A
• I think that's all I've got - great work!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Hi, thanks for your comment. I believe the three instances of A Bride's Story in the primary table are already using Template:Sort to alphabetize under B rather than A. Is there another instance I'm missing? Morgan695 (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    • @Morgan695: - sorry, that seems to be a massive brain-fart on my part - it's actually "A Silent Voice" that erroneously sorts under A at the moment....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
      • @ChrisTheDude: Fixed. Morgan695 (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Support from Link20XX

After giving this a look-over, it definitely shows great improvement from what it used to be. As for comments:

• The links for Yugo Kobayashi and Naoya Matsumoto link to individuals that are in no way connected to the manga
  • Fixed.
• Makoto Kobayashi links to a dab page
  • Fixed.
• Chica Umino/Chika Umino is inconsistently romanized on the page
  • Fixed.
• Add a comma after March 28, 2008 in the lead per WP:DATECOMMA
  • Added.

That is all. Link20XX (talk) 00:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Link20XX: Hi, comments above. Morgan695 (talk) 02:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, after giving the article an even more thorough review, I found a couple more issues:

• Mashiro no Oto has an English title, Those Snow White Notes, which is also the title of the main article, so it should be changed to that
  • Fixed.
• Kokkoku should have a piped link with its subtitle Moment by Moment since that seems to be how this article treats series titles with subtitles
  • Added.
• Why does the entry on Sanzoku Diary have a stray comma after it? Is this comma part of the title?
  • Removed.
• Watashi no Shōnen has an English article at My Boy (manga), so this does not need to link to the Japanese article
  • Fixed.

I promise that this is all this time and I will happily support once these issues are addressed. Link20XX (talk) 04:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@Link20XX: No worries, I appreciate your thoroughness. Comments above. Morgan695 (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Support Great job with this. You've earned my support. Link20XX (talk) 04:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• You're good on the accessibility bits, with one small exception: for the 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), if the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup instead of !scope=row. You have this on the first "row", but not after that.
• 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 00:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I believe this is resolved now. If anyone who has more experience building tables could double check for me, it would be appreciated. Morgan695 (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Support from Z1720

• "Most recently, the prize was awarded to Darwin Jihen by Shun Umezawa [ja] in 2022." I suggest taking this out as it can become dates, which MOS:DATED says to avoid.
  • It seems like a fairly standard practice to note the most recent winner in award-focused FACs (Billboard Latin Music Award for Hot Latin Song of the Year, Academy Award for Best Actress, GLAAD Media Award for Outstanding Comic Book, etc.) I get the concern about information becoming outdated, but that would seem to be a built-in deficiency for articles on awards that have new nominees/recipients on an annual basis, and copy like this would presumably be updated whenever new nominees and winners are announced.
    • While it is expected that articles like this will be updated every year, I see many featured content is not updated because the editor who nominated the article has left. I prefer to minimize the amount of text that needs to be updated, and the most recent winner is already noted in the infobox. Another option is to remove the "most recently" statement and replace it with something like "The inaugural Manga Taishō was awarded on March 28, 2008,[7] to Gaku: Minna no Yama by Shinichi Ishizuka [ja] and to Darwin Jihen by Shun Umezawa [ja] in 2022." At least this way if it is not updated it will not fall afoul to MOS:CURRENT as much. Z1720 (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Done.
• "Since its inception, the Manga Taishō has been awarded to fifteen manga series." Another sentence that will become outdated next year, and I suggest removing.
  • Ditto for above.
    • In this case, I think this sentence can be reworked to something like "Since its inception, the Manga Taishō has been awarded yearly" or "Since its inception, the Manga Taishō has been awarded yearly, with fifteen winners as of 2022." The first option will not need to be updated, and the second option should be updated yearly, but if it is not at least the statement will not interfere with MOS:CURRENT as much. Z1720 (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
      • Done.
• Image check: pass
• Source check: Version reviewed, no concerns.

Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Hi, reply above. Morgan695 (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Added some thoughts above. I will totally understand if you disagree, and won't push the point after this, but let me know what is decided. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Response above. Morgan695 (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Support: My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Melon Music Award for Song of the Year

Nominator(s): ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

This is my third FLC and second Melon Music Award FLC after Melon Music Award for Album of the Year was recently passed. This category is the next one in the series I would like to do, I think this list presents winners and nominees in a comprehensive matter with reliable sources. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "to base its awards to artists" => "to present awards to artists"
• "the criteria for accolade" => "the criteria for the accolade"
• "Wonder Girls received the Best Song award in 2007–08" - this is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
• Same with "Twice won the award for "Cheer Up" in 2016"
• Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:42, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Done, thanks for the instant comments! ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 07:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• "Quality song containing both lyrics and melody" – this part of the infobox feels superfluous, and it's unsourced. Either cite it (in the infobox or in the lead) or remove it altogether.
• "becoming one its grand prizes" → "becoming one of its grand prizes"
• Add timestamps to all cited videos
• Wonder Girls should be linked in caption like the other groups
• Don't hide nominees for 2009 (I'm not an expert, but I don't think that hiding table content is good for accessibility)
• The green navboxes at the bottom of the page fail accessibility requirements (see MOS:COLOR). Please pick a new color scheme and verify that it works using this website or a similar tool.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:13, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123 Done ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 18:35, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you think having "See 2009 Melon Music Awards#Winners and nominees" in the nominees column for 2009 is sufficient? Because I feel that with the way it is now, 2009 alone takes up a lot of room in the table. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm personally fine with it as is. If you want to link to another page, I would suggest using an anchor in case the section title changes; see MOS:BROKENSECTIONLINKS. Either way, happy to support now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

• "while BTS and 2NE1 follow with the second most nominations with five each." -> "while BTS and 2NE1 have the second most nominations with five each." To tighten up the language
• Why are the nominees not given for 2009? If there was no shortlist given, should it be assumed that there was not shortlist and therefore all of them were nominated?
• Image review: pass (no concerns)
• Source review: Version reviewed
  • Ref 3: Is Naver referring to Naver, and should it be wikilinked?
  • Ref 14, 20, 22: YouTube should be wikilinked
  • Ref 23: Should wikilink to SBS PopAsia
  • Ref 27: Billboard should wikilink to Billboard (magazine)
  • Ref 31: This should note when the event takes place (ie the award is given)

Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720 All done. Nominees are not shown for 2009 as I think it takes an unnecessary large portion of the table if all of them are listed. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

List of snooker Triple Crown finals

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because this is a list of all of the Triple Crown (snooker) event finals. Recently created, would love to get it up to FL. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Lead seems incredibly short at just 1024KB (way too short for a DYK). Is there really no more to say?
  • Hmm, I suppose the only things we could really add would be broadcasters and such, but that's more about the events than a list of winners. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Why is the Season column formatted differently for the Masters than the other two?
  • Fixed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Ref 2 does not support the claim that the WSC is considered part of the Triple Crown but only since 1969, in fact as far as I can see it doesn't support anything in that sentence
  • I've reworded to only have the facts. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Winner and runner-up columns should sort on surname, not forename
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Date formatting in the refs is not consistent (also ref 1 has no dates at all)
  • Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Was there anything else ChrisTheDude. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose

• I'm not sure it's even covered in the main Triple Crown article, but I think there should be a mention that the idea of a snooker "triple crown" was applied retrosepctively. I have a feeling the phrase wasn't even mentioned in snooker until something like the late 1990s.
  • I only found one suitable ref that kind of talks around it. Hopefully that's suitable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm not seeing the support for this in The Guardian source. (Capitalise The, if retained). If it's not in sources then better to omit it here. I'll see if I can dig anything up, but I don't recall any sources on this TBH. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
      • I haven't found anything earlier than the 1999 quote mentioned at Talk:Triple_Crown_(snooker)/GA1. Clive Everton used the term in an Independent article a few weeks later. In an Irish Independent article published on 5 May 2003, Phil Yates refers to "the game's unofficial triple crown". I think it really only became a thing when the Triple Crown Series icon came out in 2020, but it is a thing, so best to avoid the retro discussion (that I started; sorry!) in this list article. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
        • Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Refs 1, 2 - as per ChrisTheDude's comments.
  • I've done a reword Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Ref 3 - CueSport book page 10 does not mention Masters being a triple crown event, and doesn't mention the UK Championship at all.
  • Yeah, this now just says that they were founded in these years, not that the source states they are part of the triple crown, which is sourced elsewhere. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• "Ronnie O'Sullivan has contested a record 29 finals, winning 21." Isn't sourced. Are readers expected to count entries in the tables? (Presumably that's how "Players to appear in multiple finals" is derived, as that doesn't have any sources either.)
  • That's a WP:COUNT things. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    • WP:CALC? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
      • that's the one. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• Source 4, from 2013, says Robertson is the "eighth player" to win the triple crown, does not support "Eleven players have won each of the events at least once"
  • There's a new source that specifically names them. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• I can't see how source 5 supports "Ray Reardon, who won the world championship on six occasions and the Masters once was unable to reach a UK Championship final.[5]"
  • Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Refs on the UK Championship finals table are untidy- some cited at header, others against years.
• Refs inconsistent between, e.g. World Snooker Tour, worldsnooker.com. World Snooker. (I think some will be published by WPBSA as they date back before WS/WST.)
• The refs at the end of "List of Masters finals[28]" aren't very helpful, just refer to other refs., and I don't think they are the right ones anyway. (e.g. the Turner link is to his World Championship page)
  • That's a WP:BUNDLING thing. I've removed the stray Masters ref.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    • The examples in WP:BUNDLING show the sources when hovered over, not just other reference numbers. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
      • I have expanded these out, but I don't particularly think this looks better. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• 1972 World Championship final score was probably 37–31 (see Talk:1972_World_Snooker_Championship)
  • Oh yes, done. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• List of World Snooker Championship winners - most recent source was accessed in 2019, but the list goes up to 2022. Again, I don't think just pointing to other refs is very helpful here.
  • Yeah, that's pretty normal, I can update the access-date on the snooker.org ref if you want. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I think that woudl be better. "Archived from the original on 28 July 2019. Retrieved 24 February 2011." doesn't look right for something going up to 2022. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll have another look after your responses. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• "called the "modern era" of snooker" - needs a bit of rephrasing. The era is since 1969.
  • Reworded Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
• "non-ranking Masters" - as this is the only reference to "ranking" in the intro, either wikilink it or explain.
  • Removed, not really relevant Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
    • Support - I made a couple of very minor amends. I'm satisfied that this article meets the featured list criteria. The into is short, but I believe it adequately meets criterion 2. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMS

