Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

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

Nominating featured lists in Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured list tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and objecting

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

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

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



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

Nominations[edit]

List of accolades received by The Hateful Eight[edit]

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The Hateful Eight is a Revisionist Western film written and directed by Quentin Tarantino. It stars an ensemble cast consisting of Samuel L. Jackson, Kurt Russell, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Walton Goggins, Demián Bichir, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, and Bruce Dern. The film was nominated and won several awards for its screenplay, score, cinematography, and Leigh's performance. I am nominating this list for FL because I recently expanded it. Every notable award is listed. My criteria for the list is that every association has an article and that every nomination is listed by a reliable source. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments
  • Image caption is a complete sentence so should have a full stop
  • In the recipient column, the film's title sorts under T when it should sort under H
  • When sorting the result column, it goes Won > Nominated > 8th > 4th > 2nd, which seems a bit random......
  • That's all I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@ChrisTheDude: I have fixed the caption and sorting issues. How would you suggest I sort the 2nd/4th/8th place nominations? The awards list for Titanic was recently passed in June 2021 and was left sorting by number. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I fixed the sorting issue, it was quicker to just do it than type it all here. Now happy to Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

List of international goals scored by Ian Rush[edit]

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

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

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

List of Billboard number-one country songs[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I bet everyone thought when I nominated List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1958 that that would be it for country music at FLC for a while. Well, I fooled you all - here's one more. This is the "capstone" which will (assuming it passes) allow me to nominate the whole lot as a Featured Topic. This one is the overview of all 78 years to date, with each year linking to the relevant list and notes picking out noteworthy things for the year in question. To answer the inevitable question, a handful of years have no notes against them because I couldn't pick out anything especially noteworthy to list. Feedback as ever is welcomed and will be answered as quickly as humanly possible! For info, before I started working on it, it looked like this...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

Addressed comments

Congrats on all the work you have put into these lists. You have done a great job. It's been a while since I have last reviewed one of your FLCs so apologies for that. My comments are below:

  • There are some gaps in the "Chart history" table, like with 1984. Is there a reason for this?
    • See my comment above. I couldn't pick out anything noteworthy from that year for the notes column. Nothing especially interesting happened that year :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • For the 1980 and 1988 entries, there are a considerable amount of citations to the point that it could be citation overkill. Would it be possible to bundle the citations or do something else to avoid having so many citations in a row?
  • The punctuation in the table is inconsistent. Some sentences have full-stops/periods while others do not. I would opt to give each sentence punctuation to be consistent.
    • Done (I think - let me know if I missed any) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC) []
  • For this part, Billboard magazine has published charts, would it be beneficial to change the "charts" link to go to the Billboard charts article?
    • Changed. I didn't realise that article existed..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • This is not required for the FLC, but I would highly encourage you to archive your web citations to avoid any future headache when it comes to link rot and death.
  • For this part, to use only airplay data from country music radio stations, I would link country radio since it does have its own article and could be useful for readers who want to learn more about the subject.
  • Link Billboard in the 1944 entry since items are being linked in both the lead and the list itself.
  • For this part, he goes on to achieve a number of posthumous number ones during the year, I would avoid "a number of" and instead say the specific number.
  • While I like the "spell" word choice in this part, for the longest spell at number one by an artist's debut single, I think it might be too informal for Wikipedia.
  • This may be a silly question so apologies in advance. It is about this part, the first former American Idol finalist. Is "former" really necessary? I do not think his status as a finalist was taken away from him. He may have been voted off, but he was not disqualified (a la Corey Clark) so I am not sure "former" is necessary.
  • Unlink American Idol in the 2006 entry as it is already linked in the one for 2005.
  • Reba McEntire is linked multiple times in the chart. Same with Taylor Swift. I have a question about how links are presented in the chart. I would think that they should only be on the first instance. Is that the approach you are taking here? There are other instances of multiple links so I wanted to ask before pointing them out.
    • OK, I think everything is now only linked once. If I missed any, just let me know..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I hope this review is helpful. I will read through the prose for the "Chart history" table sometime tomorrow and post further comments then. I have made some minor edits to the lead, which are mostly about adding commas and removing extra spaces. Let me know if you have any questions. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the list one more time to make sure I have not missed anything. Aoba47 (talk) 03:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Aoba47: - all done, I think. Many thanks for your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FLC for promotion. Apologies for missing your note about the years without notes. It makes sense that every year does not have a notable event. Best of luck with this FLC. Aoba47 (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Aoba47: - many thanks for your support! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Of course. Thank you for the work you have put into all these lists. I am just glad that I can help with that a little. Aoba47 (talk) 18:45, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

List of Mersenne primes and perfect numbers[edit]

Nominator(s): eviolite (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I am nominating this for featured list because it is comprehensive with sources for each individual entry in addition to general sources, explains the relationship between these two types of numbers, and is illustrated with pictures. Also, this would be just the third current FL of WP:WPM. I combined portions of List of perfect numbers (now histmerged into this article) and Mersenne prime to create this list (in addition to my own work). Please note that this is my first nomination for any type of good/featured content, so it is likely I may have missed one or two things, but I believe it meets all the criteria and may only need minor copyedits. eviolite (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Overall, this is a really strong first FL nomination (and a really interesting one!). Just a few comments:

  • The lead seems to mix {{math}} and <math> – since the fonts are slightly different, try to pick one or the other.
    • According to WP:MATH: Therefore, the common practice of most members of WikiProject mathematics is the following: Use of {{mvar}} and {{math}} for isolated variables and very simple inline formulas; Use of LaTeX for displayed formulas and more complicated inline formulas. But I do understand that it looks a bit weird.. I've changed the singular use of <math> to the {{math}} template. This equation is more complex than the other ones, so it's still a bit awkward, but is it better?
  • Lead uses lots of parentheses; try to remove some where possible
    • Done
  • <sup> or {{sup}} should work in citation titles; try using that instead of "^"
    • Done
  • Use "−" (minus sign) instead of "-" (hyphen) in equations
  • Rename "General references (for all entries)" section heading as "General references" and adjust footnote (a) accordingly
    • Done

RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I believe that I have addressed these issues. eviolite (talk) 00:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC) @RunningTiger123: new sig to ping eviolite (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support – Looks great! RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions to allow screen reader software to 'jump' straight to them without reading out all of the text above them each time; add as the first line in the table `|+ caption_text`, or if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header you can make it only visible to screen reader software like `|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}`
  • The column header cells need to be marked with `scope=col`, e.g. `! class="unsortable" | Rank` becomes `! class="unsortable" scope=col | Rank`, etc.
  • The "primary" cell in each row needs to be marked with `scope=row` (e.g. `| align="right" | 1` becomes `!scope=row align="right" | 1`); this combined with the colscopes allows screen reader software to accurately read out the table as a data table. --PresN 01:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    @PresN: I believe I have addressed these issues. eviolite (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review — Pass[edit]

  • Both the images used are licenced as "own work" under suitable licences, and have appropriate ALT text. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review — Pass[edit]

  • Version reviewed — 1
Formatting
  • Change "Ref" column from ! class="unsortable" scope=col | Ref to ! class="unsortable" scope=col | {{abbr|Ref.|References}} (adding abbreviation).
    • Done
  • All the citations under the "Ref" column need to be center aligned, using align=center. I have done one as an example. Repeat the same in all the reference cells.
    • Done
  • Be consistent with linking the author or not. Either link all, or none. If you choose to link, please
  • Be consistent with including publication location with books/journals. Few have (like Ref#13 - "Washington", Ref#14 - New York), while others don't. I'll suggest to remove all.
    • Done, I think -- not sure about aliases of that parameter, so might have missed one
  • Ref#6 – Needs a page number, or a page range.
    • That book has no page numbers on Google Books, added chapter= instead
  • Ref#15 – "O'Connor, John J," – there seems to be an erroneous comma after 'J'
    • Done by Citation bot, added a period for consistency
  • Ref#16 – 'Calendarium ecclesiasticum - BSB Clm 14908' – Needs an endash (–) instead of a normal dash (-)
    • Done
  • Ref#31 – Add URL access level as "limited"
    • Done
  • Ref#37 Change "Los Angeles Times" from "Publication" to "Name of publication"
    • Done by Citation bot
  • If all the sources mentioned in the §General references section apply to all the entries, why not merge them, and add them as a common source on the top of column (As done here). Do let me know if you want any help here.
    • I've done this but please note that some of the sources miss out on a few entries due to age, I assume that's not really a problem though
      • We do have individual sources for all entries. Definitely not a problem. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Reliability
  • No issues. We do have few very old sources (1603), but majority of the sources are recent ones.
    • that's a primary source -- the general refs (and any other source in the ref column) serve as secondary sources
Verifiability
  • Ref#32 – Can we have any identifier? Link? ProQuest ID?
  • Ref#39, 41 – Same as above
    • For all three: Added links. For Proquest: marked url-access as subscription. I'm not quite sure but it seems the Gale ones are accessible even when not logged in?

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Kavyansh.Singh: I believe these issues are resolved now (though see my notes on each one). Thanks, eviolite (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Everything looks good. Pass for source review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Kavyansh.Singh[edit]

  • Apart from the above source review, I definitely support this list for promotion as a featured list. It is really interesting to see a math list at FLC. I am not an expert, but was quite familiar with the topic, and found this list easy enough to understand. Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Drive-by comment
  • Some of the refs are centre-aligned but others are not..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @ChrisTheDude: Kavyansh.Singh did that one as an example, I've since centered all of them
  • Support - I got nothing else :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

List of accolades received by The Shape of Water[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 08:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

The Shape of Water 2017 American romantic fantasy film directed by Guillermo del Toro and written by del Toro and Vanessa Taylor. It stars Sally Hawkins, Michael Shannon, Richard Jenkins, Doug Jones, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Octavia Spencer. Set in Baltimore, Maryland in 1962, the story follows a mute cleaner at a high-security government laboratory who falls in love with a captured humanoid amphibian creature. The film won four Academy Awards including Best Picture at the 2018 ceremony. This is my fifth film accolades list to be nominated for featured list status, and I largely based the format off of the accolades lists for The Artist, The Big Short, 1917, and Slumdog Millionaire which were promoted in October 2015, January 2021, November 2020, and June 2021, respectively. I will gladly accept your comments to improve this list. Birdienest81talk 08:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments

  • "romantic dark fantasy film" sea of blue. And not sure that "dark" is appropriately linked in any case.
  • Fixed: Removed the word "dark" to now read "Romantic fantasy film" with romantic fantasy wikilinked per the film's main article.
  • "...featured roles.[2]" referenced yet "... the production design." not?
  • Fixed: Used TV Guide listing of film's cast and crew for reference.
  • "195 million" non breaking space.
  • Fixed: Added   template between "195" and "million".
  • "The film garnered" garnered is repetitive here.
  • Fixed: Changed second "garnered" to "earned".
  • "winningfor" space.
  • In fact no need for "for".
  • Fixed: Removed the word "for".
  • Ref 2 and ref 49 have spaced hyphens, should be en-dashes.
  • Fixed: Replaced spaced hyphens with en-dashes.

That's a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@The Rambling Man: - Done: I have made corrections based on your comments from up above.
--Birdienest81talk 09:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments

  • "Alexandre Desplat composed the film's musical score, while Paul Denham Austerberry, Jeff Melvin, and Shane Vieau were responsible for the production design." - source? Seems odd to source the starring actors but not this arguably more obscure information.
  • Fixed: Used TV Guide Cast and Crew listing for film as the reference.
  • Paul Denham Austerberry should sort under A - Denham is his middle name, not the first part of his surname
  • Fixed: Paul Denham Austerberry now sorts under A rather than D.
  • Doug Jones should sort under J, not D
  • Fixed: Doug Jones now sorts under J rather than D.
  • Mike Hill should sort under H not M
  • Fixed: Mike Hill now sorts under H rather than M.
  • Note a should not have a full stop
  • Fixed: Removed period on note a.
  • That's it from me (in addition to TRM's comments) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@ChrisTheDude: - Done: I have addressed all the comments from up above and made the appropriate adjustments or corrections.
--Birdienest81talk 09:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

List of Billboard number-one country songs of 1958[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Well, here it is folks, it's taken four years and I now present the final list of yearly number-one country songs (until this year ends and I have to try and promote 2021). This will complete a set of 77 articles covering the number-one country songs of every year from 1944 to 2020. The final one covers the year in which Billboard first published the chart currently known as Hot Country Songs. As ever, any and all feedback will be addressed as quickly as humanly possible. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review — Pass[edit]

  • Final List! All images seem fine, published between 1926 and 1977 without a copyright notice. Pass for image review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review — Pass[edit]

  • Okay, just a few points. Version reviewed — 1
  • Link James C. McKinley Jr.
  • Billboard is not linked from Ref#43 to Ref#53
  • Rest reliability and verifiability is fine. Great!

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Kavyansh.Singh: - done. I wasn't aware up to now that McKinley was notable enough to have an article..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Pass for source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk)

Support from TRM[edit]

As good as we've come to expect, so just a few things...

