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]

72nd Primetime Emmy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Following up on my successful FL nomination for the 73rd Primetime Emmy Awards and the ongoing nomination for the corresponding Creative Arts Emmys (now at three supports), I've continued my work by updating the previous year's ceremony. Of note this year: Schitt's Creek dominates everything by sweeping the comedy categories for the first time ever – quite the feat for a show that had no Emmys before this year! (Though I'll always be a bit disappointed that it kept one of my favorite shows from winning anything...) As always, any feedback is greatly appreciated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Portugal[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 07:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Portugal has 17 sites on the list and a further 19 tentative sites. The format is standard. I have another list nominated, for Georgia, which is already seeing support. As a side note, Madeira is missing on the map, even it has one site. But as the site covers several parts of the island, it would make little sense to add a map of Madeira with a dot in the centre. Tone 07:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments
  • "Town's defence systems include" => "The town's defence systems include"
  • "The convent was founded in the 12th-century" => "The convent was founded in the 12th century"
  • "The city Évora" => "The city of Évora"
  • "A typical feature of the city are" => "A typical feature of the city is"
  • "a relic of a forest type that has 40-15 million years ago covered large parts of Southern Europe" => "a relic of a forest type that covered large parts of Southern Europe 40-15 million years ago"
  • "Between late 15th and 17th centuries" => "Between the late 15th and 17th centuries"
  • "the most known product of the region" => "the best-known product of the region"
  • "Wine production in the Pico Island begun" => "Wine production in the Pico Island began"
  • "Portugal regain independence from Spain in 1640" => "Portugal regained independence from Spain in 1640"
  • "The main buildings were build in the Baroque style" => "The main buildings were built in the Baroque style"
  • "Even if the activities have declined and finally ended in the 20th century" => "Although the activities have declined and finally ended in the 20th century"
  • "The town of Mértola is located at the banks" => "The town of Mértola is located on the banks"
  • "Sites along the route are in present Uruguay" => "Sites along the route are in present-day Uruguay"
  • "They are the smallest and the oldest (27My)" - what's "27My"?
  • "it contained world's largest pointed arch" => "it contained the world's largest pointed arch"
  • "constructed through centuries on the island of Madeira" => "constructed over centuries on the island of Madeira"
  • "systematic mapping has only begun in the 1960s" => "systematic mapping only began in the 1960s"
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Timothée Chalamet[edit]

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

I am nominating this for featured list because Timothée Chalamet is a critically acclaimed actor that has garnered numerous accolades and I believe this list meets the criteria for a featured list. This list is thoroughly sourced and cited and meets all content and style requirements for a featured list similar in quality to other actors' accolades lists. Look forward to your comments! Brojam (talk) 00:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments
  • Refs after 1939 are not in the correct order
  • None of the notes are full sentences, so they don't need full stops
  • When you sort the Result column, it goes Winner > Runner-up > Nominated > 15th > 4th > 3rd > 2nd. If winner is the "top" outcome then surely 2nd should rank higher than 3rd, 3rd higher than 4th, etc?
  • Critics' Choice Movie Awards 2021 row has the columns the wrong way round
  • That's what I got on a first pass -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: I've addressed your comments. For the results column sorting, it is sorting based on the label itself and not the order of importance so makes sense how it is sorting with the 2nd–15th places grouped together at the top in ascending sort while runner-up and won are at the bottom. - Brojam (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
      • OK, let's see what other editors think. IMO if a column contains data of this type then it should sort essentially from top to bottom in terms of how close the person came to winning, so coming 2nd would be closer to winning than 15th, not further away, but I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • Source from The New York Times should be tagged as "url-access=limited"
  • Link to 12th Academy Awards from "youngest" in the lead is not logical; suggest removing the link or moving it somewhere else
  • "Los Angeles Film Critics Association and National Board of Review" → "Los Angeles Film Critics Association, and National Board of Review" (consistent use of serial commas)
  • Footnote a indicates that the year refers to when the ceremony was held, but it actually refers to the year the ceremony is recognizing films/shows/plays from – would suggest rewording that note accordingly
  • Merge duplicated nominated works for International Cinephile Society, Online Film Critics Society, and San Diego Film Critics Society
  • Remove all links for categories at Dorian Awards, Hollywood Film Awards, IFTA Awards, and Teen Choice Awards (they don't link to a page for that specific category as expected, and linking to the main awards page duplicates the first column)
  • Suggest renaming Critics' Choice Movie Award categories from "Best Movie X" to "Best X"
  • The King should sort by "King", not "The"
  • "List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees – Youngest nominees for Best Actor in a Leading Role" should be removed from the "See also" section, as the link is used in the lead
  • "List of Timothée Chalamet performances" should also be removed from "See also", as the page redirects to Timothée Chalamet, which is already linked

RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:38, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