• With no evidence found to the contrary, I'll assume good faith that File:Ronnie O’Sullivan at Snooker German Masters (DerHexer) 2015-02-06 10.jpg is in fact the uploader's own work, so image review passes.
• You shouldn't use italics for BBC Sport, Eurosport, Eurosport UK, Sky Sports, Snooker.org, "cajt.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk", or "worldsnooker.com"
  • But these aren't publishers, so they should be listed under |work on cite web, which is what I have. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• "snookerscene.co.uk" is redundant for the refs already naming Snooker Scene
  • I've done some fixes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• Date formats should be consistent within references, which in this case should be DMY per MOS:DATE
• ,I've run a script for this Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
• For the tables of winners, it looks like you tried to cite whole boxes with one general ref (or bundle) at the top, so is there a particular reason some individual listings have their own citations while others don't?
  • I've removed the errant refs. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• • Cheers SNUGGUMS, I've made the changes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
    • You can use "agency" field to remove the erroneous italics that "work" and "website" parameters auto-generate for some reason. Also, there's a formatting error with ref#19, and I forgot to mention that The Guardian should start with a capital T. Not so sure about using italics for "World Snooker Tour". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
      • But these aren't agencies. That would be something like the Associated Press. If the cite web template is wrong for italicizing website/work information, that would be an issue with that template, not this article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
        • In that case, I'll support the nomination, just be sure to link BBC Sport in ref#1 as well as Snooker Scene within ref#6. Hopefully the template can be adjusted so it doesn't add those italics by default (at least for website). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Query - one thing I only just noticed (maybe it wasn't like that before) - why are there two separate groups of categories at the bottom of the article, one inside the usual box and the other oddly floating above it......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Whoops, fixed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:47, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• It really feels like the lead is inadequate for what we're looking to be "among the best content on Wikipedia". Perhaps some consideration needs to be given to expanding to include entry criteria for each of the Triple Crown events, perhaps what the winners of each event got etc.
  • I've added a bit. Hopefully that's suitable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• One image in the lead and then nothing? The rest of the list looks pretty bleak with just tables and nothing to enhance the reader's experience.
  • I can add a couple images. I'm not the biggest fan of the gallery down the right, but can put one in if necessary. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• I think, IIRC, templates like {{dagger}} can take an "alt" parameter to explain them for accessibility.
  • Sure. Not really sure what this would say though. {{dagger|alt=footnote}} is the example given, but I don't think that's all that helpful. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Ref 2 lacks a date, either publication or access.
  • Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• What is 888 sport?
  • Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• No archive for ""Hall of Fame". Snooker.org. Retrieved 3 June 2022."?
  • Ran the archive script Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• What makes "global-snooker.com" an RS? (note it seems to be hyphenated as well).
  • I tend to think it's a very good resource, and I've done a deep dive on it before, but can't find my notes. It doesn't cover anything that isn't already covered, so I can remove it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• I don't think this is an article under the "Snooker terminology" category.
  • Removed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That's it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:33, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Oppose from Sportsfan77777

You did a good job with the list on the Triple Crown (snooker) page, but from that list, I think it's clear that this one isn't up to that standard. Specifically, some differences where I prefer what was done on the Triple Crown page are:

• I would think the point of this article is to see which players came close to winning the Triple Crown or to track how many finals each player has reached over time. However, it doesn't seem like it can be used for either of those purposes because it's just three separate lists (that also basically just repeat lists on other pages at a lower quality). I would recommend figuring out how to make it a single chronological list like you did with the list on the Triple Crown (snooker) page.
  • I think that with more information on the table, that would just get confusing. I'm much happier with info on the tournament winners. I think the assumptions here are a bit misplaced, as if you were following a single player (say Steve Davis), his Triple Crown finals are listed on his own page in such a way. this is just a full list of all such finals. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• Is there a reason for not using the flags?
  • Flag cruft pretty much. These are individual events, not national. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• I would recommend having the counts of the finals: e.g. (1/1), (11/15), etc. the same way you have a count for the wins on the other page.
• I would recommend using color (and symbols) to indicate which players (a) made two finals, (b) made three finals, and (c) won the Triple Crown.

I see others have already pointed out issues with the lead being too short. Some things that are missing are:

• The article should distinguish that it's referring to the finals of the Triple Crown events, not the finals in which a Triple Crown was won. (As of now, it doesn't specify that the events that constitute the Triple Crown achievement are referred to as Triple Crown events.)
  • I've added a sentence. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
• The lead could mention more about how many players have made all three finals in the same year, how many of them won all three, and highlight who if anyone won the first two events in a year but messed up their chance in the final of the third one.

It seems like most of the article could be affected, so oppose at the moment, but I have confidence you can figure it out. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I know that you've been quite busy recently, but do you plan on continuing to work on this nomination? --PresN 02:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I hadn't forgotten at all, just had zero time. Will check this through ASAP! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Sportsfan77777, do you think your opposition has been sufficiently addressed in the above replies?--NØ 02:57, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from NØ

• I would write "Eleven" as a numeral (11) to keep in line with the "29" and "21" in the preceding sentence.
  • Issue is, we don't ever start a sentence with a number, which is the problem here. Ive reworded to make this possible. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)}
• Where is the source for the Players to appear in multiple finals table?
  • I'd argue MOS:CALC seeings we've sourced all of the individual finals MaranoFan. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Would be happy to support after these are addressed, Lee Vilenski. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate a review on my current FAC. Best wishes.--NØ 16:14, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm just going to support. I suppose its the coords' responsibility to decide what do with the oppose that never came back.--NØ 11:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Rodney Baggins

I made a few improvements to this list article the other day, hope you don't mind. I would support this as a featured list apart from just one thing. I don't see how ref.6 verifies the statement: "The Triple Crown events are generally the most prestigious on the calendar, with the three winners in the 2021–22 snooker season earning more prize money than from any of the other events." Cheers, Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

In retrospect, maybe not the "prestigious" part. if you click on the individual events, it'll show the prize money given. This was the only way to show the prize money in contrast to the other events. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

• "is the achievement of winning three specific events:" I don't think "specific" is necessary since you are going to subsequently list the events so I think this can be removed.
  • I added the word "specific" here because otherwise it might appear, on first reading, that players just need to win any three events, rather than those three specific ones. I know the three are listed after the colon, but the addition of specific serves to make the statement crystal clear. Or could change it to "...winning these three events:" or "winning the following three events:"? Lee, it's your call! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• "the World Snooker Championship reverted to being played as a knockout tournament in 1969," -> "the World Snooker Championship reverted to a knockout tournament in 1969," I don't think the removed content is necessary
• "with all subsequent competition" Delete all as redundant
  • Disagree. "with all subsequent competition" shows that the modern era is all snooker tournaments that came after the 1969 world championship. Removing those words would leave: "the World Snooker Championship reverted to a knockout tournament in 1969, considered as the "modern era" of snooker" – meaning that 1969 alone was considered the modern era, rather than the start of the modern era. Could change it to "the World Snooker Championship reverted to a knockout tournament in 1969, considered as the start of the "modern era" of snooker"? Lee, it's your call! Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
• "when it became open to all professional overseas players as well as those from the UK." -> "when it became open to all professional players." I don't think overseas and UK need to be outlined, as I think it creates a "for indoor and outdoor use only" situation where there are no other options (if there is a category of professional player that falls outside of overseas and British categories, then keep this in)

Source review

Version reviewed

• ISBNs should either have dashes or not have dashes
• Ref 2: Why is no author listed?
  • Added Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Ref 3: What makes this a high-quality source?
  • Published book from Eric Hayton, who used to write the European Football magazines. Seems like the highest quality to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Ref 4: What makes this a high-quality source?
  • Chris Turner is the guy who used to do the statistics for the BBC and Eurosport, and is generally deemed the second most renowned snooker historian after Clive Everton before his death. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Ref 6: What makes this a high-quality source?
  • It's an award winning statistical site, awarded by Britannia and the BBC. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
• Ref 6/9: Should Snooker.org be capitalised?
  • I actually have no idea. I was under the impression website parameters, where the title is just the website name it was lowercase. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

List of prime ministers of New Zealand

Nominator(s): YttriumShrew (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because I've checked it against the criteria and it seems to match all of them. It is similar to many existing featured lists of officeholders, such as List of prime ministers of India and List of premiers of Prince Edward Island. This was one of the first articles I edited and I have contributed to it a bit over the years, and am reasonably familiar with the source material. However, I would not count myself as a major contributor. Thus I will not take credit for its quality if promoted. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

No citations for the list..? Wretchskull (talk) 07:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Wretchskull: The list is cited to references 2 and 3. This was not clear from the inlines, and I have now fixed it. YttriumShrew (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Paragraph 1 is unsourced

• Added some sources.

• Articles really shouldn't include the wording "This list includes" so try and find a way to reword

• I've reworded the sentence in a nicer way that hopefully solves the problem.

• You've changed "this list includes" to "this article lists", which is essentially the same thing. Articles should not contain "meta" references like that (at least not within the prose). I would suggest binning off that sentence completely and starting that paragraph off which something like "The holder of the office originally had the title of colonial secretary; this was changed to premier in 1869" and so on -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Okay. I've reworded it in a way that doesn't mention the article itself. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• The lead feels like it could do with a little more content. Could you add info on the longest-serving PM, the oldest, the youngest, etc?

• Added oldest-youngest info. I can't think of much else to add, however.

• Follow-up; I've added another paragraph. YttriumShrew (talk) 04:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• Could you put refs 2 and 3 against the "sub-headings" within the table? They look a bit weird just floating at the bottom......

• Fixed.

• A couple of entries have a dagger symbol next to the date of leaving office but it is not explained anywhere what this means

• Fixed. (Indicates the PM died in office.)

• That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Done the above. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. YttriumShrew (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Pamzeis

Not gonna screw this up (hopefully)

• "The prime minister is the head of government of New Zealand" — This wording implies, to me, that all prime ministers are heads of governments in NZ; perhaps "In New Zealand, the prime minister is the head of government"

• Okay. I've changed the wording, hopefully this fixes the problem.