  • "first issue of 1958 " in the past, did we look at what the incumbent number one was heading into the year, i.e. in the remnant days of the previous issue (i.e. up to 5 January in this case), as strictly they were number one in 1958 too...
  • "although he would remain popular in the 1960s he would not" passive, perhaps "although he remained popular ... he did not..."
  • "by Marty Robbins. The separate" overlinked.
  • Great Balls of Fire (not Of).
  • "Ballad of a Teenage..." (not Of A)
  • Not a single number one from a female artist....?
  • Ref 2 I can't access without a sub.

That's it. Good work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@The Rambling Man: - all done apart from "Not a single number one from a female artist....?" That's clearly the case (as was probably the case in many other years in the horrendously male-dominated country field) and I could add a sentence saying "All of 1958's country number ones were by male vocalists", but I don't have a specific ref for that factoid, and someone would probably claim it was OR without one, even though you can clearly see that all of the artists listed are/were men. What do you reckon.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Yeah, no worries, it was more a personal observation which I've clearly missed before! All good for me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@The Rambling Man: - I just did a quick check and there hadn't been a number one featuring a female lead vocalist since 1954 (and even that one was a duet with a male singer) and there wouldn't be another one till 1961!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables are missing captions. --PresN 01:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Other reviews[edit]

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • I added the table captions PresN is requesting.
  • I found and fixed one double redirect in the table, but I didn't check all the links.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. I've done a little copyediting; feel free to revert or discuss. The table coding seems fine now. I checked sorting on all sortable columns.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any (actual) problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from zmbro[edit]

Wow. It's been a while since I've been here but I'm shocked you've kept this up over the years. The best thing I can say is congrats. I'll definitely make sure to support the FT when you nominate that. I'm more than happy to support the final list. Great job to you. – zmbro (talk) 15:57, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

United States presidential elections in Arizona[edit]

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that these types of lists on United States presidential elections have a great potential to be FL. I almost completely re-formatted the list, added a lead, and key for political parties. It lists all the elections in which Arizona participated, with votes and percentage. I would respond to every comment, and try to bring this nomination to FL standards whenever needed. With one of the list (United States presidential elections in Alaska) currently a FLC, with a support, and reviewer's concerns have been substantially addressed, I nominate this too. Thanks! (45 states more to go) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments
  • "William Howard Taft was on the fourth position" => "William Howard Taft finished fourth" or "William Howard Taft finished in fourth position", but not what you have currently (same in note b)
  • Is there any way to avoid having four consecutive sentences starting with "In the 19xx presidential election"?
  • "Since the 1952 presidential election, Arizona was considered" => "Since the 1952 presidential election, Arizona has been considered"
  • Notes c and d need full stops
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

List of artiodactyls[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 00:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Back again with another animal list! This time we're covering all genera in the order Artiodactyla, meaning most animals with hooves that aren't horses, and also whales/dolphins because evolution is weird sometimes. Just like I capped the 9 family lists of the order Carnivora (felids/canids/mustelids/procyonids/ursids/mephitids/viverrids/herpestids/pinnipeds) with list of carnivorans, this one caps off the 3 lists I've done for Artiodactyla (cervids/suines/bovids) with one for the entire order (as well as one FL, list of cetaceans, that wasn't me and predates my entire project). This follows the format of the carnivorans list, including all genera in the entire order (the same way as the narrower lists are "species in a family", just pulled back one level) whether their family is big enough to get their own species list or not. At 132 genera it's around the size as the carnivorans list (though with 50 more species), and reflects all of the comments at the carnivorans FLC. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 00:12, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Antilocapra americana.jpg – Commons licencing claims that the copyright owner has allowed it for for any purpose, but direct source link is not provided. The correct source link appears to be this (image 41 of 169) (direct download). The available image is, same but in a better quality. Though the source page states "Copyright © 2006, Alan D. Wilson", the copyright policy of naturespicsonline.com state that any of the image from the gallery can be used under "Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported" licence. Please correct the licence, and if possible, update the image with the better version.
  • License fixed; left the version as it was cropped.
  • Swapped out the image for one with a correct license
  • Updated.
  • Rest, Flickr images are fine. Good faith assumed on "own works" images. Maps not checked, as I believe all of them are own works.

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments
  • Second use of "forbs" is linked rather than the first
  • Neritic and intertidal marine are both linked on the second use
  • Under rangifer, forbs is randomly linked again and sedges is randomly linked for the first time having already been used loads of times
  • Forbs linked again under catagonus
  • Mesopelagic fish linked twice in quick succession under the dolphins
  • Intertidal linked again under sousa
  • That's all I got. So basically a few items linked in the wrong place and a few items randomly linked more than once. Fantastic work overall!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

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

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

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

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

TRM[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of 24 Hours of Le Mans winners[edit]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

This is the list is about all those drivers who have won the 24 Hours of Le Mans sports car race overall. Such famous names in the world of motor racing to have won the race include Tom Kristensen, Jacky Ickx, Derek Bell, Emanuele Pirro, Frank Biela, Graham Hill, Alexander Wurz, José Froilán González, A. J. Foyt, Henri Pescarolo and more recently Fernando Alonso. Should the list pass, it will be the first featured list related specially to sports car racing on Wikipedia. I look forward to all comments MWright96 (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments
  • "close by the city" => "close to the city"
  • "The race along with the Indianapolis 500 and the Monaco Grand Prix forms part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport" => "The race forms part of the Triple Crown of Motorsport along with the Indianapolis 500 and the Monaco Grand Prix" seems more natural to me
  • "winning driver's feet and hands and signature" => "winning driver's feet, hands and signature"
  • "placement in the pavement at Le Mans' Saint Nicholas district" => "placement in the pavement in Le Mans' Saint Nicholas district"
  • "There have been four countries who have" => "There have been four countries which have"
  • "Porsche hold the record [.....] 19 since its" - plural/singular disagreement
  • "Joest Racing have achieved more wins than every entered racing team on 13 occasions" - I don't understand this. Is it meant to be "Joest Racing have achieved more wins than any other racing team, having won on 13 occasions"?
  • "three victorious participants per car became the norm" - just "three participants per car became the norm", surely?
  • "Overall and no lower class winners are included" - apologies, but I don't understand what this means, can you reword/elaborate?
  • Image captions are all complete sentences so need full stops
  • Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • Is there a ref for the French-language title of the race?
  • "industrialist Emile Coquile to " comma after Coquile.
  • "a cast ... are cast" repetitive.
  • "won the 1996 race.[10] " overlinked.
  • "the 1923 edition" ditto.
  • Consider converting the distance to miles for those who don't "get" the metric system.
  • And I would put (km) explicitly in the header as well as in the hover-over {{abbr}} text.
  • As distance is in the table, is it worth noting shortest and longest race distances in the lead? I personally find it interesting that the average race winning distance has gone up by a factor of around 2.5 since the 1920s.

That's it. It's a good piece of work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @The Rambling Man: All of the above points have been addressed 15:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks, nice work. Happy to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[]

List of accolades received by The Mandalorian[edit]

Nominator(s): Brojam (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I am nominating this for featured list because The Mandalorian is a critically acclaimed series that has garnered numerous accolades and it meets the criteria for a featured list. This list is thoroughly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements for a featured list similar to recent FLC of television series. Look forward to your comments. Brojam (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Drive-by comment
  • Currently, because of the quote mark at the start, "Luke Skywalker appears" sorts at the top when that column is re-sorted. It should sort under L (I guess - people's names sort based on the surname but in this case it's more than just his name that forms the cell value........) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Fixed. - Brojam (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Comments
  • For the Maxwell Weinberg Publicist Showmanship Television Award, it might seem obvious but I would specify that Disney+ won it for this series, not just for existing generally
  • Hugo Award entry for Jon Fav sorts in the wrong place
  • Note a isn't a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for your feedback. I have addressed all your comments. - 15:27, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • From experience, most TV awards lists are titled "List of awards and nominations received by X", not "List of accolades received by X". I've started a discussion at WT:TV to see if this standard should continue with lists such as this.
    • Thanks for starting the discussion at WT:TV. There definitely should be consistency between films and tv lists. Since Star Wars is both a film and tv franchise, I was following the reasoning of the discussion for WandaVision's list title. - Brojam (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The lead is boring – the second paragraph is just a long list of recognitions it's received and needs to be reworked. One thing that might help is adding notable facts about the show's awards. (One example: the show received 24 Emmy nominations this year, which tied for the most nominations. You don't have to use this – it's just one I found pretty quickly – but it shows there is more interesting info that could be included.)
    • Alright, I'll work on improving the lead. - Brojam (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • 2021 Nebula Awards have been presented, so the table should be updated accordingly
    • Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Emmy nominations for lead/supporting acting don't specify episodes, so Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series should not specify an episode
    • Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Category titles for Art Directors Guild Awards and Nebula Awards should be consistent
    • Done. - Brojam (talk) 02:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]

RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Older nominations[edit]

United States presidential elections in Alaska[edit]

Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that these types of lists on United States presidential elections have a great potential to be FL. I almost completely re-formatted the list, added a lead, and key for political parties. It lists all the elections in which Alaska participated, with votes and percentage. I intend to make similar changes to all the lists within this series. I would respond to every comment, and try to bring this nomination to FL standards whenever needed. With one of the list (United States presidential elections in Hawaii) currently a FLC, with multiple supports, I nominate this too. Thanks! (46 states more to go) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:25, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from RadioKAOS[edit]

I'm coming to this discussion through WikiProject Alaska. Most FLs under that project came about because someone viewed the 50 states as venues to push the same MOS and the same sources so they could collect a whole bunch of hats, disregarding any context unique to that state. Your nomination statement leads me to believe that's the case here.

The biggest problem I see is the list's exclusive focus on the popular vote. In presidential elections, the actual election occurs via the Electoral College and there's zero mention of that process. For example, how many electors does Alaska have (it's always been three), where and when do the electors meet and any details about those meetings worth mentioning, etc. In just about every election, the electors have included notable people. Is there any value in mentioning some of these people?

The article text begins with "Alaska is a state in the Western United States, on the northwest extremity of the country's west coast.". It might be wise to replace "the country's west coast" with "the North American continent". Not only does the current statement sound redundant, there's also the matter of Canada falling in between Alaska and the contiguous 48 states, leaving it open to misinterpretation by some.

The table disregards the total votes cast. Any reason why? Additionally, prior to the 1976 election, write-in votes were included with the official canvass but were not included in published results. That means the percentages are approximate but not exact, whereas later percentages are exact. I see no evidence that this has been noted, either here or in any of the individual election articles. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

So here's some context related to Alaska, though I don't know how easy this would be to source. Looking at the table, Jimmy Carter's reelection bid gained the smallest percentage of any nominee of the two dominant parties. This is not surprising to me. Between 1977 and 1979, people were regularly burning Carter and Cecil Andrus in effigy on the streets of downtown Fairbanks. Carter was deeply unpopular because of the political battle in D.C. over what became the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 02:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Hi @RadioKAOS – Thanks for your comments. I'll try to address all them. The number of electors Alaska has is indeed mentioned in the table. Moreover, the election does depends on the electoral vote, but that doesn't mean that popular vote doesn't count. For a strong Republican state like Alaska, where co-incidentally there never has been an faithless elector, the winner of popular vote has always carried the three electoral votes. Honestly, including details like "where and when do the electors meet" seems unnecessary to me; mostly because it is the same for every election. I made the change about including "the North American continent". As to the next point about the table disregards the total votes cast, it is because if I were to include the total votes, I also need to include all the candidates, so that it sums up correctly. That would make the table wide enough not to fit on the screen. The total voted are indeed included, but inside the {{percentage}} template. Next point about including write in votes, the official published result doesn't include the write in votes (60; 64; 68), so I haven't. Do you have any reliable source claiming that "prior to the 1976 election, write-in votes were included with the official canvass but were not included in published results", possibly providing the data, which would help me in citing it. Moreover, in a two party state like America, where third party candidates rarely receive more than 5% of the vote, it seems reluctant to me to include write in votes. The percentage points in every cell in approximate, rounded off to 2 places of decimal by the {{percentage}} template. The formatting and structure of there types of lists have been discussed in previous FLC's, and have been successfully implemented in three current featured lists. (Arkansas; Utah; Washington, D.C.) I try to make every list withing this series consistent, but surely include some or other thing with context unique to that state. For example, the Washington, D.C. list has write-in candidate votes noted because they have been recorded in the official results, and sometimes the total write-in votes also exceed the number of votes received by the candidate on the third place. I'll see what I can include from your Carter's unpopularity suggestion, but would prefer to hear what you think of this reply. Any further comments on the subject are welcomed. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi @RadioKAOS – Any follow-ups? I have already replied to your comments, and still feel that the lists focus on the popular vote should not be an issue. I don't think that there is any guideline or a FL criteria preventing any user from using the same style and sources throughout a series of lists, given that the sources are reliable and the style meets the criteria. Any further comments are welcomed. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "defeating Democratic Party's candidate" => "defeating the Democratic Party's candidate"
  • "the largest ever margin of victory in the state's history" => "the largest margin of victory in the state's history"
  • "In the 1992 president election" => "In the 1992 presidential election"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Reywas92[edit]

  • I still think the first sentence is weird since it's basically just the first sentence of Alaska. It's better to jump right into the topic for the introductory sentence. Like List of governors of Alaska doesn't need to remind us where the state is located either.
  • "the Republican Party's candidate Ronald Reagan" could be simplified to "the Republican candidate Ronald Reagan" or even just "the Republican Ronald Reagan".
  • "by a margin of 36.78%" could just be "by 36.78%" since you use "margin" in the clause right after that; just extraneous since "by" implies a margin.
  • "highest percentage of vote share" -> "highest vote share", which wouldn't be anything other than a percentage
  • "Gallup Poll has ranked Alaska in the top ten most Republican states" is not supported by the source, which begins with a list that doesn't include Alaska; the list at the bottom says 11th place. That's also a single data point from six years ago; it was only the 22nd most Republican in 2020...
    • Changes and added new sources. Even if it isn't most Republican, it surely is a "safe Republican" state. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Table seems fine.