List of leporids[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 01:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Another animal list! We continue our long journey through the mammals; having finished with the orders Carnivora (list of carnivorans + 9 sublists), aka "meat-eaters"; Artiodactyla (list of artiodactyls + 3 sublists), aka "hooved animals that aren't horses"; and Perissodactyla (list of perissodactyls + 0 sublists), aka "hooved animals that are horses (and tapirs, and rhinos)", we can now start on Lagomorpha, aka "things that are like rabbits". This subgroup is two families and a capstone list, and here is the first family list: list of leporids, the hares and rabbits. Turns out there's an awful lot of them: 73 species all over the world, and while there's a lot of differences between them they're all pretty recognizable as rabbits. Unlike prior lists, we have several redlinks here without pictures; there's been a lot of upheaval in the taxonomy of the South American cottontail rabbits in the last decade or so due to a few genetic studies, which hasn't made its way into nice Wikipedia articles yet. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 01:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments
  • Wikilink forbs, sedge, tubers, rhizomes as comparatively obscure words
  • "Grass and well as shrubs" - typo
  • Sagebrush is linked twice
  • That's all I got - great work as ever!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
AryKun
  • "called an leporid" → "called a leporid"
  • Done
  • "colloquially hares and rabbits." → Since you use "a leporid" before this, shouldn't this be "a hare or rabbit"?
  • Done
  • Maybe link Sylvilagus instead of cottontail rabbit since it appears first.
  • Done
  • "IUCN red list" → Capitalize.
  • Done, somehow that's been missed for all the prior lists
  • Andean tapeti has an available image that should be added (it's in the article infobox).
  • Done, thanks! Not sure how that one got missed
  • Image in the lead needs alt text (and I question the usefulness of "gray rabbit" as an alt for every image).
  • Done; since the purpose of the images is to provide a visual representation of the named animal, there's not much useful for the alt text
  • @AryKun: Replied inline, thanks for reviewing! --PresN 19:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support

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

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

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

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

List of Billboard number-one R&B songs of 1945[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Following two successful nominations and one which has multiple supports and no outstanding issues, here's the fourth in the series of U.S. number one R&B song lists. In 1945, Billboard abandoned its earlier sales-based "race records" chart and replaced it with one based on jukebox plays, but the two charts are regarded as one lineage by Joel Whitburn's chart books and other chart followers.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Ojorojo

  • I reviewed a sampling of the Billboard links and they check out. I noticed that after the switch, the Juke Box charts continued to show "Last Week" and "Weeks to date" numbers from the Hits, as if they were the same chart (Whitburn starts his #1s of 1945 at February 10, the last Hits entry, for some reason). It doesn't look like these are used in this list, but am pointing it out to be safe. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: do you think I need to reflect/mention that in the article or amend the wording in any way? Or is it not really pertinent to this list of number ones? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
It looks like the songs that mention number of weeks on the charts in the lead don't spill over from one chart to the next, but this would be better confirmed by you. No need to change anything if this is the case. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: - I've added a clause mentioning that peaks and weeks on chart were carried over (I hadn't actually picked up on this before, so thanks for pointing it out). No records topped the chart pre- and post-change so I'm not sure anything else needs mentioning..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Looks good. The table sorting and images check out, so I'll support. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47[edit]

I love R&B music, but I am honestly not that familiar with older music from this genre so this was a fun list to read for my personal enjoyment. I could not find anything that needed improvement. I support this FLC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Pseud 14[edit]

Apart from the very minor point, the article is very well-written as expected with your work on these lists. Nothing hindering me from supporting for promotion once above is addressed. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Little Walter discography[edit]

Nominator(s): Ojorojo (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

After several discographies for guitarists, I thought it was time for a harmonica player. Little Walter was a true innovator and one of, if not the most famous blues harpist of all. Most of his recordings were for the Checker/Chess labels, so his discography is relatively straightforward and benefits from some excellent sources. It's a relatively new article, but the former discography section in his WP bio didn't have problems. Enjoy. Ojorojo (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

Resolved comments from Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
* Article is missing a short description.
  • I thought the title was sufficiently self-explanatory, but added one. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • There are no images in the article. Is there nothing relevant and freely licenced to add?
    Other than an unclear photo of a statue in Commons,[1] I couldn't find any (his WP article uses an album cover). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Can we have a link to harmonica?
    Linked. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "As the featured artist" — I initially read it as "As a featured article"!
    "Featured" is often overused, but I think it works here. Suggestions? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Little Walter died in 1968, just as renewed interest in electric blues shifted the focus from singles to albums" — would "Little Walter died in 1968, a time when interest in electric blues shifted the focus from singles to albums" read better?
    Nice, I added yours. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "List of singles with title, year, label, chart peak, and reference(s)" — better to use this caption for the table only for the screen reader, using {{sronly}}
    Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Same with the table caption of "Selected compilation albums" table, and all others.
    Done. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "legality was dubious" — the prose does not make clear who said this quote.
    Added author and linked. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • As accompanist/collaborator > Singles table > Chart peak U.S. R&B column — there is inconsistency in dashes. We have both em-dash and en-dash present. Few cells don't have dashes. What does that denote?
    Fixed typos. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • We have both ISBN 10 and ISBN 13.
    I used the ISBNs as listed in the sources I used, with ISBN 13 being the first choice if there were both. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Ref#29: Glover 2003 — doesn't point to any citation
    Fixed typo. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I've addressed your concerns. Let me know if I missed something. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Was just waiting for Chris's comments to be resolved. With that being done, I supportKavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
;Drive-by comment
  • Ref 29 is giving a Harv error...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Fixed typo. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Further comments
  • "My Babe" can't have entered the Hot 100 in 1955 because that chart wasn't created until 1958
    Addressed below. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Rolling Stone magazine ranked it at number 198 in it's list" => "Rolling Stone magazine ranked it at number 198 in its list"
    Fixed typo. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "These include Chance Records" => "These include releases on Chance Records"
    Better, added. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • You have a footnote saying that "My Babe" charted on the Bubbling Under the Hot 100 listing, which a) contradicts the earlier claim that it actually entered the Hot 100 and b) again isn't possible, as the Bubbling Under chart also didn't exist in 1955. Unless it made that chart at a later date after a re-release...?
    Addressed below. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Confessin' the Blues album is unreferenced
    Added ref (seems I made several of these fixes before; maybe they got lost in the shuffle). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "or the "legality was dubious"" - not sure this really needs to be a quote (with no attribution). You could just say "or of dubious legality", without the quote marks
    I think a quote is a better way to present a legal opinion. Added and linked the author. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "Ramblin on My Mind" has a stray random quote mark in its title. Also, "Note: Includes "Hear That Whistle Blow" recorded with Young c.1964" - who's Young?
    Removed stray and linked Johnny Young. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Footnote a is a complete sentence so needs a full stop.
    Fixed both. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I just remembered I actually own Joel Whitburn's Bubbling Under book - d'oh!! I checked and "My Babe" entered that chart in 1960. According to the book it wasn't the same recording as the one which was a big R&B hit in 1955. I note that you already have this version listed separately in the table, so I think the footnote against the 1955 version be moved and put against this version -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
      Good catch. Whitburn got it wrong in the 1988 edition of Top R&B Singles. He lists "Pop Pos 106" only for the "My Babe" 1955 entry (no 1960s entry), but I couldn't find it in any copies of Billboard from 1955. However, I did find it in the July 4, 1960, "Bubbling Under" listing at No. 6 and from an earlier BB review, it's an overdubbed/remixed version. I'll make the necessary corrections. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