• "The prime minister is always a member of Parliament." — is unsourced?

• It was originally sourced to reference 1, but the references got moved around. Fixed.

• "should properly be given that title" — ...why?

• They are not considered prime ministers because New Zealand did not yet have responsible government. Have added clarification and sources.

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: Hopefully fixed the above problems. YttriumShrew (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Pamzeis (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! rowspan="2" | Government becomes !scope=col rowspan="2" | Government. If the cell spans multiple columns, then use !scope=colgroup instead.
• Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. ! style="background:{{party color|Independent politician}};" |2 becomes !scope=row style="background:{{party color|Independent politician}};" |2. If the cell spans multiple rows, then use !scope=rowgroup instead.
• Finally, the table-spanning "interrupter" rows are contraindicated. What happens with screen reader software is that it treats it like it's the value for all the columns- so it reads out e.g. "No., Colonial Secretaries (1856–1869); Portrait, Colonial Secretaries (1856–1869); Name, Colonial Secretaries (1856–1869);", etc. Instead, since this isn't a sortable table, just split it into multiple tables and have the "interrupter" row text be the caption of that table.
• 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 23:01, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Possibly worth noting I did this two months ago and forgot to notify here. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comments

• "Since 1935, every prime minister has been a member of the National and Labour parties, reflecting their domination of New Zealand politics." Could imply membership in both parties (obviously not possible, but...); use "either" "or".
  • Fixed.
• Number of male/female prime ministers. With three women PMs, only three other countries have had an equal number of heads of government (Poland, Lithuania, Iceland), and only two have had more (Finland, 4; Switzerland, 5). Women's Power Index, Council on Foreign Relations.
  • Added.
• Counting system a little unclear - a symbol indicating subsequent term of office might be better than bracketed numbering.
  • I personally think it's alright; it's used on many other lists of officeholders, including some featured ones. I have added an explanatory note.
• "Nine prime ministers have held the position for more than one discrete term in office." one parliamentary term?
  • No, it means for one period. Fixed.
• Both image captions - unclear why absent PMs are mentioned, recommend dropping. Add "from left" to second image.
  • Fixed

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: Someone finally commented! I believe concerns have been addressed. YttriumShrew (talk) 08:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@YttriumShrew Made a few copy-edits. Support. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Comment

• I know there is a reference that lists all the Prime Ministers from 1856 in the reference section (which actually states in the list since 1865, so that needs to be fixed), but it's not clear what is currently referencing the tables. This reference should be put alongside the captions on all of the tables so it's clear to the reader what source is providing the information in the tables. Right now, it's not clear and I had to fish through the sources to find said source.
• "Since 1935, every prime minister has been a member of either the National party or the Labour party, reflecting their domination of New Zealand politics." This could do with a source
• "The title of the office was originally "colonial secretary", which was formally changed to "premier" in 1869, and then to "prime minister" in 1907 when New Zealand was granted Dominion status in the British Empire." This sentence is also unsourced.

NapHit (talk) 16:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

List of songs written by Marius Moga

Nominator(s): Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

After bringing a similar list to FL, List of songs written by Alexandru Cotoi, I am nominating this list as well. I've taken note of all the comments from it although, this list is lengthier. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:29, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Pamzeis

Hopefully not gonna screw this up

• "Moga contributed to all tracks on the album, with its lead single, "Ți-am promis", peaking at number five on the Romanian Top 100." — the lack of relation or relatedness or whatever it is between the first (from Moga to album) and second (from with to 100) parts of this... portion make it kinda confusing. I feel like a hypocrite because the way I phrased my comment seems really hard to understand.
  • Removed the bit about the peak position and reworded the sentence. Sebbirrrr (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• "released three albums, Reverse, Mind Fields and N3XT, the latter including" — the commas are sorta ambiguous as its possible that "Reverse, Mind Fields and N3XT" could either be the three albums or something else being listed alongside the albums
  • Fixed the commas per MOS:SERIAL, I hope it makes sense now. Sebbirrrr (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• Optional but septuple seems like a rather uncommon word; perhaps replace it with seven-time?
  • Replaced septuple with seven-time. Sebbirrrr (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• "Some of the commercially successful songs which reached the summit on the Romanian music charts that were co-written by him" — kinda clunky and awkward...
  • Rewrote that entire part. Sebbirrrr (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• "He had several attempts at" — ...were these successful or unsucccessful?
  • Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Pamzeis (talk) 11:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Pamzeis: thanks for reviewing the lead, I've addressed all your comments. Sebbirrrr (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support. One last comment: for any names of albums or things that would normally be italicised, they should be italicised in citations as well per MOS:CONFORMTITLE. Pamzeis (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, fixed the citations as well. Sebbirrrr (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• "The album, [...] to which Moga contributed entirely" - what does this mean?
  • He wrote every song on it. Sebbirrrr (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
    • Then write "for which he wrote every song". What is there at the moment does not make sense in English -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

      Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• "was released in January 2002 and receive a platinum certification later that year by the" => "was released in January 2002 and received a platinum certification later that year from the"
  • Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• "their third album was certified platinum and four times platinum in Russia" - both platinum and four-times platinum?
  • Rewrote the entire sentence, hopefully it makes sense now. Sebbirrrr (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• "which reached number one the Airplay 100 chart" => "which reached number one on the Airplay 100 chart"
  • Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• Notes b and d should not have full stops as they are not complete sentences -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: thanks for reviewing, I've addressed your comments. Sebbirrrr (talk) 17:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• Is he really a singer-songwriter?
  • I'm confused by this as I said "singer, songwriter", I didn't hyphenate the two. Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• "other singers as well.[" "as well" not really needed.
  • Removed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• "He began earning money by..." this sentence goes on a bit, maybe split.
  • Split. Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• "when Akcent's" who or what is that?
  • Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• "platinum certification" link appropriate "certification" article.
  • Linked to Music recording certification. Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• "Their first and third albums were ..." this is interesting but the article is about the songs, not the albums.
  • Removed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• "topped the Airplay 100" is there an article for Airplay 100?
  • There is Romanian record charts which contains information about all Romanian music charts. Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• Why does 2Night sort before 0721?
  • Fixed. Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• Not sure on the comprehensiveness of sourcing for, say, the "unknown" dates, e.g. I clicked on ref 43 for "Adderall" and saw no mention of "Ross Golan" but there was "Golan Ross Jacob", why is the name being tinkered with?
  • Repertoires list the surname first and then the first name (and then middle name if any). I believe that adding the middle names will make the list look clunky and that would be too much detail (eg: Samantha Castel from ref 58 has 4 first names). Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
• Plenty of spaced hyphens in the ref titles, should be en-dashes.
  • I hope I replaced all. Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

That's it for me for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for reviewing, I've addressed your comments. Sebbirrrr (talk) 23:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

• No concerns with the lede
• Image check: pass
• Source check: Version reviewed
  • Lots of the citations have an id parameter, but the identifier is not included so I do not know what organisation this is for. Take a look at Template:Cite_AV_media_notes#Identifiers to determine how to add identifiers to the citations.

Those are my thoughts. Let me know when the identifiers above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thanks for reviewing. All the codes were meant to be found via Universal Product Code. Let me know if it looks okay. Sebbirrrr (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Support. My concerns were addressed and I have no further comments. Z1720 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Frances McDormand on screen and stage

Nominator(s): Cowlibob (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Frances McDormand is one of the greatest actors of her generation. Here's a list of her roles, as always I am open to constructive criticism on how to improve it. Cowlibob (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Maile66

• Scope Columns - The scope="col" is picked up by screen readers, and should be the film titles, not the years.
• Image - This is one of only two images of McDormand on Commons, where it's credited to McDormand as the source, but uploaded on Flicker by someone else. Cropped and up close in the article, it's somewhat blurred and looks like it might be a screen shot from someone's device. If she is otherwise FL worthy, seems there ought to be clearer and better images out there.

— Maile (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Maile66: I've fixed the scoping. As you've said there are only two images of McDormand that are free to use on Commons. I had a look on Flickr and Google and it was the same scenario (with the caveat that I'm not well-versed at searching for CC images). I wanted to have a different image to the main article (the image there is unfortunately the clearer of the two). Cowlibob (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support — Maile (talk) 01:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude

Comments

• "her performance as an overprotective mother in Cameron Crowe-directed comedy-drama" => "her performance as an overprotective mother in the Cameron Crowe-directed comedy-drama"
• "She starred in drama North Country and science fiction action film Æon Flux with Charlize Theron" - she starred with Theron in both?
• The relatively obscure word "garnered" is used quite a lot. Maybe change the usage at the start of the last paragraph to simply "McDormand won...."
• "playing a mother striving for justice for the unsolved murder of her daughter in Martin McDonagh-directed crime drama" => "playing a mother striving for justice for the unsolved murder of her daughter in the Martin McDonagh-directed crime drama"
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: I've fixed the above. Cowlibob (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• " Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress " is overlinked in the lead.
• Would it be ok to describe Hill Street Blues as a "police procedural drama"?
• Ref 3, it should be the title of the article linked, not the Guardian itself.
• "She starred with Charlize..." "McDormand starred with..."
• "n Chloe Zhao's" diacritic.
• Why is her second theatre performance noted in the lead, and not the first one?
• Also interested as to why her first TV performance isn't noted in the lead.
• Show end dates aren't shown in ref 61, e.g. An Oak Tree (interestingly shown as an oak tree) has a start date (4 Nov 2006) but no end date shown. And it's also tagged with REPLACEMENT, is that notable?
• Be consistent with linking of source names.

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:27, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your comments. I have fixed most of above. Linked refs at first occurrence. An Oak Tree is in lower caps stylistically per [[3]] and a different actor plays Father each performance. I couldn't find an exact date when McDormand appeared but did find a ref that suggested that it was in late November 2006 [[4]]. I didn't mention her first theatre performance as she was just an understudy. Cowlibob (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

• "who made her film debut in the Coen brothers' neo-noir Blood Simple (1984).[1] She also made her Broadway debut in the revival Awake and Sing! in the same year." -> "who made her film debut in the Coen brothers' neo-noir Blood Simple in 1948 and Broadway debut in the revival Awake and Sing! the same year." I think this trims the lede a little bit and equalises the film and Broadway roles.
• "Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress for her performance as an overprotective mother in the Cameron Crowe-directed comedy-drama Almost Famous (2000)." This sentence is a little long, so I suggest cutting "the Cameron Crowe-directed comedy-drama". Readers can get more information by clicking on the wikilink if they want.
• "McDormand won her second Best Actress Oscar as well as the BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role, and Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role for playing a mother striving for justice for the unsolved murder of her daughter in the Martin McDonagh-directed crime drama Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017)." I think this sentence should be trimmed and slightly rearranged. suggestion: "McDormand won the BAFTA Award for Best Actress in a Leading Role, the Screen Actors Guild Award for Outstanding Performance by a Female Actor in a Leading Role, and her second Best Actress Oscar for Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (2017) in her role as a mother seeking justice in her daughter's murder."
• Why is "an oak tree" Not capitalised?