By the way, WP:AWB/WP:JWB is great if you ever need to make changes affecting every list. Happy to help with that if needed. Reywas92Talk 01:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Reywas92 – Addressed all the points. Thanks! Not sure how AWB should be used/will it help here where the data in every table is different. Appreciate your help! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Reywas92 – Any followups? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Support All good. The data's different, but as you update the formatting styles, there's a lot you can do across articles with just a few clicks rather than manually one article at a time, like removing background shading, retitling columns, and other organizational changes. Reywas92Talk 19:28, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by MWright96[edit]

  • Try cutting down writing of the phrase "In the xxxx presidental election,"
  • Think all the % symbols in the lede can be replaced with the word "percent"
    • I think its fine as long as it is consistent. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Reference 46 is missing the page number(s)

That's all I've got. Good job on redoing the list MWright96 (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@MWright96 – Addressed all the issues. Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Support Nice job! MWright96 (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Articles by John Neal[edit]

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

John Neal (writer) wrote so many articles for magazines and newspapers that I WP:SPLIT that part of the John Neal bibliography into a separate list that includes some of the earliest American art criticism, the first article by an American ever published in a British literary magazine, the first history of American literature, and the first encouragements of Edgar Allan Poe and Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. All the relevant comments brought up in the larger bibliography's recent successful FLC I used to improve this list as well, so I'm feeling pretty good about this. I hope you decide to look through this one and leave some comments! Dugan Murphy (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments on the lead[edit]

  • "This list of articles by American writer John Neal (1793–1876) is part of the larger John Neal bibliography" - articles should not start with meta statements along the lines of "This article...." Try "The bibliography of American writer John Neal included many articles"
Thank you for bringing this up. I was wondering about this when I wrote it. I just rewrote those first couple of sentences. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No need to repeat his full name in para 2, just use his surname
Agreed! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I would merge the last two paragraphs as they are both very short
Agreed! Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I will look at the list itself later -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Wonderful. I'll address your later comments soon. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments on the list (as far as 1825)[edit]

  • Some of the values in the date column don't sort correctly. December 1816 sorts before October 1816, December 1817 before September 1817, 1819 is just all over the place, etc.
  • "A criticism Lord Byron's Manfred" - missing the word "of"
  • "Alleges that John Taylor's identification of Junius as Sir Philip Francis to be false" - bit of a grammar issue here
  • "An exploration of what is an isn't original" - missing the d on "and"
  • "An exploration of how women are unlike, but not inferior, to men" => "An exploration of how women are unlike, but not inferior to, men"
  • More to come :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I just fixed all the issues raised in the above 6 comments. The date column used to use only Template:Sort, but during Wikipedia:Peer review/John Neal bibliography/archive1, a reviewer convinced me to introduce Template:Date table sorting here and there in that list to simplify the code. I then applied those changes to this list. I see that the consequence was the sorting issue you raised, which I believe is fully fixed now. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I think there might be one you missed - September 19, 1818 still sorts before all the other dates in that year...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for finding that! Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

More comments on the list[edit]

  • "early impressions of England over late 1823 through early 1824" => "early impressions of England from late 1823 through early 1824"
  • "High praise for Edgar Allan Poe's work for the Southern Literary Messenger, his short story "Bon-Bon," and his poem "The Coliseum;" - missing closing quote mark on The Coliseum
  • "A call for better construction and operation practices for Steamships " - steamships is not a proper noun so shouldn't have a capital S
  • "Asks why Brother Jonathan isn't" => "Asks why Brother Jonathan is not"
  • "ships seized by the Napoleonic France" => "ships seized by Napoleonic France"
  • "written to accompany an accompanying engraving" - any way to avoid that repetition?
  • "Support's the claims in his June 9, 1855 submission" - supports should not have an apostrophe
  • Same on the next row
  • ""which was nothing more nor less than a clever piece of advertising" - no closing quote mark anywhere
  • "based on notes from his stay in London over forty years earlier;[338] published in 2 installments" => "two installments"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@ChrisTheDude: I just fixed all the comments raised in this section. Thank you for reading through this list and finding all these issues! Would you say that you now support this nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Quick comments Support from Sdkb[edit]

  • As an art critic Neal was the first in the US is a little awkward phrasing. Maybe just Neal was the first art critic in the US? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Agreed. Rephrased! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Compared to Neal's comparative lesser success in creative works, "his critical judgments have held. Where he condemned, time has almost without exception condemned also." The quotes in the lead, particularly this one, are not attributed, which seems to go against WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for bringing this up. I removed a few quotes and attributed the remaining ones, so I think this issue is resolved. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Looks good now! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Is there any reason that the first three external links have wikilinks to relevant pages but that University of Pennsylvania is not similarly linked? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Nope! Wikilink added. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Lastly, I don't personally have any notability objections, but given that this is a subtopic page of the bibliography article, which itself is a subtopic page of Neal's main article, I think it might be helpful to hear your argument for why this topic meets WP:LISTN. Having the case for notability discussed on record here can be a bit of a bulwark or at least a point of reference for anyone considering proposing an upmerge in the future. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for bringing this up. Certainly this list and the John Neal bibliography from which it is split off are both notable because John Neal's written works have "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" (quoting WP:LISTN) that have published their own John Neal bibliographies, separating out his articles in magazines and newspapers from his poems, pamphlets, novels, etc, as you typically see in a prolific author's bibliography. In the bibliography, I chose "to limit [the] large [list of articles by John Neal] by only including entries for independently notable items" (quoting WP:LISTN again) and splitting off the rest into this list. The bibliography list is about 123k bytes and this list is about 173k, so per WP:SIZESPLIT, it seemed well justified to split out the articles section. Even though those guidelines "apply less strongly to list articles", it seems to me that the large size of the two lists in question justifies a size split. Furthermore, the way this list is split out from the bibliography seemed like a "natural way" per WP:SPLITLIST, in that it provided an opportunity to limit the articles included in the bibliography to only the most notable ones to serve as "a short summary of the material that is removed" (quoting WP:SPINOUT) while keeping the larger list intact in this separate list. And I think that pretty well summarizes my thinking on this! Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Sounds reasonable to me! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:41, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Overall, this looks very solid; best of luck with the rest of the review! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Sdkb: Thank you for looking this over and bringing up these issues. With all of them addressed, do you support this nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I haven't reviewed the list body, but I just did a source formatting review as well, and your command there is really impeccable! The only thing at all I was able to find was that there's a little bit of inconsistency in whether you link works/publishers: e.g. Harvard University is linked but Bucknell University Press is not. I personally really like to link works/publishers, as it allows readers to go check out what we have to say about them and verify their reliability, but for the purposes of FLC, all that matters is that you choose either linking or unlinking and be consistent. Once that's resolved, I'll be happy to support on the lead, the source formatting, and the overall article formatting. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I like that idea. I just added Wikilinks for all publishers with Wiki articles. Dugan Murphy (talk) 17:22, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support on the lead, the source formatting, and the overall article formatting, as I have reviewed those areas and all of my comments have been addressed. I'll leave it to others to review the notes column and other portions of the body (as Chris is doing above) and to do spot checks on sources. Overall, this is another great entry in Dugan's excellent work to make our coverage of Neal among the most comprehensive of any biography on Wikipedia. For transparency, I should note that Dugan and I know each other off-wiki. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 18:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Timeline of the 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes[edit]

Nominator(s): DTM (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I am nominating this for a featured list because I think it is close to meeting the required quality criteria, if not having already met them. Further, it is part of a topic whose parent article 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes is also currently in the line for being reviewed under GA criteria. I hope to take both of the articles past the FL and GA quality standards respectively. This featured list has a good intro summary, and the list itself covers both relevant military and diplomatic events. This is my first featured list (FL) nomination. (I was part of a previous FL however another editor took it through the review process.) DTM (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

I have several major concerns with this list regarding the featured list criteria.

  • How is this list unique from the main article 2020–2021 China–India skirmishes? In other words, why do we need both the main article and this stand-alone timeline? Per FLCR #3C, a featured list "does not largely duplicate material from another article", but I scanned the items in the timeline and would estimate that at least 60–70% of them are covered in some way in the main article already.
While there is clearly an overlap, the difference is visible in the amount of summarization present. The timeline summarizes the main article even more, compressing into it more events with less detail. Take for example the main skirmish during this period, the Galwan Valley skirmish on 15/16 June 2020. While the main article has an entire 900 plus words on it, the timeline has two short sentences. And this is exactly what the article title denotes— timeline. The timeline gives significance to when an event happened and not why. DTM (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • What are the criteria for including items in this list? Per FLCR #3A, a featured list should provide "at least all of the major items", yet there are many dates in the main article that are not mentioned here. For instance, the following is a quote from the main article: "On 21 May, the Indian Express reported that Chinese troops had entered the Indian territory in the Galwan River valley and objected to the road construction by India within the (undisputed) Indian territory." This seems like a major event, so why does the timeline make no mention of it?
In response to the example you raised, what I had in mind here was that only Indian sources recorded this. In the timeline I have tried reducing this. So take for example the Galwan clash. Both India and Chinese sources talk about it, irrespective of the what or why of it. When I have only used a Chinese source or only an Indian source, it is for less important events.
Notable and un-notable entry into anothers territory has to be differentiated between. I have placed a chart in Sino-Indian border dispute which displays hundreds of transgressions "Major sites of Chinese transgressions on the LAC (2015–2019)".
Thank you for raising this point. I will go through the article and see the level of consistency once more. DTM (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Is this list stable? The situation is apparently ongoing (the infobox in the main article states that the dates are "5 May 2020 – present"), so it is quite possible that this list could continue to change. Per FLCR #6, a featured list "does not change significantly from day to day".
Yes, the skirmish is still going on. However, what has already been recorded in the list cannot change significantly. This is to say while the content is about a skirmish, the content itself is not too controversial. And here we must remember that the "when" matters more than the what or why. If new literature appears which causes significant changes... well isn't that the case with any topic? DTM (talk) 09:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I'm not opposing the article right now, but I want to hear your thoughts on these issues first. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I would like to withdraw this nomination. Too many issues remaining to ask others to review it at this stage. Regards. DTM (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Don't feel compelled to remove the nomination based solely on my comments – I'm willing to work with you on that – but if you still want to withdraw the nomination, I suggest using Template:@FLC to ping the FLC directors. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi RunningTiger123, thank you for the concerns. After a breather, I can now focus on and address your comments. I will take up comments from any other editors as well. While I still think I nominated this prematurely (in a bout of enthusiasm) I also think the concerns can be addressed, improving the quality of the article in the direction of a FL, now or in the future. DTM (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]
RunningTiger123, I have provided explanations for your three concerns above. DTM (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comment by Fowler&fowler[edit]

I don't usually review featured lists, but did run into this submission accidentally, and figured it'd be worth my two cents. Clearly, a lot of hard work went into it; for this the author deserves praise. The list has much potential; however, in its current form, it roundly fails criterion 2 (i.e "has an engaging lead that introduces the subject and defines the scope and inclusion criteria.") The lead is a bit on the opaque side. An average WP reader, unfamiliar with the context, will learn very little as the burden of explanation is passed off to the reader or to Wikilinks. There is no map (neither local nor regional). The reader has no idea where the skirmishes took place, nor what a line of actual control is, which moreover is being described as "notional." Also "melee," has all sorts of meanings, not just hand-to-hand combat ... Anyway, long story short, I won't oppose or support, nor return to this article, but recommend that the author rewrite the lead with the average WP reader in mind. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Please add alt text to images with the '|alt=' parameter; note that alt text should briefly describe what the image is of (in coordination with the caption), not try to describe what it looks like. --PresN 01:34, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

National preserve[edit]

Nominator(s): Reywas92Talk 20:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Next in my series of US protected areas is the national preserve, which like the National recreation area was a designation created to accommodate protecting places that were already impacted by people and didn't meet the criteria of national park or national monument. Then it became a way to allow hunting in protected places, sometimes connected with parks or monuments where it's banned. Although they have those differences, they're still beautiful places I'd like to visit. It's a shorter list than my others and I appreciate your reviews! Reywas92Talk 20:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments[edit]