One more comment
  • Re Kavyansh's second point, I found this image. It's not the greatest, but it could be added so that there isn't no image at all. Up to you really, it's not a deal-breaker for me either way..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    As I mentioned to Kavyansh above, it's not very good quality. I'll keep looking. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    His foundation website has a few photos,[2] but most look similar to those used in box set booklets that indicate "courtesy of" various photographers and MCA/Chess. A fansite also has a number of photos that are attributed to various photographers,[3] which I assume means they aren't in the public domain. But maybe something will turn up. Thanks for your comments. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
And one more comment :-)
  • All of Walter's hits up to and including "Who" charted when Billboard published separate jukebox and sales charts. All of the chart positions listed are for the jukebox chart - he was less successful on the sales chart. Is it worth adding a footnote to confirm exactly which chart the positions relate to? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    Whitburn appears to list whichever of the three is highest (juke box, best sellers, or jockeys) for "Peak Pos" and in Walter's case, that happens to be juke box for all of his singles up to "Who". I'll add an efn to clarify this for his solo records, but those with Muddy Waters are split between juke box and sellers (and one jockey). To try to list all three would overcomplicate the table and just picking one chart would leave some singles out. Maybe an efn with "Except for "Close to You", singles with Muddy Waters reflect the highest position on one the three Billboard R&B charts ("Juke Box", "Best Sellers", or "Jockeys") in use at the time. For "Close to You", the consolidated "Hot R&B Sides" is used." Would that work? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    Sounds reasonable :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
    Added. Thanks again. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • This may sound silly, but I think sideman is worthy linking. I was not familiar with the word, although I could guess its meaning from context, but I'd think other readers may want further clarification as well so a link would be beneficial. I'd link it in the lead and the list.
  • I would also link electric blues and Grammy Award for Best Historical Album.
  • Since harmonica is linked in the lead, it should be linked in the list for consistency.

My comments are very nitpick-y so apologies for that. Once they have all been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. It would be great to see Little Walter being represented in Wikipedia's featured content. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I try to stay away from too much blue in the lead, but if it helps clarify terms for the average reader, I've linked them. Thanks for your comments. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FLC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Source review – Source reliability and formatting both look strong throughout, and no issues were identified by the link-checker tool. This is a pass for me. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations[edit]

List of female chess grandmasters[edit]

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

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

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • Lead says that winners of the Women's World Championship have become Grandmasters since "no later than 2003", but the body says this happened "at some point before 2006" – which is it?
  • Judit Polgar should not be linked twice in the lead
  • Suggest moving links in birth date column to references for consistency across all individuals; this also allows the information to source other cells in that row
    • Moved the applications to their own column. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Peak rating links can stay where they are
  • Split WWC column into two columns (start and end) – if needed, place "WWC" in a separate row above the two, like so:
WWC
Start End
1962 1978

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

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

SupportRunningTiger123 (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment[edit]

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

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

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

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

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

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

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

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

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

    • Sure thing, I just don't see what benefit the flag icons provide. In any case, image review passes. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

List of Italy national football team hat-tricks[edit]

Nominator(s): Dr Salvus 22:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

In July, it was suggested by TheSandDoctor to me to create a FL nomation in this peer review. This article has a photo, has a good lead, is understable, the content is sourced, it has never had any edit war recently. Before nominating it, I read the criterias (I didn't do it in my previous nominations) Dr Salvus 22:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk)
;Drive-by comment
  • "As of 11 June 2019" - that was more than two and a half years ago and doesn't fill me with confidence that the article is complete and up to date..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude Italy's players haven't been scoring a hat-trick since 2017. (Should I cite a source which says so?) Does this mean I should change the date 11 June 2019 into a more recent day? aDr Salvus 08:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, change it to a more recent date so that at least people don't think it's been sitting there not being updated for over two years -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude  Done Dr Salvus 17:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Further comments
  • Don't link players multiple times in the lead
  • Brazil is not wikilinked in the lead
  • In the last paragraph you show Italy's score first in the first game mentioned but not in the other two.
  • Think that's all I've got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude, I've fixed. However, you might've been wrong (or I've misunderstood) as in the last paragraph all the three results have been shown Dr Salvus 20:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
My point about the last paragraph is that you list the scores differently - for the first one you show it as a 3-4 defeat (Italy's score first) but you show the other two as 4-1 defeats (Italy's score second) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude ok, now I've understood clear. I've just fixed Dr Salvus 21:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Player becomes !scope=col | Player.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | {{sortname|Pietro|Lana}}||[[Exhibition game|Friendly]] ... becomes !scope=row | {{sortname|Pietro|Lana}} <line break> | [[Exhibition game|Friendly]]....
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 02:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

*:@PresN I've done what you've said except for the last indication because the line breaks don't work well. This is the table with the changes you've suggested.