• Image check: pass
• Source check: Version reviewed - pass
• Spot check: refs 1 passed
• Ref 2: "She also made her Broadway debut in the revival Awake and Sing! in the same year." This is not verified in the source. Perhaps place ref 63 here.
• Ref 2: "In 1985, she made her television debut in the crime drama series Hunter" Ref does not verify that this is McDormand's TV debut.

• Ref 8: "In the same year, she played a psychiatrist in legal thriller Primal Fear. In 1997," Not verified in the source. Perhaps ref 27 can also be placed here.
• Ref 10: "and science fiction action film Æon Flux in 2005." The ref doesn't verify this information. Perhaps place ref 38 here?

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thank you for your review. I have fixed the above.Cowlibob (talk) 09:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

One more: Version reviewed, Ref 10: Doesn't verify that McDormand played a mechanic. Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Added ref.Cowlibob (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Support my concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Birdienest81

• Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of TV series and movies should be italicized even in citations.

--Birdienest81talk 09:45, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

@Birdienest81: Done. Cowlibob (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support: Good job

--Birdienest81talk 06:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

List of songs written by Ricky Vela

Nominator(s): – jona ✉ 19:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I created this list as part of the 2022 Latin music edit a thon competition. This is a list of songs written by Ricky Vela, who was a keyboardist for Selena y Los Dinos, spanning the years 1986 through 2003. – jona ✉ 19:16, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments on the lead

• "a collaborative effort with the producer of the group A.B" - earlier he was referred to as A.B. Quintanilla. Is he primarily known simply as "A.B."?

• Yes

• "became her first critically acclaim single" => "became her first critically acclaimed single"

• Done

• "Vela was closer to the guitarist of the group, Roger Garcia and A.B." - multiple issues here. Firstly, if "the guitarist of the group" refers just to Garcia then you need a comma after his name. Secondly "Vela was closer to the guitarist of the group" - than to whom?

• Done

• "In 1989, Selena signed with EMI Latin, stepping away from the Texas indie labels they recorded under" - if the subject is Selena, why is the pronoun "they" used in the second clause?

• Done

• "Vela wrote "Tengo Ganas de Llorar" for Selena's eponymous debut." - you previously said she released an album in 1986, so how can she only now be releasing her debut album?

• Done

• "Vela wrote "No Debes Jugar" for Selena Live!," - as the previous sentence talked about a track on the same album, I would suggest saying "Vela also wrote". Also you need a semi-colon rather than a comma after Selena Live!

• Done

• "hid the lyrics that he wrote from it" - what's "it"?

• His feelings

• Then write "and hid the lyrics that he wrote based on these feelings". What is there currently doesn't make grammatical sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• "According to Abraham" - per MOS:SURNAME, subjects should not be referred to by their forename only

• Not done. Selena, A.B., Suzette, and Abraham all share the same surname.

• Then write his full name. Forename should never be used by itself -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• "Vela continued an active presence" = "Vela remained an active presence"

• Done

• "with his final songwriting credit "Contigo"" - assuming he is not dead, how do we know it was his final credit? He might write more....

• Well he has not received any writing credits in the last two decades, so "Contigo" is his last known songwriting credit.

• That's what I got on a first pass. I haven't looked at the table yet..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! – jona ✉ 18:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

• I fixed everything you brought to my attention. – jona ✉ 15:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

More comments

• My only comments on the table are that people's names in the writer(s) column should be written in full and linked each time, and that names in the artists column should sort based on surname not forename (eg Pete Astudillo should sort under A not P)
• The note is not a complete sentence so it should not have a full stop -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

•  Done – jona ✉ 17:35, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

• Apologies if I was unclear above - when I said "names in the artists column should sort based on surname not forename" I did not mean that you needed to show the surnames of artists even if they did not use their surnames publicly (i.e. Selena, Thalia). You should still just show the names under which the artists released their music (eg just show Selena for Selena). But if that name consists of a forename and a surname, the sorting should be based on the surname (eg Pete Astudillo should sort under A not P). Also, you don't need to write "Astudillo, Pete", you can use a sorting template e.g. put {{sortname|Pete|Astudillo}} This will still make it appears as Pete Astudillo but will make it sort under A -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• My bad, I believe I have fixed those issues now. Thanks – jona ✉ 22:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

• I fixed one for you (Leones Del Norte is a group, not a person with the surname "Del Norte" so is fine to sort under L) and am now happy to support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for your support and review. – jona ✉ 13:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

• Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
• Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. I don't return to these reviews until the nomination is ready to close, so ping me if you have any questions. --PresN 01:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• I've added the note. Thanks – jona ✉ 20:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments from TRM

• First line is a bit of a slog. Maybe you could just introduce him as a songwriter from X who has written songs since Y, and then in a subsequent sentence discuss the groups in detail.

•  Done

• A. B. Quintanilla has a spaced between the . and the B.

•  Done

• "resurgence in popularity in the 21st century" why?

•  Done

• "in Who Was...Selena? (2018), " I don't think that's the link you're looking for.

•  Done

• "Chris Perez," missing a diacritic.

•  Done

• "Vela written "Quiero..." do you mean "wrote"?

•  Done

• "certified platinum" include "certified" in the link.

•  Done

• "Ricky Vela often collobrated with A.B. Quintanilla (pictured), " spacing again, and I normally see (pictured) in italics.

•  Done

• In a sortable table, all linked items should be linked every time, check the Album and Artist columns.

•  Done

• Our article on Dulce Amor calls it Dulce amor.

•  Done

• Cruz Martinez is missing a diacritic.

•  Done

That's enough for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review, I believe I addressed everything. Best – jona ✉ 18:11, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

• The lede's two paragraphs are quite long. Is there a way that this information can be divided into smaller paragraphs? I also think some of the information can be trimmed.
• Leones Del Norte should be wikilinked (even if it is a redlink) or removed if not notable.

•  Done

• "a collaborative effort with the producer of the group A. B. Quintanilla," In the previous sentence, A. B. Quintanilla was introduced as a person. Why is he now part of a group?

•  Done

• "and became her first critically acclaimed single." Who is the her referred to in this sentence?

•  Done

• ""Dame tu Amor" was the first recording Vela cowrote with the manager of the group," which group?

•  Done

• "Following the release of Netflix's limited two-part drama Selena: The Series (2020—21)," -> "Following the release of Selena: The Series," If the reader wants to know more about the series, they can click on the wikilink.

•  Done

• "According to authors Max and Kate Bisantz in Who Was...Selena? (2018), during the 1980s, Vela was closer to the guitarist of the group, Roger Garcia, and A. B. Quintanilla, than to the women of the group." I don't think this sentence is necessary and can be deleted.

•  Done

• "In 1989, Selena signed with EMI Latin, stepping away from the Texas indie labels she recorded under." This is too much information about Selena, considering that this is a list of Ricky Vela's songs. I suggest deleting this

•  Done

• " Chris Pérez, who replaced Garcia in late 1990 as the guitarist of the group, praised Vela's songwriting on Entre a Mi Mundo as being creative with the utilization of "heavy arrangements".[8] Music critic Rene Cabrera credited Vela as a songwriter on Entre a Mi Mundo, an album Cabrera called a "barn-burner"." I don't think commentary on his songwriting ability should be in this article. Instead, this would be better placed in Ricky Vela.

•  Done

• "Vela wrote "Quiero Estar Contigo" (1992) for Tejano music band Leones del Norte, his first songwriting credit outside of Selena." This is missing a citation.

• I remove it and just added the year.

• "Vela had romantic inclinations toward the drummer of the group, Suzette Quintanilla, which he kept private from her. After hearing of her wedding to Bill Arriaga in September 1993, Vela wrote of his feelings of betrayal and unrequited love and hid the lyrics that he wrote based on these feelings. Vela eventually provided Selena with the lyrics and she recorded the song for Amor Prohibido.[12] According to Abraham Quintanilla, Selena provided an emotional delivery while recording the track and was seen sobbing in the recording studio because "she knew how [Vela] felt" about Suzette.[13] This was dramatized in the second-part Selena: The Series, released in 2021.[14]" I think all of this should be moved to "No Me Queda Más" and deleted from this article, as this is off-topic for what this list is. The longer the lede is, the less likely people are to read the article.

•  Done

• "which was written for A. B. Quintanilla's Kumbia Kings group in 2003." Kumbia Kings was already introduced as A. B. Quintanilla's group in the first paragraph, so this can be "which was written for Kumbia Kings in 2003."

•  Done

Those are my comments on the lede. Please ping me if there are any questions or when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Z1720: Thanks for your review. I believe I have addressed your concerns. Best – jona ✉ 23:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• The following citations listed in the "Works Cited" are not currently used in the article. I suggest using them as references or removing them:

• Bisantz, Kate; Bisantz, Max (2018)
• Cabrera, Rene (September 4, 1992).

• Fletcher, Michael; Getz, Robert P.; Fletcher, Nathan; Morales, Joe (March 1999).
• Ramirez, Erika (October 8, 2011)
• Vaval, Natalie (May 20, 2021).

• Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Z1720: I have removed them. Best – jona ✉ 23:43, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. My concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Z1720: Thank you for your support! Best – jona ✉ 00:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

List of didelphimorphs

Nominator(s): PresN 17:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Here is number 20 in our perpetual journey of animal list FLCs (3 lists for Lagomorpha, 10 for Carnivora, 4 for Artiodactyla, 1 for Perissodactyla, and 1 for Cingulata), with another in a series of single-list orders. We continue from the other open FLC for the order Cingulata (armadillos) to here with the 129 species of Didelphimorphia, aka opossums. These animals come in a fairly wide variety of shapes and sizes, though they're all long-tailed marsupials who mostly eat fruit and insects. This order has a lot of similarities to Cingulata, in that it has a single species—the Virginia opossum—up in North America (where I'm from), but a ton down in Mexico and South America. Also like that order, there's been a bunch of research in the past couple of decades, resulting in species being split into multiples and new subfamilies created where opossums that looked similar turned out to be very different on a genetic level, but this list is up to date on the latest research. As always, this list should reflect comments from prior FLCs. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 17:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• Is the diet of the Peruvian opossum unknown? If so, it might be worth specifically writing that so it doesn't just look like it's been missed
• Under the Junin slender opossum, you have "Size: 9–11 cm (4–4 in) long", which looks a bit odd. I presume this is due to a template, but is there any way to get round it?
• That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• @ChrisTheDude: Fixed both, as well as a few others that had 4-4 in. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 21:05, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Wow I had no idea there were so many opossums, lots of cute ones! Same quality as your others and I couldn't find any issues. Support Reywas92^Talk 19:15, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720

• Should the "Classification" section have citations? It's not part of the lede, so is this information verified elsewhere in the article?
• No prose concerns in the lede
• Image check:
  • DidelphysWaterhousiiWolf.jpg, Monodelphis dimidiata.jpg need a US public domain tag
  • ALT tex is included in all images
• Source check: Version reviewed
  • Pass, no concerns.
  • Spot checked: ref 3, 37, 134 (passed)
  • I'm not sure what ref 1 is verifying? Can someone direct me to where it verifies "Over one hundred extinct Didelphimorph species have been discovered, though due to ongoing research and discoveries the exact number and categorization is not fixed."?

Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 14:21, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Citations added to "Classification", image tags updated. Ref 1: Unfortunately, there is generally no good single-page reference for prehistoric species in a given order, so instead we rely on citing a multi-page database. In this case, you can verify that there are 100+ species underneath Didelphimorphia by counting the species listed in the "subtaxa" links (and their subtaxa links, and so on). Unfortunately, the "View classification" link just gives you "A full classification of the subtaxa is too large to display here", so we're left with a more obnoxious method. --PresN 16:55, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Support That's extremely annoying about ref 1, but it is what it is. Image copyright banners are added, Classification section now has citations. All of my concerns are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Michael Jackson singles discography

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

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)

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)

  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)

  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)

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• "In 1982 Jackson released..." → "In 1982, Jackson released..." (for consistency with similar sentences)

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• • Similarly, "In 1983 Jackson again..." → "In 1983, Jackson again..."

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• "a collaboration with Paul McCartney was released" → "a collaboration with Paul McCartney, was released"

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• "'Billie Jean', released as the second single, ..." – sentence fragment, needs to be reworded

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• "collabortaed" → "collaborated"

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• "in the United States ," → "in the United States,"

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• "including one number-one hit" → "...including number-one hit..."

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• "...which produced and performed by Jackson the theme for the film Free Willy" − sentence is unclear (missing a word?)

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• "'Scream', a duet with Jackson's youngest sister Janet Jackson, 'Earth Song', 'They Don't Care About Us', and 'You Are Not Alone'" → "'Scream', a duet with Jackson's youngest sister Janet Jackson; 'Earth Song'; 'They Don't Care About Us'; and 'You Are Not Alone'" (note where commas become semicolons)

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• "and it sold over 1.2 million copies" → "and sold over 1.2 million copies"

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• "making it Jackson's one of the most successful single in the UK" → "making it one of Jackson's most successful singles in the UK"

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Sony renews its deal" → "Sony renewed its deal"

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Footnotes b and c are generally unsourced – how do we know that a given single was not released in the United States or many overseas territories? And what does "many overseas territories" mean?

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Reference 7 is attributed to "George", but there is no full citation anywhere

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Similar issue for reference 12, attributed to "Barrow"

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• Reference 45 has an improperly formatted link

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

• References 70 and 81 should not be bare URLs

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

• In general, the citation format is wildly inconsistent. Some citations use "Last, First" for author names while others use "First Last"; some authors aren't even correct (i.e., "News, A. B. C." in reference 22); some citations omit website names; and so on. Unless I specifically noted it above, it's not significant enough for me to oppose the nomination, but I would highly suggest revising the citations for consistency if you have time.

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:52, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Follow-up note (mainly for other reviewers): While I noticed citation issues, I didn't have time for a full source review – I just focused on the most glaring issues in formatting for the current sourcing. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:55, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I have fixed the citation formats and added website names and authors' names where it was missing. Please have a look now. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

*In the infobox, having the two entries as "Singles" and "Other singles" looks odd Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC) "In the United States, Jackson had amassed" => "In the United States, Jackson amassed" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC) "In 2012, Jackson was ranked fifth best selling singles artist in United Kingdom" => "In 2012, Jackson was ranked fifth best selling singles artist in the United Kingdom" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC) "Jackson continued to release singles through the 1970s" - "through the 1970s"?? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC) "Both are certified Platinum [..] for sales in excess of 4 million and 2 million copies respectively" - platinum can't be awarded for both selling 2 million and 4 million, it can only be one or the other, surely? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2022 (UTC) ""Billie Jean", released as the second single, which topped the charts in 13 countries including United States" => ""Billie Jean", released as the second single, topped the charts in 13 countries including United States" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC) "The single sold more than six million copies in the United States[10] and over 1.4 million" => "The single sold more than 6 million copies in the United States[10] and over 1.4 million" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC) " "Say Say Say" was released as the first single to McCartney's 1983 album Pipes of Peace" => " "Say Say Say" was released as the first single from McCartney's 1983 album Pipes of Peace" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC) "The album produced four top ten singles on the Billboard Hot 100, including one number-one hit "Black or White", "Remember the Time", "In the Closet" and "Will You Be There" which produced and performed by Jackson the theme for the film Free Willy." - this makes no sense. I think what you mean is "The album produced four top ten singles on the Billboard Hot 100, including one number-one hit "Black or White", as well as "Remember the Time", "In the Closet" and "Will You Be There", which was produced and performed by Jackson as the theme for the film Free Willy." Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC) "making it one of Jackson's most successful single in the UK" => "making it one of Jackson's most successful singles in the UK" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC) "sales of his previous work soared and Jackson became the first act to sell more than 1 million song downloads in the first week" - in the first week of what? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC) "Don't Matter to Me" was released as by Drake featuring Michael Jackson, so shouldn't it be in the "as featured artist" table? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC) I am assuming that "other appearances" refers to releases where Jackson was not credited on the record as either a main or featured artist (eg he just did background vocals)? if so, why are two remixes of his own songs, on which he was obviously credited) in there? Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Notes b, c and g do not need full stops as they are not complete sentences Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC) "having been a non-single track in its initial appearance in Forever, Michael in 1975" => "having been a non-single track in its initial appearance on Forever, Michael in 1975" Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC) "On August 23, 2018, Sony admitted in court that the vocals on the three Casico songs were not performed by Jackson" - no explanation is given as to who or what "Casico" is/was Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC) That's what I got on a first pass. I also echo the comment above that there are a lot of formatting issues with the refs -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:26, 30 April 2022 (UTC) Comment "American singer Michael Jackson released 67 of his songs as singles, including 10 as a featured artist" - infobox has 67 as lead artist and 10 as featured artist -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC) Fixed.-- TheWikiholic (talk) 16:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Pamzeis

Won't screw this up... won't screw this up...

• "singles as lead artist, 10 as a featured" — and 10

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• "singles Throughout the" — why is "Throughout" capitalised...?

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• "album Off the Wall (1979) spawned five" — I'm iffy on the usage of "spawned"... perhaps "contained" or something?

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• "released his sixth album Thriller" — comma after album

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• "with Paul McCartney and" → with McCartney (MOS:SURNAME)

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• "album Bad (1987) produced" → album, Bad (1987), produced

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• "and "Will You Be There" which produced and performed by Jackson as the theme for the film Free Willy." — this bit doesn't make any sense to me...

Pamzeis The current sentences were made per the suggestion of the above reviewer.— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• "album, HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I, a double album" — album, album; feels a bit repetitive

Pamzeis Do you have any suggestions to improve this?— TheWikiholic (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• "features the hits" — MOS:PUFFERY?

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• "deal for $250 million which" — comma after million?

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hope this helps :) Pamzeis (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Z1720

• No prose concerns with the lede
• Note a should have a citation
• Image check: pass.
• Source check: Version reviewed
  • All refs to website links should have access dates (eg missing in: ref 6, ref 71, ref 72)

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• • All refs should have publisher information, if available (eg. ref 66)

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• • Ref 75 is a deadline

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• • Ref 84: Why is Michael Jackson wikilinked in the title? This is unnecessary.

Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• • The refs should be consistent and either always Wikilink the publisher (ref 1 linking to ABC news) or never wikilink the publisher (ref 2 not linking Billboard)

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• • Why is a bibliography only used for George and Barrow? Considering that they are only cited once in the references, maybe this information should be moved to the references section?