  • I would merge the last two paragraphs of the lead as they are both very short
    • Done, though these sentences aren't actually related or parallel facts so I considered even splitting the last paragraph. Other thoughts are welcome.
  • "management of reserves can be delegated to the state in which they reside" - do reserves really "reside"? Maybe "are located"?
    • Done
  • "They are home to nine-banded armadillos, bobcat, river otter, alligators" - plural/singular/singular/plural?
    • Done
  • Under Glacier Bay, what's ATV?
    • Linked
  • "There are no roads but it is has access" - stray word in there
    • Done
  • "Summer visitors float down the rivers abd see remnants of gold mining" - typo in there
    • Done
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review – Pass[edit]

  • Version reviewed — 1
Formatting
  • Ref#3 – "Washington, D.C."; be consistent with including location. (Either all or none)
  • Ref#4 – Add URL access date and website name.
  • Ref#5 – Add July 14, 2020 as date.
  • Ref#6 – Inconsistent in usage of "National Park Service" and "www.nps.gov". Also, why is (U.S. National Park Service) there in the title?
    • That's how the citation tool autogenerated it.
  • Ref#7 – Check the date. Of-course Nixon gave the speech on "February 8, 1972", but I'm fairly confident that the web page given here wasn't published in 1972. Also, just a suggestion that we can replace the current url with a permanent url (https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/255047)
    • Not sure what you mean, I'm citing the primary souce of his speech, not the fact that UCSB put it on their website, which doesn't have a date.
      • @Reywas92 – If it doesn't has any date, better remove the date parameter. 1972 looks odd for date in a {{citeweb}} template. However, its up-to you, and is a minor issue. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • Well I changed it to {citation} and it's the same formatting, I'll just leave that.
  • Ref#11 and 12 are probably fine.
  • Ref#13 – Title ""Do Things Right the First Time" Administrative – Quotes inside the title should be in under single quotation marks to avoid these 2 quote marks forced by the template.
  • Ref#15 – If the URL is of the chapter, it should use the "Chapter URL" parameter.
  • Ref#19 – Statesman Journal is linked, which is not consistent with rest of the article. And "Salem, Oregon" is included as location, which too is inconsistent.
  • Ref#31 – The title should have a endash (–) instead of a usual dash (-).
Reliability
  • All good. In previous such featured list nominations, using "National Park Service" as a source was determined to be OK.
Verifiability

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I ran the bot, but I'm confused why it chose to link to the 2010 version of the pages for many of them.
If my understanding is correct, the IA bot usually finds and adds the latest archived URL. It may be that, for various sources cited in this article, the last archived link was in 2010. Nobody since archived it... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Well these have been archived since then so idk, I may just remove them for the NPS homepages. Reywas92Talk 15:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

All done thanks. Reywas92Talk 13:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Pass for source review. Is this going to be a Featured topic sometime in future (which would be great to see). Would appreciate if you could review this nomination. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Eventually yes! National Historic Site (United States) will need a 145-item table though.... Will do yours soon. Reywas92Talk 16:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions to allow screen reader software to 'jump' straight to them without reading out all of the text above them each time; add as the first line in the table |+ caption_text, or if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header you can make it only visible to screen reader software like |+ {{sronly|caption_text}}. --PresN 01:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Done, thanks. Reywas92Talk 03:16, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Snooker world rankings 2019/2020[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This article is about the ranking system used for the 2019-20 snooker season. I have split the main table into two as it was very long. Let me know what you think about this nomination. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • Players' names in tables should sort based on surname, not forename -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • This might take a while, as there is 128 people to update, unless there's an easier way? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:59, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

More comments[edit]

  • "contributing to a players world ranking" => "contributing to a player's world ranking"
  • "Originally, the world rankings were decided only based on" => "Originally, the world rankings were decided based only on"
  • "where he had over 500,000 point lead" => "where he had a lead of over 500,000 points"
  • "On these dates, ranking points from the 2017–18 snooker season are removed" => "On these dates, ranking points from the 2017–18 snooker season were removed"
  • "used to determine the seedings for preceding tournaments" - "preceding" means "previous/earlier", so that cannot be the right word here
  • One table has revisions 1-9 but then the next one suddenly also has 0 and 10.....?
    • Indeed, revision 0 is the one from the end of the prior season, and number 10 is the same, the one at the end of this season. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "The names are sorted by the scores at the end of the season" => "The names are initially sorted by the scores at the end of the season" (because the user can re-sort them) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Quick comments

  • Revision dates: "players" should be "player's" with the apostrophe.
  • Not the biggest deal in the world, but the sources for this table are out of numerical order. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

  • Consider opening the article with something like "The Snooker world rankings 2019/2020 were..."
  • Might be useful to include what a snooker season is in the lead.
  • Might be useful to include the start and end dates of the season in the lead.
  • Consider adding a nav box to the previous and next years' rankings (in addition to the nav box at the end.)
  • Consider adding something about relegations, and possibly about promotions, to the World Snooker Tour based on ranking positions. (I'm not sure exactly how it worked or works, especially with multi-year tour cards and wild cards.)
  • Weren't defending champions seeded first in tournaments?
  • If defending champions were seeded first, amend "Seedings for each event were the world rankings" to say defending champions were top seeds and the rest were in list order.
  • Is there a reason the images are different sizes? If not, I suggest making them the same as each other.

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • The column header cells need to be marked with `scope=col`; currently you have `scope=column` in the first table and nothing in the second/third. Note that since you have subheader cells in the second table, those should get colscopes as well.
  • The "primary" cell in each row needs to be marked with `scope=row` (e.g. `| 1` becomes `!scope=row| 1`); this combined with the colscopes allows screen reader software to accurately read out the table as a data table. --PresN 01:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

List of songs recorded by Chuck Mosley[edit]

Nominator(s): 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 15:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Chuck was never the strongest singer, nor the most consummate navigator of the music industry, but he was truly one of a kind. I've modelled this list on the previous articles List of songs recorded by Faith No More, which it will have some overlap with, and List of songs recorded by Jason Newsted, both of which were successful at FLC before. Any comments or critiques on this one would be greatly welcome, and if you take the time out of your day to listen to some of his work, allow me to recommend "Chinese Arithmetic", "Shout", or "Tractor" as standouts. Thanks in advance for any contributions, and don't be afraid to Introduce Yourself. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 15:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • "During his career, Mosley recorded" he recorded.
  • "joining Faith No More" in what year?
  • "1985's We Care a Lot," would oddly prefer "We Care a Lot (1985),"...
  • "being fired in 1988" why? And maybe try to avoid three different years in one sentence.
  • "début" I think by now we've adopted this into English without the need for a diacritic.
  • ""due to the disease of addiction" " as that's so esoteric, suggest it's attributed.
  • Quotes are unusual in this type of article but I kinda like them. " up?’." could use not having double punctuation nor curly punctuation.
  • "cover of Sinéad O'Connor's "Nothing Compares 2 U". is this referenced? And wasn't it Prince who wrote it?
  • Any chance of telling us when Mosley was pictured in each of those images?

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Thanks. I think I've got most of these at present--I didn't know whether to include a caption in the lead image (it could be done using a table row), and the O'Connor image is now a multiple image template showing her and Prince, with an added cite to support who did what. Changes are here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 10:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review – Pass[edit]

  • All the images are freely licenced. 2 are from Flickr, and 2 are own work of an commons user. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Drive-by comment[edit]

  • "One of Mosley's last releases included" - either "One of Mosley's last releases was" or "Mosley's last releases included" but not this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I've reworded this one—the meaning was that the release was the Joe Haze Sessions recorded and the song was included on that, but I've rewritten it instead as "Mosley posthumously released a cover ...". 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 10:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • The table needs a caption: `|+ caption_text` as the first line of the table code, or if that caption would duplicate a nearby header, you can hide it from visual browsers like `|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}`. Captions allow screen reader software to scan straight to a named table without having to read out all of the text before it first each time. --PresN 18:18, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    Added; just used the title of the article but can amended it if brevity is better. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 10:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

More comments[edit]

  • "both as a solo artist and as a member of Faith No More, Cement, and Primitive Race." - and Indoria, judging from the table?
  • Could do with mentioning /explaining Indoria in paragraph 3 as well. Where does it fit into his overall career?
  • In some cases there are up to four versions of the same song listed separately. Do these all need their own separate listing?
  • That's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Honestly the Indoria release is something which wouldn't even pass GNG for its own article, there's so little coverage of them out there that this was all I was able to include, and I suspect without Mosley's appearance there would be less than nothing as unreliable fan blogs wouldn't even be picking it up due to his connection. I have nothing else I could source it to and that's why I wasn't really including them in the same breath as projects which at least have sourcing, if not always standalone articles, but I could add it to the sentence in your first point if you feel it merits inclusion there. As to multiple entries for songs, anything listed more than once is a separate recording, maybe a live version or a re-recording or a different demo version of a song; this can be seen at List of songs recorded by Faith No More too with some of the re-recordings or live versions. It's the sort of information that appeals to the kind of completionist fan--like me!--who wants to know all the different variations, I suppose. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 20:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support - might be worth delinking Indoria and his/her/their album if you genuinely think they aren't notable -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I've taken the links out as you suggest. Thanks for your review. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 09:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

List of blues standards[edit]

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Since a major restructuring in 2014, this list has been steadily expanded and refined. It is extensively referenced, follows the applicable MOS guidelines, and is stable. I hope you find it informative and user-friendly. Ojorojo (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review – Pass[edit]

Comments from TRM[edit]

Opening question, perhaps I'm tired, but where are the inclusion criteria for this list defined? Who or what "decides" that a particular song is a "blues standard"? I have other comments to add but getting my head round this would be helpful... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:12, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The selection criteria is stated near the end of the lead: "Each song listed has been identified by five or more music writers as a blues standard." The citations in the "Refs" column show the sources used. Hope this helps. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Sorry for being too nit-picky here, but that brings me to another question, that is there any other song which is "identified by five or more music writers as a blues standard", but not included here? And why five music writers, why not 3 or 7? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I did a last thorough search to see if any more came up, which led to two more songs being added recently. As new books are published, more may be identified, but I only found the additional two since the last search in 2018. After some trial and error, five seemed to eliminate some songs that were briefly popular, but didn't last, yet not leave out some of the more important ones. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
On that note, I think it would be justified to add {{incomplete list}} tag. Rest seems fine to me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Ojorojo thanks, I guess I'm too tired! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • American folk is overlinked in the lead.
Removed second link. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Could link record charts.
Linked. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "main charts" which charts were these, out of interest? Mainly in the US?
Mostly U.S. Billboards's Race/R&B/Soul/Black singles charts, but also its Hot 100. The UK Singles Charts and the Australian singles charts were also used for a few entries. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Added efns to clarify the charts and moved all citations to them to the Refs column. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Weren't the Yardbirds called "the Yardbirds" not just "Yardbirds"?
  • Same for the Stones?
Not much space savings, so I changed them to their official names (the Animals too). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

But that is about it for me, nothing much more to add. I guess there could be justification for a {{incomplete list}} tag here as we're not certain we've covered everything in this "definition"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I think the template wording would be misleading. As it stands, the list is not "missing items" – it includes all the standards that meet the selection criteria, based on thorough searches. WP:FLCR #3(a) includes "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items". New books may describe additional songs as blues standards or may not; requiring five sources sets the bar fairly high. Many WP articles would need to be expanded based on future published sources and wouldn't be considered incomplete or missing information for this reason.
An idea: would it be of interest to readers to include a sentence in the lead about who was the first to record the most standards (Robert Johnson and Tampa Red, 4 each; Muddy Waters, Howlin' Wolf 3 each) or most charting standards (B.B. King and Muddy Waters, 5 each; Little Walter, Bobby Bland 4 each)? Value added or too much peripheral detail?
Ojorojo (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I think your idea is a good one. People are certainly going to be interested in who has more of these standards. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Added, but kept it simple. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "One half" should not have a hyphen
Fixed. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Bo Diddley's version of "I'm A Man" was also a hit, as Billboard listed the relevant single as a double-sided hit for 11 of its weeks on chart (see here). It's also listed in Joel Whitburn's R&B charts book (page 118)
I was uncertain of Whitburn's (used for most of the chart info) entry as "Best Seller flip" and "Juke Box flip", but without positions. Now that I see the actual Billboard entry, I'll add it. Thanks. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support from Kavyansh.Singh[edit]

  • I participated in the peer review, and my comments were answered promptly by the nominator. I have taken a second look at the list, and have made a small correction. Rest seems fine to me, and I support this list for promotion as a Featured list. Any comments or a source review for this nomination is appreciated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Rihanna singles discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This list compiles the singles released by Rihanna, arguably the biggest hitmaker of popular music. Seriously, we have not seen anyone that matches the potentials of Rihanna, who seamlessly fits with every genre possible. I have cleaned up the list, and hope that this list is now up to FL standards. Any comment is very much welcomed. Thank you very much, Ippantekina (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • "52 as a lead artist, 18 as a featured artist, two charity singles and five" MOSNUM 52/18/2/5.
  • Done
  • Cross-check the maths and cross-check with the infobox, none of it adds up right now.
  • Nowhere in the lead do you mention any platinum/gold ceritification.
  • Almost all of her singles have gone multi-platinum, so I haven't found anything notable to add. Any ideas? Because saying "This went 7x platinum, that went 8x platinum..." would constitute a huge lead. Ippantekina (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Rated R, 2010" that links to a disambiguation page.
  • Plenty of spaced hyphens in the reference titles, should be en-dashes.
  • Done
  • NO NEED TO SHOUT in refs either.
  • Done