Hat-tricks scored by Italy national football team
Player Competition Against Venue Result Goals Date Ref(s)
Pietro Lana <line break> |Friendly  France Arena Civica, Milan 6–2 3 15 May 1910
[1]

  1. ^ "Italy v France football match, 15 May 1910". eu-football.info. 15 May 1910.

Dr Salvus 22:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Salvus: - you haven't done it quite right. It need to be like this:
Hat-tricks scored by Italy national football team
Player Competition Against Venue Result Goals Date Ref(s)
Pietro Lana Friendly  France Arena Civica, Milan 6–2 3 15 May 1910
[1]
  1. ^ "Italy v France football match, 15 May 1910". eu-football.info. 15 May 1910.
Hope that helps! - ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much @ChrisTheDude. @PresN  Done Dr Salvus 14:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@PresN Anything? Dr Salvus 18:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Resolved comments from NapHit (talk)
Comments
  • 'Luigi Riva with three hat-tricks has scored the highest number of hat-tricks for Italy.' needs to be a comma after Riva and after tricks
  • "In the 1982 FIFA World Cup match against Brazil, Paolo Rossi scored a hat-trick, considered one of the most famous of all time." I think it would provide more content for the reader if you said at which state of the competition the match took place. Doesn't really indicate why the hat-trick was so famous, which also needs to be expanded on too I feel. What makes it famous?
  • "The most recent hat-trick in an official match was by Alberto Gilardino in Italy's victory over Cyprus on 14 October 2009, during the 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification." Need a reference for this
  • "The first conceded by Italy was scored by Eugène Maës in a 4–3 defeat by France on 17 March 1912." change to "Eugène Maës was the first player to score a hat-trick against Italy in France's 4–3 victory on 17 March 1912."
  • "The last was scored by Safet Sušić during the 4–1 defeat by Yugoslavia in a friendly match on 13 June 1979." needs referencing and change by to against
  • The ref column should be unsortable
  • Looking at other lists that are featured, none of them include hat-tricks in unofficial matches. I don't think we should be including these matches and should stick to official matches only
    • This is still mentioned in the lead, and I'm not sure if these matches are still in the tables. If they are, they should be removed. NapHit (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Big concerns over the use of eu-football.info, which doesn't appear to be a reliable source as far as I can see. Can't see anywhere on the site to verify where the data came from.
  • Also the dates on those refs are the dates the games were played not the date they were retrieved. If it's deemed they are reliable, then that will need to be changed.
  • En dashes should be used in references. Ref 33 is an example of one of many
  • Image in lead needs alt text
    • The alt text should describe the image. So Paolo Rossi isn't sufficient, it should describe what a visually impaired user should see. NapHit (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Al in all, a decent list but a fair bit of work to bring it up to standard I feel. NapHit (talk) 22:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@NapHit  Done Dr Salvus 16:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Most of my issues have been resolved and I've replied to some that haven't above, but there's still an issue with the formatting of the references. RSSSF refs need the date and authors included, which can be found at the bottom of the pages and you need to format the dates as such, for example, 10 October 2021, you currently have 20221-10-10. Also, it should be Rec. Sport Soccer Statistics Foundation, not wwww.rsssf.com. NapHit (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@NapHit:  Done but I can't find the date, in the bottom of the RSSSF pages there are only the author and the date of the last update. I've also removed the unofficial friendly in the lead and I've improved the ALT text. Please, notice that the FIGC Centenary is an official friendly. Dr Salvus 14:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
The last updated date is the one to use. NapHit (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@NapHit  Done Dr Salvus 14:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Happy to support now my concerns have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

73rd Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards[edit]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Following the successful nomination of 73rd Primetime Emmy Awards to featured list status, I've updated this article to cover the additional Emmy categories presented in the same year. It is admittedly a bit of a long, dry read, but I think it's important to cover these awards as well to complete the set. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated, especially since I'd like to apply this format to other Creative Arts ceremonies. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Support - I got nothing. Brilliant work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose checks out. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the tables.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. - Dank (push to talk) 03:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Support - Read through the article and could not find anything wrong that stands out. Nice job! MWright96 (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review by Aoba47 (pass)[edit]

  • The citations are all high-quality and come from publications that I would expect to be in this kind of article. I do not see any issues the structure for the citations.
  • I have done a spot check and the information matches the citation (i.e. author, publication date, etc.) and the information in the list is supported by the citations.

For the above reasons, this FLC passes my source review. It is nice to see these categories represented in the FL space. Aoba47 (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Ben&Ben discography[edit]

Nominator(s): GeraldWL 18:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

"God sent those eyes, to get me through the night... and all of the shadows of the past fade into white... when all the memories in my head subside... you remain here... you remain here inside..."

That is an excerpt from "Godsent" by Ben&Ben. Around 6 months ago I got my first boyfriend, and we decided to pick two theme songs. The first is Frank Sinatra's legendary cover of "Fly Me to the Moon", given that we're avgeeks, but then he talked about his favorite Filipino band named Ben&Ben and picked "Godsent" as the second. Since then I've listened to all of Ben&Ben songs, (almost) all of which resonate deeply within me. Even if you don't understand the Tagalog, there is a specific universal appeal to their works.