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• • Suggest archiving all the websites

Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• Refs 40, 41, 44, 51, 54, 58, 60, 75, 78, 83, 96, 104, 106, need an access date

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Ref 41 should have a publication date

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Refs 22, 29 (the word Top), 33 (second bullet point), 35 (the last bullet point), 44 should not be in all caps per MOS:ALLCAPS

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Ref 32s (the first bullet point), 82, 84, should have a page number
• Ref 40: The title needs to be fixed

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Ref 57 should include the ISBN number

Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Italy

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

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)

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)

  @ChrisTheDude Fixed all, many thanks! And enjoy the trip :) Tone 09:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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)
• Support on the basis of prose. AryKun (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

TRM

This is a big list, so I'll probably do it in sections. Unless I get lucky and find half an hour to hit it in one shot! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Initial comments

• Italy has a total of 58 listed sites -> Italy has 58 listed sites
• Sites just -> Sites, just
• A total of 25 -> Twenty-five
• no comma after specifically (or remove and use a colon)
• whereas -> and
• has been developing uninterruptedly -> has developed uninterrupted

Reywas92^Talk 02:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Fixed these above, I assume more is coming :) Tone 16:11, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• "Twenty-five Italian sites were added during the 1990s, with 10 sites added at the 21st session held in Naples in 1997." For avoidance of doubt, I would say "including 10 sites"
• "Italy has served as a member of the World Heritage Committee four times, specifically 1978–1985 (8 years), 1987–1993 (7 years), 1993–1999 (7 years), and 1999–2001 (3 years)." "specifically" is superfluous and you can add 2021-2025.
• Rock Drawings in Valcamonica. You use two sources which give conflicting numbers and dates e.g. 140,000 carvings according to UNESCO and over 300,000 in the pdf, which is the figure you use. That may be because the pdf paper covers a wider area than the world heritage site and I think it would be better to stick to the citation.
• medieval should not be capitalized. You sometimes do and sometimes not.
• "cave dwellings that have been inhabited since the Paleolithic". since the Paleolithic implies continuous occupation. You should say first occupied as in the source.
• "Crespi d'Adda is a well preserved and partially in use company town". This is clumsy. Maybe "Crespi d'Adda is a well preserved company town with some buildings which are still in use"
• " It was designed by the architect Luigi Vanvitelli and inspired by palaces in Versailles and Madrid. Inspired by the ideas of the Enlightenment," Repetition of "inspired"
• Doric should be capitalized.
• "The villa in Piazza Armerina is one of the most luxurious Roman villas built in the early 4th century, and is a representative example of the economy and social structure of its period. It is richly decorated with mosaics of exceptional quality." This is a bit modest as a description. It is the best villa I have ever seen and the citation says it has the best Roman mosaics anywherer.
• "Aquileia was one of the wealthiest cities of the Early Roman Empire." I would not capitalize "early".
• "It played a major role in the spreading of Christianity in the early Middle Ages" This over-generalises. The source says to a large area of central Europe.
• "It features paintings by Cimabue, Pietro Lorenzetti, Simone Martini, and Giotto, and has been used as a reference point for Italian and Western art." I would delete "used as".
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed, thanks! Tone 09:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• "This site comprises two urban developments in Genova". You are inconsistent how you spell Genoa.
• "Monte San Giorgio, overlooking Lake Lugano, is regarded as the best fossil record of marine life from the Triassic Period (245–230 million years ago). In that period, the area was a tropical lagoon, flourishing with reptiles, fish, bivalves, ammonites, echinoderms, and crustaceans. Fossils of terrestrial animals are also preserved, as the lagoon was near the land." The entry copies clumsy wording in the source. I would change "is regarded as the best fossil record" to "preserves the best fossil record". Also "as the lagoon was near the land" is nonsense. All lagoons are near land by definition. I would delete.
• "Longobards in Italy. Places of the power (568-774 A.D.)" The cathedral pictured is much newer than 774 AD if I have traced it correctly, so is presumably not covered by the designation.
• "supports a particular ecosystem with endemic flora and fauna" "particular" tells us nothing - I would delete.
• "Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians are used to study the spread of the beech tree (Fagus sylvatica) in the Northern Hemisphere across a variety of environments and the environment in the forest." This is too vague. Maybe "The primeval beech forests provide an essential resource for understanding the history and evolution of the beech tree (Fagus sylvatica) over the last million years."
• "The frescos are innovative in view of their way of depicting the allegorical narrative and use new ways of perspective." This is a bit clumsy. Maybe "The frescos are innovative in their way of depicting allegorical narrative and use new techniques of perspective."
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done, thanks! Indeed, looking at the UNESCO source and trying to tell it differently sometimes leads to clumsy wordings. I appreciate you checking. Tone 11:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• "The town was sacked by the Syracuse in 398 BCE". The people are called Syracusans. Maybe "The town was sacked by Syracusans (or the Syracusans) in 398 BCE"
• "Bradyseism is the gradual uplift or descent of part of the Earth's surface caused by volcanic activity." This is not quite right. How about "Bradyseism is the gradual uplift or descent of land caused by the filling or emptying of underground magma chambers."
• "hermitages developed into monastic organizations". Maybe "hermitages developed into monasteries".
• "a man from the Pleistocene period, the Altamura Man". This does not tell us much. See [5] for very interesting information.
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Fixed, thanks again! Tone 11:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

• "inhabited in the Paleolithic time". This is vague. Maybe "periodically inhabited in the [[Middle Paleolithic|Middle]] and [[Upper Paleolithic]] periods".
• "were influential across Italy and Europe". It sounds odd to say Italy and Europe. I would delete "Italy and"
• "n example of a recent (not-eroded) mountain range transversal to the ocean basin" I would replace "a recent (not-eroded)" with "an uneroded". Also, I do not understand what is meant by "transversal" here.
• Evaporite karst and caves of Emilia Romagna Region. You might find a suitable image at [6].
• "Pilgrimages were an important way of cultural exchange". I would prefer "feature" to "way".
• "fossils from the Eocene epoch. Between 56 and 34 million years ago, the area was part of the Tethys Ocean." This is wrong. 56-34 mya is the Eocene, not when the area was in the Tethys. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Done! I rewrote some of the above to make more sense. Many thanks for the review! Tone 15:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

List of Music Bank Chart winners (2021)

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

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)

Comments

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

*"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) @ChrisTheDude thank you for your comments. I have finished making the changes you requested. Thank you. -- EN-Jungwon 12:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

* "Music Bank Chart" should not be bolded in lead per MOS:TITLEABSENTBOLD Done. Link Music Bank (TV series) at the end of the first sentence Done. "Music Bank" should be consistently italicized Done. "Dynamite" and "Permission to Dance" should not be linked twice in lead Done. Link YouTube at first occurrence in lead Done. Use Template:-" for closing quotation mark on "Rollin'" Done. "number one in August and TVXQ member U-Know Yunho who gained his first number one" → "number one in August, and TVXQ member U-Know Yunho, who gained his first number one" Done. "won her first broadcast music show" → "won her first broadcast music show award" Done. "'Lalisa.'" → "'Lalisa'." Done. "'0X1=Lovesong (I Know I Love You)' 'Drunk-Dazed'" → "'0X1=Lovesong (I Know I Love You)', 'Drunk-Dazed'" Done. NCT U should be linked at all occurrences in table Removed links as they don't have their own article. "The Boyz" should sort by "Boyz", not "The" Done. Highest score needs to be identified by a symbol in addition to a color for accessibility Done. "due to a staff" → "due to a staff member" Done. — RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:38, 11 June 2022 (UTC) @RunningTiger123 thank you very much for the suggestions. All of these are done now. -- EN-Jungwon 05:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

• "The chart includes digital performance on domestic online music services" I think performance should be performances
  • Done.
• "and viewers' choice (10%)," How is this determined? That should be added to the article
  • Done.
• The two notes should be cited

  @Z1720 is it a problem if I add citations for the first note into the reference column in the table since that note is used in multiple rows. -- EN-Jungwon 17:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• It's fine for me, but it might get challenged at a later date. Z1720 (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Image check: licencing is fine. All the images are YouTube screenshots and are licenced under there CC fair use.
• Don't use fixed px size, use |upright instead
  • Done.
  • Source check: pass. Formatting seems fine.
• Spot check version checked: [7]. I don't read Korean so I checked the English sources.
  • Ref 6: I could not verify most of the information at the end of the second paragraph of the lede. Is there a citation missing?
    • Done.
  • No concerns with Ref 9

Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 12:46, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Support. My concerns have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Source review – I'm not too familiar with either Korean news sites or K-pop sites, but I didn't see anything alarming in terms of source reliability. One issue with reference formatting should be addressed: ref 7 (from NME) has some weirdness where the latter part of the citation is being italicized. It looks like you have an extra quotation mark at the end of the title; I'd suggest removing that and seeing if it helps. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Giants2008 fixed the citation. You can see WP:KO/RS for a list of reliable Korean sources. -- EN-Jungwon 12:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

  With that issue resolved and a spot-check having been done earlier, I'd say the source review has been passed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Shiva Baby

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

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)

Comments from Aoba47

• 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)

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)

• 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)

• 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)

• @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)

• Thank you for the message. That sounds good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)

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

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• Auto-bolding (goes inside) isn't my favorite thing, either ;) Thanks for the headers note. Kingsif (talk) 14:22, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
• This should be all done! Thanks! Kingsif (talk) 23:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments

• 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)

• @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)

• Support - sorting all looks goot now :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Z1720

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)

• Thank you for the comments, @Z1720:, I'll again go through from top to bottom. Kingsif (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• Please ping me when you are ready for me to take another look. Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

• @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.

• I think my concern the inclusion of the precursor film is that this is an article about the list of accolades received by the 2020 film. I felt that this sentence, about an award that the 2018 short film received, is not pertinent to this article. In other words, as a reader of this list article, I do not need to know this information. If this is going to be an article about the awards that both the 2018 short film and the 2020 film received, then I think the first sentence will need to specify this, as currently the first sentence says that this list is only about the 2020 film. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, the article shouldn't be, kind of, inclusive of the 2018 short film, I didn't mean to suggest that. My main thought was that, well, for a practical example, the article for the film Pieces of a Woman has a whole section on the play it is based on, talking about some specifics that don't seem to have anything to do with the film, but then the techniques from the play were used in the film adaptation. The Shiva Baby article mentions some themes of the short film, that are expanded upon in the 2020 film. So, it makes sense to have "background" information of an original work in a (prose) article about the film adaptations of said works, and so I thought it was appropriate to include similar information here (and, hey, is it not interesting that both short and feature versions were nominated at SXSW?) - of course, I am most familiar with writing prose articles, with relevant-comprehensive-concise background information included... like with your other outstanding point, do you think an explanatory footnote (and this would be at the SXSW table entry) would be an improvement? Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think an explanatory footnote stating that the 2018 short film was also nominated would be more appropriate than putting it in the prose. I don't think this article needs as much background information about the film, as that information is more appropriate in the Shiva Baby parent article. I am always mindful of how much information is in an article, as the more prose there is the less likely readers are going to read the information. It's a careful balance and I tend to lean towards having less information. Z1720 (talk) 13:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• 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.