That's it on a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@The Rambling Man: Thank you for the comments. I have responded to them above :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • Firstly, I know this doesn't impact the article, but no way is Rihanna the "biggest hitmaker of popular music"
  • It is totally objective! But I still think she is today's biggest hitmaker for her versatility :) Ippantekina (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The clause after "Pon de Replay" starts with a dash but ends with a comma
  • Done
  • "reached the top ten on charts" => "reached the top ten on the charts"
  • Done
  • "The singles also reached the top five on charts" => "The singles also reached the top five on the charts"
  • Done
  • "The string of U.S. number-one singles as lead artist include" => "The string of U.S. number-one singles as lead artist includes" (the subject is string, which is singular)
  • Done
  • Why is the US chart listed first when she is not American?
  • Much of her career is based in America, so I think that makes sense. Ippantekina (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Write all chart positions in the notes as numbers
  • Done

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Overall, this looks really good. Just a few small comments:

  • "Umbrella", "Take a Bow", "Disturbia""Umbrella", "Take a Bow", and "Disturbia"
  • Similarly, "Only Girl (in the World)", "What's My Name", "S&M""Only Girl (in the World)", "What's My Name", and "S&M"
  • Run IABot to archive sources where possible

RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • I think you missed the first item, but it's not a huge issue and I'm sure you'll fix it, so I'm happy to support. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Pamzeis[edit]

I will try not to screw this up

  • marked some notable — notable? Do her milestones have articles? By whose standards?
  • Her milestones don't have articles per-se, but they are included in the list that I linked. Ippantekina (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Also, "some" seems unnecessarily vague
  • claimed the fastest time span — can she really "claim" a time span?
  • eighth studio album Anti — comma after album
  • Be consistent on whether you use the MOS:SERIAL comma or not
  • Also, per MOS:US, be consistent with U.S. vs. UK
  • I spelled out "United States" as a noun and used "US" as an adjective; is it OK? Ippantekina (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Ping me once these have been resolved! Pamzeis (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Pamzeis: Hello, I have responded to your comments above. Thank you for reviewing the FLC. Ippantekina (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Happy to support but I'm trying to figure out how I didn't know who Rihanna was until I watched The Good Place (in around 2020). On an unrelated note, I'd appreciate any comments here. Pamzeis (talk) 05:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]

List of British divisions in World War II[edit]

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

This list covers all British divisions that were active during the Second World War. This is a list of 85 formations (two airborne, 12 anti-aircraft, 11 armoured, one cavalry, ten County (coastal defence), and 49 infantry), although not all were active at the same time. The article also provides supplemental information for each division type, such as an overview all their role, equipment, and intended and actual strengths. A background section overviews the size of the British Army, how many divisions were intended to be raised, and the fluctuating number that were active. The list has previously been assessed and passed as an A-Class list.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Procedural note
  • @EnigmaMcmxc – The instructions state "Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." I see that you have nominated this one and List of commanders of the British 2nd Division together, within span of minutes, and neither of the nomination has any comments at all......... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Right ... I've already started reading the first list and I'll probably support, and if so, I'm guessing you won't have long to wait for one additional support, and then you can nom this one (as long as there are no unresolved issues). - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I am so sorry, I spaced over that! Should I just remove this from the list, and re-add it later when appropriate?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    I'm not sure ... pinging PresN. - Dank (push to talk) 16:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    That's fine with me, it doesn't appear that it will have to wait long, so no point deleting and recreating it, which is the other option. --PresN 12:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@EnigmaMcmxc – I see that your other nomination (List of commanders of the British 2nd Division) has two support without any oppose. Reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed. So, this nomination can now proceed, and can be placed back with other nominations. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Version reviewed — 1Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Formatting

Citations

  • Ref#45 – add URL access dates
  • Ref#48 – add URL access dates
    • Regarding these two, the access-date= template does not work within the confines of the Gazette reference template. Any suggestions?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Ref#151 – I'll capitalize 'B' in 'badge'
  • Ref#190 – add URL access date, also it has 404 error.
    • Looks like I forgot to add in the "supp=y" part of the template, these both work now. Regarding the access date part, please see above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

References

  • All the books/journals in the 'References' section are well formatted. Most of them have OCLC or ISBN number, properly formatted. Publication details and location are provided in all.
  • Do check for links of authors.
    • 'Playfair, I. S. O.' is linking to a redirect page, which should be fixed.
    • 'Playfair, I. S. O.' should be linked in every citation where they are the author. Per MOS:REFLINK, repeating links in citations is not' considered overlinking.
  • Few other authors like George Forty, Lionel F. Ellis, William Jackson, etc. should be linked. Check for all the authors.
    • Links added to the above, several others, and all checkedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Reliability
  • No issues at all. The list has a wide range of sources, all seem reliable.
Verifiability
  • Page numbers are provided for all book/journal sources. I spot checked a few, and found no issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address all. The only one I have not, so far, is regarding the Gazette per the above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Not a major issue if the template doesn't support access date. Source review – Pass. Would appreciate your comments on this nomination. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • World War II or Second World War? Be consistent.
    My standing policy is that the vast majority of British-related sources use "Second World War" as the correct terminology for British English. However, its apparently not sound to use that as the article title. The only time "World War II" is used is in the article title, book titles, and relevant links in the see also section; it is "Second World War" throughout the article, so about as consistent as one can get without having to have a fight about the article title. I am, however, more than happy to move the article; I just think it will end up getting reverted at some point.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Here Major-General Charles Keightley,..." where was this picture taken, geographically I mean?
    I have added Italy to the end of the sentence, prior to the date.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Two sentences in the lead are referenced, just two. That material should be in the main text too and referenced there instead.
    I have removed the refs from the lede, and inserted that cited text into the background section and done some rewording. Do these changes work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • You can link British Army in the lead.
    Link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • And again in the opening sentence of the main body.
    DittoEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "British paratroopers during training" on my screen, this just squashes the table a bit, could use the {{clear}} template to stop that happening.
    I have added the template in, I hope I have used it correctly?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Italian/Tunisian Campaign -> campaign according to our own articles.
    Capital droppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • No good reason to make a Notes column (free text) sortable.
    Sorting ability removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "during the Western Desert Campaign before" campaign issue again.
    capital letter also droppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Plenty of these in the "Armoured divisions" table.
    I think this was in reference to the campaign links, which have now been addressed. If not, please let me know.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "Cavalry divisions" seems silly to have a sortable table with one entry.
    Table updatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "The division was redesignated as the 77th..." complete sentence so needs a full stop, check all others (e.g. "The division ended the war in Germany").
    I think I got all related onesEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "[169][137][170]" ref order, check other multiple refs.
    References reorderedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Just a quick run through, looks like a decent list. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:01, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you for your review and comments. I have attempted to address them all aboveEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

List of bovids[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 15:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

My life has been pretty busy the last few months, which greatly delayed the next list in my mammal series—not to mention the size of the list. But finally, following up on my 10-list series of Carnivora (carnivorans/felids/canids/mustelids/procyonids/ursids/mephitids/viverrids/herpestids/pinnipeds) comes a third list in Artiodactyla (cervids/suines): the 144 species of Bovidae, covering antelope, cows, gazelle, goats, and sheep. Basically just a ton of non-deer/pig/horse hooved animals in one giant family. This follows the pattern set by the previous 12 lists (and reviewer comments therein), so hopefully it's good to go. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 15:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]


Image review – Pass[edit]

  • File:Gazella erlangeri.jpg – The source link doesn't has the image. The correct source link appears to be this, which states that the image is copyrighted (All rights reserved). The source states "The resized photographs can be freely used on any pages for non commercial, scientific and educational purposes, if you let me know about it first" The image doesn't seem to be licenced under CC 4.0.
  • Rest all around image are mostly "Own work" uploaded by Wikipedia user, from Flickr, or appropriately licenced. Images have ALT text. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Removed the erlangeri image, as it appears to not be free use. --PresN 18:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Other reviews[edit]

Comments
  • "have a population sizes of over one million" => "have population sizes of over one million"
  • Under springbok, shrubs is spelt incorrectly
  • Under Arabian oryx, and is spelt incorrectly
  • Under scimitar oryx, "as well fruits and vegetables" => "as well as fruits and vegetables"
  • The note should probably have a full stop
  • That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @ChrisTheDude: All done! Thanks for reviewing. --PresN 14:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • "Bovids range in size from the 38 cm (15 in) long (plus 5 cm (2 in) tail) royal antelope to the 3.3 m (10.8 ft) long (plus 0.7 m (2.3 ft) tail) gaur, which can reach 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) in weight.": The third sentence of text on a page shouldn't be this hard to parse. Move some words around, please.
  • Took out the tails, it's just too much even besides the double-parenthesis
  • I don't remember what we decided in one of my lists about, for instance, "Dorcatragus megalotis.jpg ... |image-alt=" ... will the screen-readers read that correctly?
  • Alts shouldn't be missing, now added to the blank ones
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is fine. There are no sortable columns. I sampled the links in the tables.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates in the first column 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) 02:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Dank: Fixed, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 02:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support. I've had a look over this and the only thing I could raise is that endnote a doesn't seem to be cited; the information doesn't seem to be present in the IUCN source for B. bison, although perhaps I'm missing it elsewhere. Either way both the 500,000 farmed figure and the claim they're "almost universally" hybrids feel like claims which should be referenced, but that's all I have. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 20:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Grapple X: Thanks, cite added. --PresN 21:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[]

List of world number one snooker players[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I am nominating this for featured list because it covers the pinnacle of the snooker world rankings. Eleven people have held the number one position in the world since 1976. I welcome any comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Kavyansh.Singh[edit]

  • The lead seems bit short. It wouldn't be too long if you merge a summarized version of the "History" section in the lead.
    • Hmm, I'm not sure I want to merge the two sections. Two paragraphs seems suitable for a lede of a list with prose in the body. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • I'll be interested to know what others think... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The references in the "Number one players" table need to be centered.
  • Add a caption to every table, possible using the {{sronly}} template.
  • Check the title for Ref#4. It should probably just be "2005–6 Main Tour Two Year Rankings". Also, it lacks URL access date.
  • Few work organisations like The Independent, The Belfast Telegraph, The Canberra Times, etc. are linked, while rest are not. Be consistent with linking or not.
  • Add "Shamoon Hafez" in Ref#22 as the name
  • Is there any ISBN number or publishing information for Ref#9 available?
    • Fraid not. It is released more as a magazine, but is a SPS. However, Chris Downer is a snooker historian, so could be considered reliable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 09:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Those are a few minor concerns from me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

All done Kavyansh.Singh. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Lee Vilenski – Thanks for addressing most of my concerns. I support this nomination for promotion as a Featured list. Would appreciate your comments on this nomination. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Comments from MWright96
  • The two images could do with being upright per MOS:UPRIGHT
  • "Eleven players have held the number-one rank;" - avoid starting a sentence with a number per MOS:NUMNOTES
  • "only seven players held the number-one position." - don't think number one is hyphenated
  • "whilst Selby has done so since it changed to a rolling format." - from which years has Selby held the record since the inception of the rolling format
  • "For the 2010–11 snooker season, the world rankings were changed to be updated after each tournament carrying ranking points." - will need to be verified by a reliable source mentioning all this information
  • Many seasons are not wikilinked in the history section
  • "Alex Higgins would have been ranked number one in 1982–83," - in the 1982–83 snooker season,
  • In the prose just below the List of players section, the seasons don't necessarily need to be linked based on the third point I have made during the review
    • Strictly speaking, it's in a table, so doesn't apply. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "but had ranking points deducted as a result of disciplinary action." - what caused disclinpary action to be taken against Alex Higgins?
  • "for each period since rankings began in 1976/77." - in the 1976/77 season.
  • The term seeds can be wikilinked to Seed (sports) on its only mention in the prose
  • The reference in the first row of the "Number one players" doesn't mention at all the dates Ray Reardon was snooker's world number one
  • Avoid having floating references by either adding explaining text above the two tables, adding table headers and put the references at the end of them or put the references in the appropriate sections of tables
    • I've placed them next to the headers from previous review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • You don't need to have |John Higgins in the sort name templates for John Higgins in the "Annual format (1975–2010)", "Rolling format (2010–present)", "Per season" and "Per frequency"
  • The tables in the sub-headings "Annual format (1975–2010)", "Rolling format (2010–present)", "Per season" and "Per frequency" need to include scope="col"s for each of their columns to comply with MOS:DTAB
  • The "Annual format (1975–2010)", "Rolling format (2010–present)" tables need to be fully referenced for verification purposes
  • The title of Reference 1 "Rankings FAQ | WPBSA | Snooker" - does not need the text highlighted in bold
  • Be consistent with the WPBSA sources; for example References 1 and 3 have the work as "WPBSA" while the rest has "World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association" as the publisher
  • Same with References 11 and 13 which have the publisher as "Global Snooker" while References 11 and 13 has the publisher "Global Snooker Centre"
  • Reference 4 title: "2005-6 Main Tour Two Year Rankings Updated 01/05/06 after 888.com World Championship" - the hypen should be replaced by an en dash (–) per MOS:DASH
  • References 14, 16, 20 and 22 are missing their respective publication dates