Out of interest towards the subject, I then started improving the article on 21 December. This is my first time working on discographies, so I read various FL articles on discographies for reference, such as mewithoutYou discography and Regine Velasquez discography. It's a very brief expansion period (6 days), but I've done extensive editing to this and I think that it's suitable for FL. Any comments welcome of course, keep in mind this is written in Philippine English. GeraldWL 18:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Support from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
====Drive-by comment====
  • You do not use the word "eponymous" correctly in notes such as "Cover version of the eponymous song by Bread". An eponymous song by Bread would be called "Bread", because in the context of music an eponymous release is one where the title is simply the name of the artist (eg this album). TBH, just saying "Cover version of the song by Bread" would be sufficient, I don't think any additional qualifiers are needed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for pointing out! Done. GeraldWL 03:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Further comments
  • "Appearances" in the infobox should probably be "Soundtrack appearances", as "appearances" is rather vague
    Sounds reasonable-- done.
  • What's the norm in Phillipines English for whether a band name is treated as singular or plural? In UK English it's plural (eg "Coldplay are") and in US English it's singular (eg "Coldplay is"), but in the lead you mix it up, saying "Ben&Ben have released" (plural) "The band was formed [....] It debuted" (singular)
    ph-ENG considers collective nouns, including bands, as singular. I've changed the have-s to has.
  • "which they also made a music video on" => "for which they also made a music video"
    Done.
  • "The Guicos play the role of acoustic guitarists" - "play the role" is an odd choice of words here, as it sounds like they are acting. I would just say "The Guicos both play acoustic guitar"
    Must be from my deeper familiarity writing film articles smh-- done.
  • "an act it continues to do in the following years and is most known for" => "for which the band has remained well known"
    Done.
  • "The band was also featured in other artists' songs" => "The band was also featured on other artists' songs"
    Done.
  • "Later in July" => "In July"
    Done.
  • "seven songs in Pebble House, Vol. 1: Kuwaderno" => "seven songs from Pebble House, Vol. 1: Kuwaderno"
    Done.
  • "reached Spotify's Top 100 chart; while the rest" - semi-colon should be a comma
    Changed.
  • "In addition, the band began receiving various accolades starting from 2018 during their rise to fame" => "The band has received various accolades since 2018"
    Done.
  • "Appearances as soundtracks" => "Appearances on soundtracks"
    Done.
  • That's what I got on a full first pass..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
    ChrisTheDude, thanks for all those comments! Resolved them all. GeraldWL 05:36, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. You have them for most columns, but I see they're missing for the Sales and Certification columns in the first table; I did not check every table.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. | rowspan="6" | 2018 becomes !scope=row rowspan="6" | 2018. The last table does not have rowscopes.
PresN-- done all. GeraldWL 03:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 02:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

Pass—no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 06:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Salamat! GeraldWL 07:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Pseud 14[edit]

Happy to see you take this on and I'm glad you're enjoying their music even more. Personally, my favorites are "Leaves" and "Pagtingin".

Thanks for picking up this review! Definitely grateful to learn about their stuff. Excellent favorites; personally I prefer "Pagtingin". GeraldWL 07:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • on the record labels Sony Music Philippines and Sindikato -- under the record labels..
    Done
  • Unlink record labels and music videos
    Rm-ed record labels. I think the music videos link is fine and not overlink.
  • The band rose to fame in 2018 for incorporating songs – The band achieved recognition in 2018 for...
    I don't see any purpose in changing that sentence..
It's not the usage of the phrase (personally I use and have read usage of rose to fame or to prominence as well) but rather how it fits in the career timeline of the band as they've been famous or prominent, albeit not mainstream, since they reformed as Ben&Ben between the years 2016 and 2018, but never really got traction until their songs have been featured in film and TV. I guess It would be sound to highlight that they gotten recognized (more) when the latter happened, if that makes sense.
  • Also in the same sentence above, The band .. , for which the band – repetitive
    Thanks for spotting that! Resolved.
  • The band was also featured on other artists' songs, and also sang one with various artists as part of the COVID-19 relief effort. – think this needs clarification, so as not to sound confusing. “Other artist’s songs” and “sang one with various artists” sound repetitive. Perhaps reword (e.g. The band has collaborated with various artists, and also recorded a charity single as part of the COVID-19 relief effort.)
    Done
  • In July, it ranked 1 – it ranked 1st
    Done
  • with Ben&Ben upon popular demand – due to popular demand
    Mind explaining why this is needed?
Just a bit odd or uncommon use. Either "by", "because of" or "due to" popular demand works well with the sentence.
  • In 2021, it was reported that Ben&Ben set a new – In 2021, Ben&Ben set a new record
  • in the folk pop community – folk-pop genre
  • from both locally such as the Awit Awards, as well internationally such as the NME Awards -- this one is a bit awkward, I don’t think the year matters anymore when they started winning awards, perhaps you can word this as: ‘’The band has received various accolades locally and internationally, including the Awit Awards and NME Awards
    Done all three

That's all I have. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Pseud 14, addressed all matters; asked questions in some. GeraldWL 07:11, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
@Gerald Waldo Luis: I am satisfied with the replies except where I have a response to your questions. Nothing that warrants any issue to hinder this from promotion. I just wanted to clarify points I raised if it seems ambiguous, hopefully it doesn't come across as nitpicky. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

List of Music Bank Chart winners (2020)[edit]

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

This article contains a list of winners of one of South Korea's music programs Music Bank in 2020. I have been working on this article for almost a year now. It has been copy edited and peer reviewed and I believe that it now meets the featured list criteria. This will be my first FL nomination so I hope to do well on this nomination.