• I agree that there is often lots of media coverage about the Oscars. Upon looking at the article again, I think my original concern was that a paragraph and a half was devoted to speaking about the Oscars in some way. I think I got that impression because of the Hetedik Sor quote. I do not know if there is a fix to this, because the flow does work well, and if there isn't a way to put all the Oscar stuff in one paragraph, then it should just be left as-is. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• I've looked at it, and to address what you bring up here, do you think it would work better than the current to end that sentence at "best of the rest", and then put the explanatory information feat. Oscars mention in a footnote? Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• I think that would work. Z1720 (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• 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)

@Kingsif: I wanted to take some time away from this article to (hopefully) give myself a renewed look on the article, or at least try to read it again from a fresh perspective. To keep my comments organised on which point I am speaking to, I have commented below your bullet points above. If I did not respond to the bullet point, it means that I have nothing further to add and I am no longer concerned about it. I am very much in favour of editors telling me why they disagree, and if I feel strongly about something then I will comment further about it. Generally, I am not that bothered by prose differences, so I didn't respond to most of those comments. Thanks for your patience in addressing my comments. I'll try to respond more quickly next time. Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thank you for leaving comments! I hope I responded thoughtfully, and I expect you will have done the same, so I will read them (soon) when I have time to properly focus on this. Kingsif (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Added replies :) Kingsif (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thanks, and done. Kingsif (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

One additional comment:

• "for 2020 and, especially, 2021, it was included on many best-of lists." Lot of commas here. Perhaps, "for 2020, and especially 2021, it was included on many best-of lists." or something similar.

Please ping when ready. Z1720 (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Z1720: I've gone with "for 2021, and also 2020, it was…" - the many commas were to keep it grammatically sound while not putting the 2021 mention, really the whole point, in a subordinate clause (which makes it read somewhat like an aside); putting 2021 first seemed to work better, and it matches the order of the tables in that section. Hopefully the achronology isn't an issue, though the paragraph is already basically in reverse order. Kingsif (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support my concerns, per above, have been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Source review

The way you're doing sources is technically fine, but legitimately horrifying. It's twice as long for no reason, makes it impossible to go from a source to what it's citing (as opposed to the other way around), and requires you to misuse date fields like "(October 7, 2021b)" so that the sfn links work. Like I said, it's technically fine, though, so, actual issues:

• Most of the sources are fine, except for TIFF2020 where you cite IMDB.
• You're mixing date formats, please standardize on either Month dd, yyyy or yyyy-mm-dd. I guess Month dd, yyyy, since the cite templates complain if you add "a" to the end of a date in the yyyy-mm-dd format.
• Speaking of cite templates complaining, the second one in "press releases" should be cite web, not cite document- document needs a journal name, and that's a pdf on a website
• "the Guardian" should be "The Guardian" everywhere
• You have trans-titles on some non-English cites, but ideally all non-English cite titles should have them. --PresN 22:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

• legitimately horrifying I mean, okay. Your reasons aren't really detrimental and a big benefit is that it's a more visual-fronted system that aids readers, but whatever.
• WP:CITEIMDB; since awards are not user-editable, it is in the "meh" section. There hasn't been recent discussion on moving it, but last there was, there were concerns with some awards listed at IMDb being indiscriminate; since that concern is otherwise handled with different policy, and in this case as a supporting ref, it's acceptable.
• I'll standardize the other things you bring up; I haven't had a lot of time recently but should be done by end of week if not much sooner. Kingsif (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

• @PresN: Including removing the superfluous IMDb ref, addressed everything now. Kingsif (talk) 21:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123

• I personally don't think the "Best-of lists" section should be included. It's fairly indiscriminate, and it sets a bad precedent. Imagine if a more "popular" film (at least in terms of awards buzz) like The Power of the Dog or Dune had a similar table – with inclusion standards like this, it would easily have several hundred entries, overwhelming the article. For instance, Metacritic compiled a bunch of end-of-year lists for 2021, and The Power of the Dog was on almost 180 of them – and I'm certain there are plenty of other lists that Metacritic omitted. Maybe placing first on a list would be notable, but being 10th on some random website's annual list probably isn't notable enough. Overall, this is my biggest concern with the article, and I honestly don't think I could !vote support with this included. (But if consensus is to promote despite this, I obviously won't stop it.)
  • If it does stay, the following edits need to be made:
    • "Mejores películas 2021 para Javier Quintanar Polanco" – translate to English
    • Same for "21 películas de 2021 que deberías haber visto"
    • "The Arts Fuse" should sort by "Arts", not "The"
• Why are the tables for different awards split up? The general format for similar lists is to create a single large table for all awards.
• In the infobox, wins are typically counted again as nominations (so, for instance, the Artios Awards should list 1 win/1 nom instead of 1 win/0 noms)
• Link John Cassavetes Award in lead
• Sorting for the "Media awards" table is confusing: If "Braddies", "Cal Arts", "Golden Brick", and "Golden Tomato" are going to be the sort terms, they should be listed first.
• The Daily Californian is a student newspaper and probably isn't notable enough to include.
• Why does "Listed" use the runner-up template for the Braddies but the win template for all other cases?
• I agree with PresN's concerns that date formats should be standardize and that the citation from IMDb should be removed (it's not reliable and it's not even needed in this case).
• I also agree with PresN's comments about the citation format; it's needlessly complicated for a list like this where most sources are cited once and page numbers aren't needed.

• The Best-of lists is something I have seen across similar articles, so included; it is also selected, as this film would be on hundreds, too. At the talk page I wrote some notes about entries I removed for not being selective enough. Knowing that such lists exists, list articles would surely be incomplete without inclusion? Very happy to discuss more criteria for cutting it down, though, I tried my best before! Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Do you have an example of such a list being included in a comparable article? I searched every film accolade FL from 12 Years a Slave to Dunkirk and could not find a single example of this. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• I think I answered the table splitting somewhere above, but navigability, really. Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• But merging the tables allows for more useful sorting. And again, the selection of FLs I searched all used a single table. Obviously there is no single correct format, but the widespread usage of the single-table format would suggest it has some consensus behind it. (If anything, the standard used to be to split tables and has swung towards a single table; see this 2020 discussion for a TV awards list.) Finally, it introduces unneeded subjectivity into an article; for instance, should the National Board of Review be counted as a juried award or a critics' award? Sorting alphabetically in a single list makes it much easier to find a given organization instead of guessing which table it falls under. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• In the infobox, the template has a preformatted note saying For simplification and to avoid errors, each award in this list has been presumed to have had a prior nomination. - so, no? I've never seen wins doubled up as a nom count, and this note clearly says to assume every win was previously nom, so suggests that not doubling up is how it should be done. Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• It's not great wording, but I think it means that awards that only announce winners are still credited with a nomination. The three most recent film accolade FLs all use this standard, and from experience, I'm fairly confident most others do as well. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• It's already linked in the lead? Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

•  Self-trout Struck accordingly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'll organise the sorting. Been busy, also why I haven't addressed PresN's comments yet. Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Just noticed, this was probably because the column was titled as Outlet/Award, so I suppose I put the outlet first then sorted by award. Anyway, amended now. Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• I'll remove Daily Cal then (fun note: that particular win set film twitter ablaze, Cal Arts is a university but a very respected one). Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• FWIW, that paper is from UC Berkeley, not Cal Arts. (Still a respected university, but probably not notable.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm trying to get to the dates PresN mentioned. Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Hmm, I disregarded PresN's comments about the citation formatting for being unconstructive; how do you think it's overcomplicated? To wit, I have a widescreen monitor and still the auto style of formatting just gives a lot of jumbled columns of refs so clickthroughs are really needed to find what you're looking for, and it doesn't have whitespace around it to be read without, like, concerted effort. Anything that mitigates that is a win, and any organisation is helpful. The section relationship seems logical, what readerly issues do you think the formatting causes? Kingsif (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oh, I missed your "listed" question; this was a bit of personal interpretation, as these colors typically are. While in most cases getting on a list is "winning", among a group, the Braddies don't have winners (this is mentioned in a footnote), and so the lists are essentially all runners-up. Kingsif (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• @RunningTiger123: Made changes, and otherwise responded to comments. I am honestly intrigued as to what you think makes the citation formatting harder to use when in my experience (and in comments I've received up to now) it's been the opposite - it's been a small mission for me to create the best readerly sources section to direct our readers to go to said sources! Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• Can't speak for RunningTiger123, but I'll chime in with what I was talking about with sources:

• So, usually when you see this kind of split between a short citation linking to a longer full citation, it's because the article is citing a long work, like a book, multiple times for different page numbers. So, having "author, pg. 3", "author, pg. 43", etc. all linking to the single full book citation is helpful, because it means each reference points solely to the page(s) being cited instead of having one book citation like "blah blah pp. 3, 43, 64, etc." where you don't know what was for page 3 and what was for page 43, or the alternative where you have two citations to the same book with the full citation repetitively listed out both times.

Except, that's not what's going on here. Instead, almost every single citation is used only once- twice in a couple cases. So what you end up with is a "Citations" subsection that's basically superfluous. It's a repetition of the citation, just shorter.

• So, if that's not the use case being solved for here, what other purpose does this split cause? Well, it seems like your goal is to be able to put the full citations into sections, which you wouldn't be able to do otherwise. But... does this matter? Does this help anyone? You've split out the BFI and NYT cites from the "features" and the "news" as "literature", but what source would go in what section is entirely opaque to me and doesn't seem obvious or helpful to readers. And never mind that you have a "web" section like almost every other cite isn't also online. Do readers care what the "genre" of source is? Can they follow what your categorization scheme is here without explanation? I get that you feel that 160+ citations without subsections is hard to read through, but I really doubt anyone actually reads through a citation list. They click a superscripted number and jump straight to the citation they care about, because they want to know what is being cited for a specific fact- the surrounding cites don't matter.
• Additionally, and this may be more an editor thing than a reader thing, the way you have this split means you can't go backwards- for instance, when I saw that IMDB source, I wanted to see what it was being referenced for, but unlike a normal citation section, I can't click a little ^ to go to where it's being used. Instead, I had to see what the author's name was, find it in the "Citations" subsection, and then click there. This is annoying but fine when it's a handful of books being referenced multiple times - I can just look - but when every single citation is like that it's a bit of a slog without ctrl-f. --PresN 23:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