That is all what I found during my read through of this list MWright96 (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Sorry for the delay on this one MWright96 - all done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:57, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Support – Nothing further from yours truly MWright96 (talk) 20:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

  • History: This list shouldn't incoporate too much that should be in the main rankings article, but consider mentioning that for a while it was only the World Championship that carried ranking points. (Until the 1982 International Open, I believe).
  • History: consider mentioning that (from 2014/15?) points were based on prize money. IMO that's quite a significant change.
  • Periods: Feels to me like "Even though the rankings officially started in 1976, an Order of Merit was published in 1975 to determine the seedings for events. It used the same criteria that was used to determine the first set of official rankings the following year" should be incorporated into the History section rather than being introduced here.
  • Periods: "criteria that was" - "criteria that were" (because criteria is a plural); or the following.
  • Periods: "It used the same criteria that was used to determine the first set of official rankings the following year" feels a bit backwards, how about something like "The first set of official rankings the following year used the same criteria."?
  • Ref ordering for Reardon ([11][4])
  • Images: Consider and "as of" or different caption for the Selby pic, to avoid it becoming outdated when he loses the number one spot.
  • External links: Isn't "Pro Snooker Blog" a website non grata (even tho' the author went on to work for the WPBSA)?
  • "Rolling format (2010–present)" - reference is archived from August but says a calculation is "as of 11 September 2021"
  • Consider adding https://wst.tv/rankings/ as an external link.

Support from Grapple X[edit]

Resolved comments from 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 17:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
*I could be wrong on this (PresN might know better?) but I'm sure that the cell colour alone to denote the once-a-year updates is enough for a screenreader; consider adding something like a dagger or asterisk to allow it to be seen by more than just colour alone. I'd also move the key to before rather than after the table but that's not particularly important.
    • WP:COLOR - you can't use just color to denote information, because vision-impaired/colorblind readers can't see it. Add a dagger or * to those cells as well/instead. Also, keys usually go above the table, not below. --PresN 13:20, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • I've actually culled it, as I have no idea what this is about. We update the table when someone changes being world number one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • I don't mean the updates to the article; there was previously a colour-shading to indicate the number-one ranking for years when that ranking was only updated once per year and not on a rolling basis; if you want to keep that demarcation present then just denote it with an additional asterisk or dagger too. Losing it leaves the table accessible too so either/or, really. I've edited and self-reverted a version which would keep the distinction and still be accessible, if you want to retain that then just restore it. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 16:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          • Yeah, I think the prose covers that it was updated once a year. I don't think we benefit from going over that. If there is a need, we can add a dagger or something. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:57, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The second external link is just a bare url, maybe format it a little like the one before it?
  • The sport of professional snooker first adopted a ranking system for the 1975–76 snooker season. I'd drop the second "snooker" here, it avoid repetition and it would be clear what the 1975-76 season refers to. The "snooker" in the other season ranges might similarly be trimmed.
  • This was altered from the 2014-15 snooker season. Hyphen here should be a dash
  • Selby has also finished the season seven times ranked in first place. This reads awkwardly, "the season" seems like one singular when it isn't. Suggest Selby has also seven seasons ranked in first place
  • I'm sure how to feel about the mixed usage of slashes and dashes for season ranges. I can see the reason behind it in usages like 1976/1977–1982/1983 as dashes alone would be a mess, but even in standalone usage we have both dashes and slashes used in different places. Standardising everything to a slash would be one fix but I'm happy to hear this out and see what you think.
    • The issues we have is that the articles for the seasons are at 1976–77 snooker season, whilst our articles on the rankings are at Snooker world rankings 1976/1977. I prefer this to be X–Y, which I believe to be correct, but as you say it's awkward at 1990/1991–1997/1998. Happy to change this, but probably something that has had issues with earlier comments on this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
      • In that case I would suggest using a dash in all instances where a single season is mentioned, and a slash only when we're mentioning a span of several. As is we have for example ince rankings began in the 1976/77 season and and again in 2006/2007 which I would change to dashes. It would still leave a mix but at least each usage is consistent in its circumstance. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 16:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I don't know if this is actionable and looking at the citation templates being used I can't see why it's happening but there's an unusual mix of how archive URLs are displaying in the reflist, where templates which are coded the same way will alternately display the original link first and the archive link first (as "[archive link], archived from [the original]" or "[link], [achived] from the original"). If there was a reason for the split then I would suggest standardising it but I can't see where this is coming from and if it's not solvable then it's not a concern worth worrying about.
    • This is due to the

List of Billboard Latin Pop Airplay number ones of 1997[edit]

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I may have been eliminated from WikiCup, but I am still determined to work on these lists no matter what. I can faintly remember several of these songs being played when I was child living in New Jersey in the 90s. But enough about me for now, I address any issues as always. Erick (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments
  • "Latin Pop Airplay is a chart that ranks the top-performing songs (regardless of genre or language) on Latin pop radio stations in the United States, published by Billboard magazine" => "Latin Pop Airplay is a chart published by Billboard magazine that ranks the top-performing songs (regardless of genre or language) on Latin pop radio stations in the United States," (current word order makes it sound like Billboard publishes the radio stations)
  • "longest-running number-one-song" => "longest-running number-one song" (in the Enrique caption)
  • "Estefan herself obtained her second number one in 1997 with "No Pretendo"." - that was her first number one of the year, not second
  • "which became her first number song on the chart" - the word "one" is missing
  • "Fey obtained her first and only chart-toppers" => "Fey obtained her first and only chart-topper"
  • Fey photo caption is missing the " at the end of the song title
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks, I resolved everything you brought up. For Estefan, I meant her second number one overall so I changed that to make it more clear. Erick (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from TRM[edit]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
*"year was "Lloviendo Flores" by" this redirects to an album, not a song.
  • "the issue dated January 4 and" split sentences.
  • " by "Las Cosas Que Vives" by Laura Pausini. "Las Cosas Que Vives" had" repetitive, but perhaps after you've split the sentence and reworded it won't be so bad.
  • "Sólo en Ti" no link in the lead?
  • "with "En el Jardín"," el ->El per our article.
  • "with 10 weeks" ten.
  • ""El Reloj" our article calls it "El reloj".

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks as always for your comments TRM. Aside from topping the Latin pop chart, I couldn't find any other useful for "Lloviendo Flores" that would satisfy WP:NSONG. No reviews, no accolades, nada. Since Solo en Ti is the Spanish version of "Only You", I linked the original song, but if it's desirable to link the Spanish language cover, that's fine, I can do that. Erick (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Ok, no problem. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:27, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Bong Joon-ho filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe it meets the FL-criteria. The article has been edited to contain the same qualities as other Fls, including the recently promoted M. Night Shyamalan filmography, which I co-nominated. Pinging @BRVAFL as a major contributor. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from TRM[edit]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
*What are "narrative films"?
 Done Added link. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Is there a link for "short film"?
 Done Added link. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Why are three short films "in quotes" and the others in italics?
Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Four para lead is too long. Probably two is all that's needed.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "massive acclaim from critics" no need for "massive".
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "The film, which received..." too many run-ons in this sentence.
Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Ref columns don't need to be sortable.
Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Tables ideally should have captions, even if they're screen-reader only.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Television table has one item so it needn't be sortable.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Where are the other rotten tomatoes ratings, e.g. Sea Fog?
 Done Added. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Where are the "Frequent collaborators" referenced?
 Done Removed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Check ref titles for spaced hyphens, should be spaced en-dashes.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Avoid SHOUTING in ref titles.
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]

That's my first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]

@The Rambling Man: Your comments have been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]


Image review – Pass[edit]

Comments
  • "Motel Cactus, where he also served as an assistant director" => "Motel Cactus, for which he also served as an assistant director"
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • "encouraged to write a play, which resulted in the creation and release of Parasite in 2019" => "encouraged to write a play, which resulted in the creation and release of the film Parasite in 2019" (to make it 100% clear that Parasite is not in fact a play)
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Absolutely no idea if the Korean title column sorts correctly, so I will AGF that it does.....
  • Music video table should probably have the Korean title in its column to match the films table
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Performance credits table could be sortable
 Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@ChrisTheDude: Your comments have been addressed. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
  • The headers of tables need to have colscopes, e.g. `! rowspan=2 | Year` should be `! scope=col rowspan=2 | Year`. This along with rowscopes helps screen reader software accurately read out the cells of the table. You have it on a couple of them, but it needs to be on all, including the English/Original headers. --PresN 14:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
@PresN  Done Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Version reviewed — 1

Formatting
  • Ref#16 – the name "A.O. Scott" needs to be formatted as last name and first name.
  • Ref#29 – "New Brunswick, New Jersey" is the only location added for any reference, so you might wan to remove it for consistency. And format the ISBN number "9781978818903" using this tool.
  • Ref#33 and Ref#34 – add archive links and archive date just for consistency, since all other citations have.
Reliability
  • Seems fine.
Verifiability
  • Did a few spot-checks (Ref#13, 17, 26). Everything looks good. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Kavyansh.Singh All  Done. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Some Dude From North Carolina – Thanks! Everything looks good. Pass for source review. Would appreciate your comments at this FLC. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I support this nomination for promotion but have one comment: who began his career in the late 1990s, creating the 1994 [...] — is 1994 considered late in the 90s, especially considering it's part of the first half...? Pamzeis (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The nomination will be passed when a coordinator is able to take a look at it an evaluate it; for the record, it does not have 5 supporting votes, it has 2- ChrisTheDude and Pamzeis. The others were an image review, a source review, and comments without a concluding comment. --PresN 17:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments[edit]

  • Overall a great list. I have one minor comment: shouldn't the rowheaders be plain? Ippantekina (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Ippantekina: Fixed Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Though the issue remains with the "Critical reception" section, that is not enough to keep me from supporting this list for FL. Please do resolve the issue later on. Ippantekina (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[]

List of awards and nominations received by Friends[edit]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Friends is a classic TV show, and now this list can be an actually useful resource to those reading about the show. (Seriously, go read the old lead – it was basically incomprehensible.) It took a lot of work digging through Internet Archive and online databases to find sources, but I'm very satisfied with the result and confident it's ready for FL status. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Support - I got nothing at all, nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review – Pass[edit]

  • Version reviewed — 1
Formatting
  • For multiple combined referenced, can we have a semi colon separating them, or is it fine the way it is?
    • I agree that the current format can sometimes be unclear, but I haven't been able to find a better option. Semicolons would look like this: [1]. It works, but the semicolon isn't super obvious; the line break is clearer. I tried using Template:Multiref2 in response to your suggestion, but it seems to mess up the formatting – compare [2] to [3]. I could also try bullet points like [4], similar to a few of the notes in the lead, but the tradeoff there is that it makes the footnote taller by indenting and by adding a line to the top of every footnote (even if I didn't type anything there, it would still be a blank line). What do you think is best?
      • I personally like the bullet points, but it looks good only if used for limited citations; but in this case, when almost half citations are multiple sources, its better to leave it as it is. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • For Ref#78, could we have a link to "Factiva aprs000020010709dx1o02j9w"?
    • I don't know if there's an easy way to do it – since that ID template doesn't add the link automatically while other ID templates do, I don't think it's really possible.
      • If you have the link, you can probably pipe it. Rest, no issues... – 05:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
        • I've added a link. Because my account is through a university, I can't log in through that link to check that it works, but I'm fairly confident it does. At any rate, the ID is the same. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Rest, all the citations are consistent in formatting.
Reliability
  • Overall, no issues.
Verifiability
  • No issues.
  • This is an excellent list, and the issues are far too minor to prevent it from passing the source review. Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Footnotes
  1. ^ Davies, Jonathan (January 11, 1996). "Jokes on them: NBC, Fox top comedy noms". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 340 no. 30. pp. 1, 57. ProQuest 2467875116;
    Davies, Jonathan (February 12, 1996). "'Shorty' gets comedy honors". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 341 no. 2. pp. 3, 32. ProQuest 2467933942.
  2. ^ Davies, Jonathan (January 11, 1996). "Jokes on them: NBC, Fox top comedy noms". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 340 no. 30. pp. 1, 57. ProQuest 2467875116.
    Davies, Jonathan (February 12, 1996). "'Shorty' gets comedy honors". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 341 no. 2. pp. 3, 32. ProQuest 2467933942.
  3. ^ Davies, Jonathan (January 11, 1996). "Jokes on them: NBC, Fox top comedy noms". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 340 no. 30. pp. 1, 57. ProQuest 2467875116.