Special thanks to Jonesey95 who copy edited this article and Kavyansh.Singh for participating in the peer review. EN-Jungwon 09:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass[edit]

  • Had taken a look at images and ALT text during the peer review. Nothing has changed since then. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Drive-by comment[edit]

Is there a reason why the title is List of Music Bank Chart winners rather than List of Music Bank Chart number ones? We wouldn't have an article entitled "List of Billboard Hot 100 winners", for example...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I had followed the name of another similar article "List of Inkigayo Chart winners (2020)". I think it's mainly because the artist gets a trophy if their song is number one on the chart. EN-Jungwon 10:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
====Further comments====
  • "The score for domestic online music services is calculated using data from Melon, Bugs, Genie Music, Naver Vibe and Soribada. Starting in November, Soribada was replaced by Flo" - this doesn't seem quite right, as the first bit is in the present tense but includes Soribada, which you then go on to say is no longer used. Maybe try "The score for domestic online music services is calculated using data from a number of services including Melon, Bugs, Genie Music and Naver Vibe. Soribada was also used until November when it was replaced by Flo."
    • Replaced with "The score for domestic online music services is calculated using data from Melon, Bugs, Genie Music and Naver Vibe. Soribada was also used until November when it was replaced by Flo."
  • "despite the lack of promotional activities on music programs." - source?
    • Removed.
  • "Red Velvet's sub-unit Red Velvet – Irene & Seulgi received their first music show win" - source for it being their first?
    • Done.
  • "Girl group (G)I-dle received their first Music Bank trophy" - source for it being their first?
    • Done.
  • "NCT's sub-units NCT Dream and NCT U won their first Music Bank award" - awards should be plural, also sources for them being their first?
    • Removed as I could not find any sources, but checking back the the list of winners from the previos years confirms that this is their first wins on this show.
  • "SF9 (top) and NCT Dream (bottom) received their first broadcast channel music show wins" - source?
    • Source added for SF9. Removed NCT Dream per above.
  • "Zico of Block B (left) and Hwasa of Mamamoo (right) received their first Music Bank awards" - source?
    • Source added for Zico. Removed Hwasa.
  • I'm a bit confused by the August 7/14 situation. You say that episode 1040 was actually broadcast on August 14, but then you list a separate winner on the row below which you say was announced on the website. So were two winners announced for August 14? And no winner for August 7?
  • All the best, ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
    Regarding the August 7 14 situation. The episode 1040 was recorded on August 7 but due to some scheduling conflict it was broadcasted a week later on August 14. So during the show on August 14 the winner of August 7 was announced and the winner of August 14 was announced on their website later that day. I hope this made it a bit clear. EN-Jungwon 08:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude I have implemented the changes that you have requested. Thank you for reviewing this article. Happy editing and merry christmas. EN-Jungwon 14:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

List of Harlem Hit Parade number ones of 1944[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's the third nomination for a list of number ones on what Billboard considers to be the earliest iteration of its R&B chart. Interestingly, in this year the magazine launched what it considers to be the earliest iteration of its country chart, and two songs were both "R&B" and "country" number ones......75 years before "Old Town Road"! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • For this part, an area noted for its African American population which has been called the "black capital of America", I would replace "which" with "and". I believe that "which" makes it sound like the population is being called this rather than the district.
  • Would it be beneficial to link Rhythm and blues in this part, the lineage of the magazine's multimetric R&B chart? Other genres are linked in the second and third paragraphs.
  • Shouldn't this part, which since 2005 has been published under the title Hot R&B/Hip Hop Songs, have a citation?

My comments are relatively minor. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this FLC for promotion. Just out of curiosity, are you planning on bringing all the lists of Billboard number-one rhythm and blues hits through the FLC process as you have done for all the lists of Billboard number-one country songs? Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Aoba47: - all the above resolved. As for trying to get another 75+ articles to FLC........hmmmmmm, not sure. Let's wait and see :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • That kind of project would be a lot of a lot for sure lol. Everything looks good to me. I support this FLC for promotion. Best of luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Dank[edit]

  • Standard disclaimer: I don't know what I'm doing, and I mostly AGF on sourcing.
  • "Cow-Cow Boogie (Cuma-Ti-Yi-Yi-Ay)" redirects to Cow-Cow Boogie.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. I couldn't find anything to fiddle with in the prose. The table coding seems fine. I checked sorting on all sortable columns and sampled the links in the table.
  • 2. The lead meets WP:LEAD and defines the inclusion criteria.
  • 3a. The list has comprehensive items and annotations.
  • 3b. The article is well-sourced to reliable sources, and the UPSD tool isn't indicating any actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Kajol[edit]

Nominator(s): —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Kajol is one of the most popular Indian actress in the 1990s. I am nominating the list because I think it covers completely all awards she received during her career. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@ChrisTheDude: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Further comments
  • "one Stardust Awards." => "one Stardust Award."
  • "After made her debut" => "After making her debut"
  • "Kajol was honoured with Karamveer Puraskar" - no context as to what this is. Can you explain?
  • As the table is sortable, anything linked needs to be linked every time -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
You haven't linked the categories each time they appear...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: I forgot that, done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 02:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

  • "Kajol received critical acclaim and the Bengal Film Journalists' Association Award for Best Actress for playing a granddaughter in Udhaar Ki Zindagi (1994)" - surely you can be a little more descriptive when writing about her role than "playing a granddaughter".
  • "In 1998, she was nominated for Best Actress at Filmfare for Pyaar To Hona Hi Tha, Dushman and Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, winning the award for the lattermost." The films were released in 1998. She was nominated the next year. How about "Kajol was nominated for Best Actress at Filmfare for her 1998 films: Pyaar To Hona Hi Tha, Dushman and Kuch Kuch Hota Hai, winning the award for the lattermost"?
  • "Her performance as a twin in Dushman also won her a first Screen Award for Best Actress" - she did not play "a" twin only. It's only logical that both of the roles (twin sisters) were played by her.
  • In the table of content, you don't have to list every alphabet but only the ones that start with the names of the awards she has received.