• All that said, though, these are just my personal opinions here, I'm not speaking as an FLC delegate that it must be changed. The only firm rule on Wikipedia, even at FLC/FAC, is that the citations should be consistently formatted, and beyond that style is up to the editors. So, tl;dr - I don't like it, but it wouldn't stop me from promoting. --PresN 23:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
• Other comments above. PresN also did a good job describing many of my concerns for the sources. In the end, it just adds a step between hovering over the reference and seeing the full citation for no discernible reason. It's not wrong, it's just more work to create and use it that way. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• It's been a little bit and I haven't seen any updates in the discussion, so I feel I must solidify my !vote as oppose in the list's current state. Kingsif, it's evident that you've put a lot of time and care into this list – it's meticulously researched and referenced. Unfortunately, too much of this list is reliant on end-of-year lists from various critics and websites, and I don't believe that level of detail is notable enough for inclusion (even taking into consideration the lower notability standard for list items at WP:LISTCRIT). In my opinion, this list sets a bad precedent that would open up more popular films to being flooded with hundreds of "best-of" entries that, in the end, are fairly trivial. Also see MOS:FILMCRITICLIST, which seems to advocate for very limited inclusion of such lists if they are even included at all. Obviously, my !vote may be moot when the nomination is closed given the other supports listed here, but I feel clarifying my stance is important. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Indagate

• Mentioned above couple people but the referencing format is bad, hard to follow reference to text
• Also oppose use of the top ten lists per RunningTiger123 above
• First reference is an unverified YouTube channel so think fails WP:RSPYT
• few red link or no link awards, e.g. Catalan Association of Film Criticism and Writing (ACCEC), DiscussingFilm Critics Awards, IndieLisboa. Are they notable? Notablity not inherited from foriegn-language wikipedias.
• Notes should be combined in the notes section, some at end of best of lists section

Thanks, Indagate (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

@Kingsif: This article has had outstanding comments/opposes for almost a month, and if there's no replies soon I'm going to have to close this nomination. --PresN 14:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@PresN: Thanks for the reminder. I've been a mix of busy and distracted for a while, this FLC ran longer than I expected and I wasn't able to give it much attention after that, and have honestly been dedicating what time I can on Wikipedia to content creation rather than tweaking what's already a pretty solid list article. I appreciate all of the comments, including those I haven't been able to address. Since I don't think much will change soon for me re. editing, if you want to close it (to be proposed again later?), that's fine with me. Kingsif (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Nominations for removal

List of unreleased songs recorded by Michael Jackson

Notified: WikiProject Michael Jackson, WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, original nominator: User:Pyrrhus16, notable contributors to the article: User:Reelcase, User:Bobimj, User:The Rambling Man and User talk:Popcornfud

I am nominating this for featured list removal because I find it hard to believe that we consider this the best in what we have to offer when it comes to lists. Although the topic is certainly worthy there are numerous issues such as:

• choice of colours used to highlight the songs are not WP:ACCESSIBLE (HELP:COLOR)
• some songs are tagged with 1993 deposition but this isn't mentioned in the prose or explained anywhere
• Some songs are highlighted as both deposition and registered with the US copright office - so what? What's the relevance.
• Quality of referencing isn't always strong for example Discogs is used which is unreliable as its user generated, there's bare references prone to LinkRot, there's no archiving of the sources
• I find it hard to believe that all of the "facts" about the songs are included in the source(s) such as alternative names for the songs, the specific details of how complete the songs are or are not, who sings what verse etc.
• At least one non-sourced entry
• Lots speculation such as "A demo version/mono acetate is known to exist" and "Original full-length demo of "I Am A Loser" leaked onto the internet in September 2013"

The list goes on. Its full of speculation, poorly sourced and possibly synthesised material, no navigational aids like anchors to jump to different parts of the list by letter and poor prose such as "This list, however, only documents the songs explicitly cited as unreleased and therefore does not contain every unreleased Jackson song registered with such bodies" which makes no sense. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 11:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Delist. All the speculation and poor sourcing means this is not FA-worthy. Popcornfud (talk) 12:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Wait a month. If all of these issues are resolvable, and they are, what is the point of delisting? Why not just fix the existing issues? Wouldn’t delisting be too much of an intrusive next steps for such minor issues? There are some claims above that are just not true. There is no synthesized material, the sources are not that bad and also easily replaceable, delisting is such an extreme and awkward next step when no one has even attempted to fix the issues. Fix the issues, it really is that simple. If while fixing the issues it’s concluded that they for whatever reason can’t be fixed, then consider delisting. I will never understand why editors will point out fixable issues and decide to take the most extreme step, than just spending time to fix it. It doesn’t make sense.TruthGuardians (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry you disagree about my assessment of the sourcing and and synthesis of material. Had I access to the publications (the books) I would have gone through and verified all of the claims in this article. For example some of the songs listed as sourced from Michael Jackson: For the Record seem to have lots of detailed information available but other times its just the song and the writers. That aside, layout and accessibility do not meet the standards of FL. There are some really poor sources here like onmymjfootsteps which half the content is dead and is a fansite. There's no evidence as to who the owner Rachel or, or what her credentials are that mean this website is reliable. The inclusion of the 1993 deposition isn't even mentioned in the lead or what the significance of the songs mentioned here were. There are lots of unsourced or unverified claims like Rough vocal demo known to exist. for the song "Bomb Detonation". "Get Your Weight Off of Me" has a tonne of information about it that isn't in the source, speculation about other names of the song (WP:FANCRUFT) etc, not forgetting to mention its a retail source. I could go on but there's a lot of issues meaning the article requires a complete re-write. The reason I am requesting a de-list is that it was previously listed for delisting and some of these issues have prevailed without being addressed. In its current format, it would not pass and ascend to FL status without an entire copy edit and re-write. Its also telling that none of the other articles in the Category:Lists of unreleased songs by recording artists category are FL. It would be worrying to keep this as an FL in its current state as it sets the standard for other similar articles and its a waste of everyone's time if other unreleased songs lists got nominated because they copied this style and format which clearly isn't FL standards. You are saying you don't understand why editors spend time pointing out fixable issues - this is akin to saying there's no point having a delisting process. FLs need to be maintained not just high quality once to pass the review. Its also about the knock on impact and how they end up being viewed by the wider editor base. Sorry you disagree with my assessment but I do think its harmful more than anything to wider quality standards across these types of articles to keep this an FL even if it could be fixed (we can disagree on the size of the job). >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 15:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I want to make clear that I agree in its current form the article does not meet FA. No question about that. I do have access to some of the sources. However, all I am saying is that if I am wearing a nice shirt and it get food stain on it, I wouldn’t just throw it away. I would try to wash it to get the stain out. Then if I could not get the stain out, then consider throwing it away or replacing it. The article needs work. No question. I would like to see an effort put forth in fixing the issues first. If not fixed in a month, I’ll support downgrading. TruthGuardians (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I can get behind that. Tbf if it had improved significantly since the last nomination I wouldn't have bothered nominating. It is an issue with any FA or FL article tbh. There are occasions where the original nominator doesn't continue monitoring it or the community allows it to fall into disrepair. Its compromise I'd support if someone wants to have a go at improving it but after a month, if it appears that no one cares enough then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 18:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by 30 Rock

Notified: Jamie jca, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Awards

I've been working hard to update this list's formatting, but there are some major gaps in sourcing, and it does not appear to cover all awards the show received. Therefore, the list currently fails FLCR 3a and 3b. I'm still working on this and I'd like to get this back to an FL-appropriate state, but since I can't guarantee that in a reasonable amount of time, I feel I should nominate the list for removal. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• I really don't think this should be demoted that easily. I found a website covering all the Emmy Awards that the show was nominated for from the official Television Academy website. [8] Birdienest81talk 09:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

• Emmys aren't hard, but a quick scroll through IMDb's awards page shows there are a lot of awards that should be added. Even for the currently included awards, many later years are missing. The work to source all of those will take time, which is why I'm starting this nomination in case I can't find sources quickly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

List of Cathay Dragon destinations

Notified: Nobody (I really don't know who to notify)

This list is nominated for featured list removal (mainly) because of failing to meet attribute 2 of WP:FLCR. The lead of the list is too short for a featured list (even for a featured list of the same type like List of Braathens destinations). It is also notable that there are some (permanent) dead links in the references which may also indicate its failure to meet attribute 3b of WP:FLCR (although it may not be a main point). Sanmosa _Outdia 06:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Delist – the lead is awful and fails to provide sufficient context for the list. I don't know why it was changed so much from how it passed FLC, but this is wildly different and does not meet FL requirements. Notifying Aviator006, WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Hong Kong. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

  @RunningTiger123: Looks like the whole lead section was deleted by a single edit back in November 2019. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

• Keep – Thank you RunningTiger123 for the notification and I can see that another user has re-updated/replaced the lead. The deadlinks are because the airline has now defuncted and merged to the parent company, Cathay Pacific, perhaps the links should be checked and linked against archives instead. Nevertheless, the list still demonstrates a level of standard a featured list should or aim to be. Aviator006 (talk) 07:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

  Lots of those links do not seem to have proper archives; in many cases, the archived pages seem to just redirect to old route booking pages. I also have issues with the inclusion criteria for items on the list – the introduction says the list includes all passenger routes that were being flown when the airline shut down, but then it includes several routes that were "terminated", i.e., not being flown at that time. The lead was the most obvious issue at first, but I still support delisting due to issues with sourcing and inclusion criteria. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

  I've just run IABot. Seems fine, not checked one by one though. Sun8908 _Talk 08:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

  IABot isn't always accurate; sometimes the archived pages don't have the same information as when they were added, and a few lead to completely different pages (compare the URL for source 46 to the archived link as an example). The new IABot links in particular seem to be bad, which makes sense since the Cathay Dragon website doesn't exist now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Maybe the permanent dead links can be replaced. Sun8908 _Talk 08:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• Brush up per Aviator006 and keep. 1.64.44.196 (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

  To be clear, if the list needs to be "brushed up", that implies it's not currently in a suitable state for FL status. We shouldn't say "it will probably get better, so we should keep it"; if it's not good now, it should be delisted until it returns to FL quality. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• To be clear, it means its current state is still good for FL but it's better to improve it according to what Aviator006 suggested. I think what I said was clear enough. Please do not distort to make a point. 1.64.44.196 (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Since this is a defunct airline, the destinations would require as a column date ranges (when Cathay Dragon flew those routes, instead of "notes"), or are we to assume that these were the routes at the end when they merged? But that doesn't make sense since some are listed as "terminated". Either way, Delist until this issue is resolved. The lead could use more information as well (what was/were the first routes, when did they start flying, etc..) Mattximus (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)