    Davies, Jonathan (February 12, 1996). "'Shorty' gets comedy honors". The Hollywood Reporter. Vol. 341 no. 2. pp. 3, 32. ProQuest 2467933942.




  4. ^ Multiple sources:

Support from Pamzeis[edit]

While I mostly support this list for promotion, I have a few comments. I've never watched the show so forgive me for any obvious mistakes.

  • The show follows the six main characters as they live and work in New York City — reads rather awkwardly to me. Perhaps replace "as they live and work" with "living and working"?
    • How about "the characters' personal and professional lives in New York City"?
  • Also, I think "main" is redundant as I would not expect a show to not follow the main characters.
    • Removed.
  • In 2002, Friends won [...]/in 1998 [...]MOS:EASTEREGG?
  • before receiving the group's Heritage Award — what group?
    • Clarified that it's the TCA Heritage Award.

That's it. Face-smile.svg Best of luck with this list! Pamzeis (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks for the feedback! Comments above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Pamzeis: I realized I never pinged you to let you know I'd made the changes you suggested; while you've already supported it, it would be great to know if the changes I've made were in line with what you were thinking. Thanks! RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The list looks great! Again, best of luck with this list! Pamzeis (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[]

List of Yuri on Ice episodes[edit]

Nominator(s): ISD (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[]

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel that this list meets all the requirements for FL status. It fits into the mould of similar anime episode list FLs as seen here. I am unsure what if anything needs to be added to improve the list but any suggestions to help promotion will be useful. ISD (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]
;Comments
  • "It revolves around the relationships between Japanese figure skater Yuri Katsuki; his idol, Russian figure-skating champion Victor Nikiforov, and up-and-coming Russian skater Yuri Plisetsky; as the two Yuris..." => "It revolves around the relationships between Japanese figure skater Yuri Katsuki, his idol, Russian figure-skating champion Victor Nikiforov, and up-and-coming Russian skater Yuri Plisetsky, as the two Yuris..."
  • The words "for their customers" are redundant and should be removed, also there shouldn't be a full stop in the middle of that sentence
  • "On the end of the final episode" => "At the end of the final episode"
  • "it was announced Yuri on Ice would return" => "it was announced that Yuri on Ice would return"
  • "The ending theme was "You Only Live Once" by Wataru Hatano, and peaked" => "The ending theme was "You Only Live Once" by Wataru Hatano, which peaked"
  • The amount of detail about the DVDs in the lead is too much, in fact most of it isn't even mentioned in the "broadcast and distribution" section. Move most of it to there.
  • "5 years" => "five years"
  • "5th consecutive" => "fifth consecutive"
  • "prepares a training regiment" => "prepares a training regimen" (regiment is not the correct word here)
  • "though he isn't able" => "although he is not able"
  • "Though he doesn't land" => "Though he does not land"
  • "wanting to prove the world that he's worthy" => "wanting to prove to the world that he is worthy"
  • "Yuri remembers how he couldn't be there" => "Yuri remembers how he could not be there"
  • "after he'd mentioned" => "after he had mentioned"
  • "Yuri K. contemplates retiring after the GPF, and have Victor step down as coach" => "Yuri K. contemplates retiring after the GPF and having Victor step down as coach"
  • "since he's content with coaching" => "since he is content with coaching"
  • "though he isn't able to land it cleanly" => "though he is not able to land it cleanly"
  • "JJ for the first time gives a very sub-par performance" - this is literally the first mention of JJ. Who is he?
  • Note b is not a complete sentence so shouldn't have a full stop
  • Great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]
    • I think I've made all the changes you suggested. Thanks. ISD (talk) 09:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support - nice one! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Thank you. ISD (talk) 17:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from Link20XX[edit]

  • Why is Crunchyroll italicized in the note "All English titles are taken from Crunchyroll"? It isn't a news website in this context, nor is it italicized on its Wikipedia article.
  • Shouldn't the English home video release be included in the Home Video release section?

Those are my first comments. I will give more after a close read-through. In the meantime, if you could leave comments on my peer review, I will much appreciate it. Link20XX (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]

    • I think I've made the changes you have suggested. ISD (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • Replace the "n.a." in the fair use image with a proper justification, "n.a." is not an appropriate justification. checkY
  • Image caption is a fragment, no full stop required. checkY
  • MAPPA is unnecessarily piped to a redirect back to MAPPA. checkY
  • "to Yuri K." you say before that Yuri Katsuki (known as Yuri K.) Same for the others. checkY
  • "October 6, 2016 and" comma after 2016. checkY
  • "22, 2016 with" likewise. checkY
  • Link dub. checkY
  • "the message "See You NEXT LEVEL" was seen." displayed rather than seen. checkY
  • "the Billboard Japan Hot 100 chart" Billboard Japan should be in italics. checkY
  • Four-para lead is too much, three paras maximum. checkY
  • "the first Blu-ray/DVD set" don't repeat "Blu-ray/DVD" here. checkY
  • "in the USA on" just US. checkY
  • "produced by MAPPA, directed" see above. checkY
  • "Yuri on Ice will have six Blu-ray and DVD sets released" will have?? checkY
  • "series in the USA on" see above. checkY
  • "textless opening and closing" what is that? checkY
  • Spaced hyphens should be space en-dashes. checkY
  • "Hasetsu, Kyushu after" comma after Kyushu. checkY
  • "His performance gets secretly" is, not gets. checkY
  • " to Japan and" no need to link. checkY
  • You've linked it again in the second synopsis. checkY

I'll come back to this, more soon. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]

    • I hope I've done everything correctly, but I'm note sure about en-dashes. ISD (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]
      • I'm going to need you to check each one off one at a time, you haven't done the first one! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:51, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]
        • Sorry, I thought that it was only one of the n.a. that needed replacing. I've corrected that, although if this is still not appropriate I would request a bit more help as to what does count as justification. ISD (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]
          • That's fine. Please now go through each of my points and mark them off one at a time to ensure you've got them all. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
            • Hi - I think I've done them all, but I'm still not 100% sure whether my "n.a." replacements are suitable. ISD (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
  • The headers of tables need to have colscopes, e.g. `! style="width:3em;" | No.` should be `! style="width:3em;" scope=col | No.`. This, along with rowscopes (which the episode list template gives you), helps screen reader software accurately read out the cells of the table.
  • While the episode list template handles rowscopes for you, you need to add them to the "releases" table to the first/primary cell of each row, e.g. `|1` should be `!scope=row |1`. This changes the background color of the primary cells; if you don't like it, change the top line of the table from `{|class="wikitable"` to `{|class="wikitable plainrowheaders"`
  • Tables need captions, e.g. `|+ caption_text` at the top of the table, (or `|+ {{sronly|caption_text}}` to make it only for screen reader software if the caption would duplicate a nearby section header). Captions let screen reader software jump straight to a named table without having to read out all the text before it first. --PresN 14:02, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I've tried to make the changes you asked for, but your guidance was not entirely clear. ISD (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • My guidance was 1) add colscopes to all tables, 2) add rowscopes to the releases table, and 3) add captions to all tables, optionally using a template if the caption would be the same as a nearby section title. You did not do the first two, and while you added captions you also removed the section titles and made the tables collapsed? Collapsed templates like that aren't accessible and hide information from readers.
I've reverted your change, and instead done a quick example of what I was saying. I did not do the entire list; please do the rest. --PresN 18:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've made some changes, but I'm unsure how much you changed and thus how much was still left to change. I'm positive I've done the third of things you have mention, but the first and second things you mention appear to have been done by you I think (I'm still not sure as I'm still finding it confusing). ISD (talk) 16:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I just went ahead and did the rest, plus some other fixes. I didn't realize when I did the initial review that prior to nomination the only edits you'd made to the page since 2018 were a few references, and weren't at all familiar with what tables were on the page or what the table code was. --PresN 16:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks. Does this mean you now officially support the nomination now? ISD (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

List of World Heritage Sites in Azerbaijan[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 07:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]

With the Czech republic just being promoted, I am nominating the list of WHS in Azerbaijan. There are three sites and 10 tentative sites. The style follows the standard for these lists. Tone 07:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]

@Tone: - the rubric at the top of the page says "Nominators should not add a second featured list nomination until the first has gained substantial support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed". You literally only started one yesterday which has as yet had no comments at all...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Huh, I had in mind that it was ok to have two at the same time but forgot about the other part. Oops :) Ok, I'll freeze this one for the time being. --Tone 07:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Alright, now the Armenia list has some decent support after the checking. I feel comfortable with returning this here now. --Tone 18:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review – Pass[edit]

  • All of the images used in the article are uploaded by the user on Wikimedia commons under suitable licence. Also, I noticed that "Lok-Batan" Mud Cone does have an image (File:Mud vulcanoes azerbaijan gobustan.JPG). I'll suggest you to use it in the list. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Kavyansh.Singh: According to the file name, that picture is from Gobustan, which is another location. I removed it from the Lok Batan article, which is in Absheron. --Tone 20:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Tone – No real issues with the licencing, so Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • "Following the breakup of Soviet Union" again, this isn't in the UNESCO source.
  • "2003 to 2009.[4] " and after 2009? Was it repaired? Should be covered here.
  • "earthquake.[7][4]" ref order.
  • "Maiden tower"->"Maiden Tower"
  • "40.000 " 40,000
  • "Greater Caucasus Mountains" no need to capitalise mountains.
  • "(Fire - worshippers, temple - museum at Surakhany)" en-dashes, not hyphens.
  • "rich in fossils from" no need to link common English words.
  • Cells with no images, put in a centrally aligned en-dash or something to indicate that there's not one available, not that you just forgot.
  • "50 000 bones" 50,000
  • "at the altitude of" -> "at an elevation of"
  • "Mountains, at the altitude of 2,300 metres" similar to before, no need to capitalise mountain, and "at an elevation of"
  • "Khinalig - medieval" en-dash.
  • Use the {{reflist}} template.
  • Refs 11 and 19 need en-dash.

That's all I have for now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "The petroglyphs on rocky boulders at Gobustan document the human presence in the area spanning 40,000 years. There are over 6000 rock carvings" - any reason why one number is written with a comma and the other without?
    • Made it 6,000.
  • "There are three areas with petroglyphs within the buffer zone" - what's a "buffer zone"?
    • Removed, this is redundant anyway. Buffer zone is the area surrounding the main site where special protection is still in place.
  • "with the height of 70 metres" => "with a height of 70 metres"
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Serie A Footballer of the Year[edit]

Nominator(s): Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Expanded the table and the history prose considerably (modelling after Serie A Coach of the Year), and think that it now matches the community's expectations for a featured list. The previous FLC expired after one support, so hopefully this nom can get this to where we need it. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Drive-by comment

Just a quick note, WP:ACMILAN doesn't seem to be respected. Unsure whether we should be writing "Inter Milan" or "Internazionale" though. Nehme1499 13:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Done AC Milan and Inter Milan. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 14:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Comment
  • This FLC was never transcluded to the FLC page upon creation. I added it on 3 September..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Comments
  • There's a few instances where you refer to a player as a footballer. I think it's pretty obvious that every winner of a football award is/was a footballer, so could you use "player" or their specific position instead?
  • That's all I got on a very quick first pass.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Done. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from TRM[edit]

  • Lead feels a little weak to me.
  • "to Roberto Mancini.[2] " as he's known now as a manager, it would be useful to tell us who he played for.
  • "won the award while his team won the league" in the same season.
  • "and Francesco Totti, who became" overlinked.
  • "for AC Milan" our article is at A.C. Milan.
  • "in a playoff that" link for that?
  • "Diego Milito. Milito won" repetitive.
  • "would then equal" then equalled
  • "snapping" ending.
  • You have a position summary table but the positions aren't listed in the main table.
  • Link works/publications consistently, i.e. always or just once, first time, or never.
  • Check that works are italicised, e.g. ref 35, 39 etc

That's it on a quick pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Extended content
@The Rambling Man: for AC Milan, see WP:ACMILAN. Nehme1499 16:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That makes literally no sense. Thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@The Rambling Man: You can raise a discussion at WT:FOOTY if you wish. Nehme1499 17:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I won't be doing that. This local project "consensus" doesn't serve our readers so it can be safely ignored. Thanks! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@The Rambling Man: That's your opinion; don't be disruptive. Nehme1499 18:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You're the one being disruptive. This is FLC, not WT:FOOTY, now leave me alone. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@The Rambling Man: This is a FLC about a football-related article, so WP:FOOTY consensus should be taken into consideration. Nehme1499 18:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
And I have taken it into consideration and consider that it is not helpful to our readers. Now, I won't say it again, stop badgering me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:14, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@The Rambling Man: Well, with all due respect, the opinion of one single editor against local consensus isn't really that relevant. Thanks. Nehme1499 18:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Done -2. Indifferent on the Milan thing, not sure what to do there. About the lead, do you have any suggestions, was just following the coaches lead? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@The Rambling Man: thoughts? @PresN:, @Guerillero: from previous nom, thoughts? Thanks, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