This looks otherwise good. FrB.TG (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. —Nicholas Michael Halim (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Lewis Hamilton[edit]

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Lewis Hamilton is a British racing driver who was won seven Formula One World Drivers' Championship and a record 103 Grand Prix victories. Last year, Hamilton broke Michael Schumacher's all-time record of 91 race victories and earlier this year became the first driver to reach 100 Grand Prix wins. I believe that the list complies with the featured list criteria and submit this list for all constructive criticism. MWright96 (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass[edit]

All the images are suitably licenced, and have appropriate ALT text. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward oppose per criterion 3c. If we have List of career achievements by Lewis Hamilton, why does this need to be a separate article? Most of the content (team, chassis, engine, race, season, placement) is also at Formula_One_career_of_Lewis_Hamilton#Results. Reywas92Talk 14:14, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Support by NapHit[edit]

  • "becoming at 23 years and 300 days the youngest driver..." needs to be a comma after becoming and days
  • "unable to regain his championship-winning performances..." regain feels like the wrong word here. Match perhaps?
  • "Hamilton has so far accumulated 103 Grand Prix victories..." think so far is redundant here (from the chart image caption)
  • "...after winning the 2019 Hungarian Grand Prix, where he holds a record 8 victories" would change the last bit to 'where he was won a record 8 times'

That's it from me. NapHit (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy to support now my issues have been addressed. NapHit (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "Hamilton achieved a further three victories that season,[3] making him the second rookie after Jacques Villeneuve to be World Drivers' Championship runner-up and equalled" - comma needed after runner-up
  • There's a couple of uses of "claiming victory", I wonder if this needs rewording? It reads a bit like there was uncertainty over who won and he went "It was me! It was me!" Does that make sense......?
  • "Hamilton has won at a record 31 out of 37 different Grands Prix he has competed in" => "Hamilton has won at a record 31 out of 37 different Grands Prix in which he has competed"
  • "Hamilton has won at a record 31 out of 36 different circuits he has driven at" => "Hamilton has won at a record 31 out of 36 different circuits at which he has driven"
  • "the five race tracks where Hamilton has driven on" => "the five race tracks where Hamilton has driven"
  • Same sentence: "and not achieved a Grand Prix victory at" => "and not achieved a Grand Prix victory"
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

  • @MWright96, my views about this list is bit similar to @Reywas92. Your thoughts? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
    • @Kavyansh Singh I believe the list complies with WP:NLIST as well as WP:GNG and I think that having put in the aforementioned list might cause that list to become bloated a little bit MWright96 (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I'll try to give it a full review soon. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
        • I agree with MWright96 that if we moved this list to the career achievements one, it would be too big. I think a solution is to remove a list of wins from that article and link to this one with a brief description of his record etc. There's a well-established convention for these lists, so I don't think 3c applies, as it's not derivative and wins is one part of his career achievements. NapHit (talk) 16:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I just wanted to know the nominator's thoughts. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Full review:

  • "Hamilton achieved a further three victories that season" — should be "Hamilton further achieved three victories that season"
    • Reworded slightly differently MWright96 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  • "and former childhood friend Nico Rosberg," — that means during the time of incident/collision, they were not 'childhood friend[s]'?
  • "are the six races he has entered and not won" — 'not won' can be replaced by 'lost'?
    • I think the current wording is fine MWright96 (talk) 18:26, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

That is it. Nice one! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

List of tallest buildings in Spokane[edit]