List of World Heritage Sites in Armenia[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 16:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Slovakia has been recently promoted and Czechia is almost there. Now I am covering the Caucasus. Armenia has 3 sites and 4 tentative ones, so the list is a bit shorter than the previous ones, but still long enough. The style is standard. Azerbaijan and Georgia lists will be next. Tone 16:11, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments
  • "Following the breakup of Soviet Union" => "Following the breakup of the Soviet Union"
  • "Armenia succeeded the convention" - "succeeded" definitely isn't the right word here, but I am not sure what is. Do you mean the country adopted the convention?
  • "with additional four on the tentative list." => "with an additional four on the tentative list."
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you! Fixed. As for the "succession of the convention", that's the wording the UNESCO site uses. I could change it but it makes sense to me ... --Tone 08:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]
      • I saw that, but what does it actually mean? Does it mean the date the country adopted/signed up to the convention? "Succeed" used as a transitive verb can only mean either "to follow in sequence and especially immediately" or "to come after as heir or successor" (ref: Merriam Webster) so "the country succeeded the convention" definitely isn't a correct usage..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]
        • I would suggest using "ratified", like the Slovakia list...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]
          • I guess ratified works. Probably some paperwork needed to be done before so it was not automatic anyway. --Tone 17:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Comments below. Aza24 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @Aza24: Thank you for checking, comments below. --Tone 08:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Formatting
  • A missing retrieval date in ref 9, which I assumed is because the live link is dead, so no issues (?)
    • Updated.
Reliability
  • The established convention has been to use UNESCO sources for UNESCO lists, so no issues here.
Verifiability
  • Refs 7, 12 good
  • Ref 10, not seeing some of this, shouldn't it be Khosrow II? The dates aren't matching either
    • It must be a typo in the UNESCO source, it was Khosrow III that is associated with Dvin in the 4th century CE. I added an extra reference for the time period, though sources are messy (Iranica says " The often expressed view that Ḵosrow had previously shifted the capital from Artaxata to Dvin is based on an unreliable report of Moses of Khorene (9th century), who relied on the much shorter text of Pseudo Faustus." But I don't want to get into such details for a brief description.)
      • Weird, thanks for the additional ref. Iranica is weird since they hide the author and date at the bottom (Erich Kettenhofen). Add those and we'll be good here Aza24 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]
        • I feel silly for requesting this—have added it myself. Aza24 (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Ref 13 seems fine, though I think when the source says "This area of the Vorotan Valley is of considerable geological interest" they mean that there is much in the valley which is of particular geological value (i.e. important rocks or rock formations maybe). Your "The valley is also interesting from the geological point of view" seems to downplay this a little; am I making sense here? Aza24 (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
    • The source material is really short on this, I see your point but there's not much in the UNESCO text to work with here. --Tone 08:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]
      • Indeed... no worries. Aza24 (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 06:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from TRM[edit]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
*Ref 3 doesn't appear to mention the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
    • True, but the Soviet Union ratified the convention already. Not sure how to source this independently, except if I link the Russia's UNESCO site where the date is shown?
      • It needs citing, so however you do it, and it doesn't have to be a UNESCO source, it needs a reference. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:01, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]
        • Actually, I'll just remove it, we didn't mention it in the case of Lithuania, for example. Since no sites in Armenia were listed under the Soviet Union, this makes little differece. But I'll eventually figure out how to deal with it in some other countries.
  • Why aren't we implementing row scopes, there's a clear candidate (the site name) each row.
    • Ha, thanks for spotting, a remnant from the previous design.
  • "From the architectural point of view" -> "Architecturally"
  • In the lead you link "Upper Azat Valley", in the table you just link "Azat Valley" but in both cases you pipe them to a redirect.
    • Fixed, apparently this was moved after I worked on the article.
  • "4th century CE" you haven't added CE to other "century"s.
    • Fixed
  • "on the site, " which site?
    • Rewritten.
  • "Cathedral and Churches of Echmiatsin and the Archaeological Site of Zvartnots" article says ii, iii, not ii, iii and vi.
    • I am not seeing vi anywhere?
  • Yererouk appears to be (iii)(iv)(vi) and not ii, iv, vi.
    • Typo fixed
  • "The valley is also interesting from the geological point of view" can we explain this please.
    • This has been mentioned above, the source is to short to make something decent up...
      • But it's encyclopedically meaningless right now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]
        • I'll just remove it, indeed it is meaningless. No harm in that. These are very old nominations and they tend to be of poor content.
  • I wonder if this section in the table ought to say "Year submitted" rather than "Year listed", as this aren't listed in the UNESCO sense, just in the candidate sense.
    • Well, we've been using this style for a while. Listed on the tentative list is technically correct so I wouldn't change it.

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Support by Grapple X[edit]

I've given this a combing over and I'm happy with it as it stands; my only concern is a minor one--we have a pretty short list here with no great reams of text, and yet the word "site" is used about thirty separate times. I know a lot of this is unavoidable but I think a few of these instances could possibly be reworded, for example All three sites are cultural sites could stand to simply drop the first "sites"; similarly perhaps As of 2021, Armenia had four such sites on its tentative list could switch it with "candidates" or something of that ilk. It's not an important concern and not one which would prevent my support, but worth some consideration. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ 18:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thank you! Well, it is an official naming, I am sometimes using "nomination" instead, but often it is indeed unavoidable. --Tone 07:41, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[]

List of plant family names with etymologies[edit]

Nominator(s): - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]

This will be my last Featured List nomination of plant names and meanings for a while (see my user page) ... and this one is only about a third as long as the others, since there aren't that many plant families (so, it's easier to review!) I'm expecting new, extensive sources to appear within this decade, but until they do, I'm happy with the lists in their current form. Fun fact: if you want to test your knowledge of Latin and Greek influences in English, stare at the photos in the right-hand column and see if you can match up the picture with the given name ... then you can see if you guessed right by clicking on the arrow. - Dank (push to talk) 19:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC) Also: the rows with namesakes come from my previous four plant lists at FLC (with minor tweaks), so they should be good to go. - Dank (push to talk) 19:46, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments
  • If I ever form a heavy metal band (which is highly unlikely) I will definitely name it Goat Poison :-)
  • "From a Malaysian word for cassowary" - shouldn't start with a capital F
  • Probably the same for "Open mouth"
  • "black mouth. (The berries stain the mouth when eaten.)" => "black mouth (the berries stain the mouth when eaten)"
  • That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
    • All done! Thanks again. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Image review – Pass[edit]

Apart from these issues, other images are appropriately licenced. Overall, an excellent piece of work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Wow, that's a lot of work, thanks. Removed all three. - Dank (push to talk) 13:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Fine. Pass for image review. Would appreciate any comments at this FLC. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Kavyansh.Singh, changed my mind on File:Chumash basket, circa 1800.JPG. I admit that there's a lot that I don't know, but if the image tag is accurate, I can't stomach the modern trend of snapping a photograph of something in the public domain and claiming copyright to undermine the status and purpose of "public domain". We're not talking about Ansel Adams here ... we're talking about a common kind of attempt to steal copyright. Whether Wikipedians get the joke, I don't know, but I can't be a part of this. I'm restoring the image. - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Dank – Well, I wasn't too sure about that one either (as I already have mentioned before). For the image of basket, we need 2 licence. One of the basket (object), second for the image of that object. I see a valid licence for the object, but not for the image of the object. Any other interested reviewer can verify this. Thanks! (and please do let me know if I'm wrong)Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The current license tag says "This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States". If anyone believes that tag is in error, all they need to do is remove it or replace it, and then I'll be happy to pull the image from the article. - Dank (push to talk) 17:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
P.S. I don't know a lot about image reviews, but the general rule on the English Wikipedia is that if someone thinks something should change, then the burden is on them to change it. Without an edit history, there may not be any way to gauge consensus. I get that image reviews don't necessarily follow the usual rules, but there are downsides to that. Consider this a minor protest vote, but not one that I feel strongly about (and I'm too busy, and too lazy, to research it). - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC) Added "if the image tag is accurate" above. - Dank (push to talk) 01:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Dank – Hi again. I asked User:Nikkimaria about the copyright status of the image, and it was concluded that the object is in public domain due to its age, but the image is not, due to the Flickr licensing. Thus, the image is nominated for deletion by Nikkimaria. About other images, I guess you can use File:Xyris tenn.jpg after updating the source link on commons. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:57, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thanks much, I've removed the bowl image here and from another list ... I'm sorry to hear it can't be used, but I trust Nikki's judgment on these things. And I was actually happy for an excuse not to use File:Xyris tenn.jpg, it's not one of my favorites. - Dank (push to talk) 04:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments[edit]

I don't really have any outright issues with the list, but there are two stylistic concerns I have.

  • I find the mix of abbreviations and references in the Ref. column somewhat odd. Is there a reason the citations can't all be in <ref> tags?
    • I like to be consistent, and the previous 10 featured lists all have a column with symbols like "Bu", "St", etc. Two of those also mixed in ref citations, but I have no objection to separating these (all of which go to Christenhusz or Plants of the World Online) into a second reference column, if you prefer that. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Is there a different symbol other than ← that could be used in the image captions? On mobile devices, the images may display above the table, making the arrows less useful.
    • I have no objection to some kind of code that detects whether the reader is using mobile and inserts a different character if so, but I don't know how to do that. The ← symbol seems ideal if the images are to the right of the table. We've had 24 supports so far in my previous lists for this format, but I have no idea what supporters thought about this ... it could have been anything from "I really like this" to "I don't like it, but I'm not familiar with the issue and don't want to make waves". I wouldn't want to just change it without asking for previous opinions. - Dank (push to talk)

Other than that, everything seems to be in order. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Very happy to hear that, I'm always interested in your feedback. - Dank (push to talk) 16:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • These aren't major issues, and if the other lists use them then I suppose it's okay. I just wanted to see if you knew about these things and had any additional thoughts. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

SupportRunningTiger123 (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[]

List of Formula One Grands Prix[edit]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]

This list is about each and every one of the 1,040+ Formula One Grands Prix that have been held as part of the FIA Formula One World Championship since the inaugural world championship season in 1950. Such countries to have held Grands Prix include the United Kingdom, Italy, Germany, France, Brazil and the United States. I began redoing this list in December 2020 and have made frequent changes. I believe it meets the FLC critieria and welcome all comments MWright96 (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments
  • "The information below is correct as of the 2021 Hungarian Grand Prix." but "Races have been held under 48 race titles as of the end of 2020" - should these not be consistent?
  • "Colours ranging from airy green to black denote the number of how many Grands Prix a country has hosted." => "Colours ranging from airy green to black denote the number of Grands Prix a country has hosted."
  • Per WP:MOSFLAG, should not the country name be against the first use of each flag?
  • That's all I got on a first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]
Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]
;Comments
  • Use Template:As of with the alt parameter wherever the article says as of the 2021 Hungarian Grand Prix
  • Use Template:Hatnote for The information below is correct as of the 2021 Hungarian Grand Prix.
  • Using smaller font serves no point, so keep the tables' text at 100% size for better accessibility.
  • Country names in "By race title" don't need to be abbreviated, especially since the next table uses full names
  • Note that map of Formula One World Championship races hosted by country is accurate as of 2019
  • For consistent capitalization, change Formula One Grands Prix by Multiples of 100 to Formula One Grands Prix by multiples of 100
  • External link for FIA should be updated

RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[]

SupportRunningTiger123 (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Comments from TRM[edit]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[]
*"a series of races" that sentence could probably use a "around the world" or something to underpin the fact these GPs take place all over the place (unlike, say, the World Series....)
  • "The results of each event..." potentially confusing because the last "multiple events" you mentioned were ones that might be happening in the same country, not the whole season overall.
  • "the highest number of" -> the most
  • "The Circuit de Monaco in Monaco is second with 67 events" you sort of said this before, perhaps combine the previous 67 mention with "all on the same course, the Circuit de Monaco"?
  • "in each of 1982 and 2020" mildly confusing, it was the US in 1982, and Italy in 2020, so perhaps "respectively" is needed.
  • "countries that hosted a " that have hosted
  • Don't use just bold to signify something, it may be difficult for some readers to perceive.
  • "hosted by country as of 2019" but what about 2020/2021 races?
    • The map in question was last updated in 2019; should be updated by another user later in the year MWright96 (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Some publishers/works are linked, some not...

That's a first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[]

Karisma Kapoor filmography[edit]

Nominator(s): 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 13:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Karishma Kapoor is one of the most famous and widely known actress of Hindi Cinema. Recently, have added refs, re-wrote lead and tried to add all necessary things required to be a FL. All comments welcome. Thank you. 25 CENTS VICTORIOUS 🍁 13:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[]

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)
  • Tables need captions ("|+ <caption_text>" above the column header lines, or "|+ {{sronly|<caption_text>}}" if that text would duplicate a nearby section header). Table captions allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables, without having to read all prior text to provide context. --PresN 15:15, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[]
Resolved comments from ~ HAL333 19:55, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
====Comments from HAL====
  • I would place the scope on the film title rather than the year.
  • Many of her roles are not correctly sorted by surname.

Just got interrupted... I'll get to the lead soon. ~ HAL333 22:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[]