Nominator(s): T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it meets the criteria and is of similar quality to other featured lists in this category. I believe this list provides a brief but good overview of high rise development in this midsize western city, is comprehensive, and provides relevant notes and hyperlinks for the buildings that would be of interest to the readers of the article. The article is well organized and visually looks good; people took the time to take decent photographs of the skyline and buildings to illustrate the article as well as to mapping the GPS coordinates of all the buildings in the list. Aside from the Albuquerque tallest buildings list, there are no other featured lists from midsized American cities and I hope to increase the representation in this category with this nomination. T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 20:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Two quick notes: The first sentence should not use "This is a list of X" per MOS:FIRST, and the "citation needed" tags need to be resolved. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I’ll rephrase that first sentence. I thought most of these lists started with that exact phrase like the Albuquerque one does. In regard to the citation needed tags, if you look in the edit summaries, you can see the struggles in trying to find verification for the buildings pre-1910 US Bank Building. That’s the one glaring issue that I was trying to resolve before nominating but I was unable to after shelving work on this last bit and revisiting every once in a while over the last couple months, then looking through websites again and searching Google news archives. It’s a dead end, the knowledge may be lost to time or not well documented enough to include in the articles that delve into the topic. I know that on this website, if it can’t be verified, it basically doesn’t exist. I was hoping that this isn’t the first time this has happened and there’s a way to deal with a situation like this. Maybe someone has access to other news archives to get a source for those older buildings, or maybe we reduce the article scope and omit pre modern high rise buildings (US Bank) or raise the starting height for list inclusion, or we delete the entire tallest buildings timeline and any references to pre 1910 structures. Let me know what you think we can do to address this. Thanks for your help T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 02:08, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I've done a little bit of searching, and I found this page from the Spokane Historical Society (affiliated with Eastern Washington University) that mentions the Review Building was the tallest in Spokane, but only for 10 years. There's either some serious rounding going on there, or there was another building that needs to be fit into the timeline. All things considered, I'd like to include this section, but if there aren't more sources to complete the list, it should be removed – WP:V must be followed per the featured list criteria, and unsourced information fails that. I'll try searching the Wikipedia Library for some more sources. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
The Google Newspapers archive also seems to have a good number of Spokane papers from that time; maybe one of those could help? RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
That's kind of you Tiger, thanks for the help. Yes, I saw that tidbit in that Spokane Historical reference and that's why we can be pretty sure the cathedral didn't hold the tallest building title at least immediately after the Review Building; it's very frustrating that the author didn't mention what came after the Review Building. There's no real rounding, just placeholder speculation at this time.
I actually e-mailed a journalist at The Spokesman-Review that wrote one of the articles referenced in the List but they haven't gotten back to me. I know if its not verified it can't be on there, I was just hanging on to hope of salvaging the section. I've tried searching in the Google news archives about the Review Building and the Cathedral of Our Lady of Lourdes and its tough sledding. I've seen people use newspaperarchive.com but you have to pay to use it. It seems like you have to be a trained journalist or historian to have the resources and know how to find this kind of information if it isn't readily available on the internet somewhere. Unfortunately, I think the section will have to be deleted which is unfortunate because I bet in most places this sort of thing is well documented. T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 02:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
One last thing you could try is asking someone with access to Newspapers.com to carry out a search (maybe through Wikipedia:Reference desk). It's part of the Wikipedia Library, but access is limited and I don't currently have access; otherwise, I'd check myself. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I wish I knew someone. I didn't think the journalist I contacted would get back to some random person like me so I just deleted the section, which reduces the usefulness of the article and makes it look much less interesting. I liked the section with the cool historic picture and all but without complete knowledge of the situation, I don't think we can have an incomplete chronological list with a gap in it. I didn't notice before, but Spokane Historical has an e-mail that I used to see if they could fill in that crucial 10 year blind spot in the history by indicating what came after the Review Building in the Review Tower article and before the Old National Bank Building in that article so the reader can get more context, I bet it's a single mystery building.T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Since the timeline of tallest buildings has been removed for the time being, here's my full review.
  • Images need alt text
Fixed
(edit conflict) Often, if the caption is a straightforward description of the image (i.e., "Skyline of Spokane" as opposed to "Spokane has X high-rise buildings"), the alt text can either duplicate the caption or be something along the lines of "see caption". Strictly speaking, the alt text could be omitted in those cases per MOS:ALT, but I think it's better just to include it in every case.
  • Why is "low-rise" hyphenated when "high rise" isn't?
Don't know. Fixed!
  • No reason to capitalize "The" in "the Great Fire of 1889"
Fixed!
  • Remove <br /> after GeoGroupTemplate
Fixed!
  • Suggest moving citations to a dedicated "Ref." column
Working on it. I am looking into how to do this.
You should be able to simply create a new cell in each row, just like every other cell.
Oh, I misunderstood what you were looking for, I thought you were talking about this -->Template:Ref. I'll get working on making a column just for the references. Update: Fixed!
  • Each row in the table (aside from the headers) needs a cell with !scope="row", and the table as a whole needs a caption (which can be hidden using Template:Sronly) – see WP:DTT for more
    • My suggestion would be to make the "Name" cells the row headers, but "Rank" is also a good option
Finally fixed I think: I hope I did it right... Update: Made the first cell under the Rank column a different color using the !scope="row" code. Looks like the Portland table now except they did it a little differently by changing the color.
  • All year ranges should use en dashes (–) instead of hyphens (-) – for example, "1910–1929" instead of "1910-1929"
Fixed! Think I got all of them.
  • Suggest running IABot to archive sources
Question: Ive never requested a bot before. How is that done? Do I just contact Cyberpower678 or Harej?
Sorry, the link isn't immediately clear from that page. You should be able to use this link to run it (it should ask for some permissions if you haven't used it before).
Fixed! First time for everything. I ran the bot and had all the sources archived in case they go dead in the future.

RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Replies above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


Hey @RunningTiger123, I know you’re pretty busy right now but the next time you have a moment could you check back with us to see if your concerns have been addressed? It’s been a while since we've heard from you. T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay – forgot about this over the holidays. Everything looks good, and I'm happy to support. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by comments[edit]

  • Names that start with "The" should sort based on the next word in the name
I deleted "The" from the building names
  • Some rows have references which are not in correct numerical order -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Fixed it. Thanks T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Further comments[edit]

  • "The Old National Bank Building was also the tallest building in the state upon completion" - is the "also" meant to indicate that it was also the tallest building in the city? If so, actually say that
Fixed! Clarified sentence in the Lead and the similar row note. Replaced Old National Bank Building with the modern name so people dont get confused.
  • Also, when was this?
Fixed! Added date.
  • Some buildings are wikilinked in the lead but others are not. Do the unlinked ones not have articles? Surely they are notable?
Fixed! Added link to the Review Building article which I didnt know existed. I dont think there is one on the Bank of America building.
  • "and has held the tallest building in the city title for 40 years" - given that you already mentioned that it is the current tallest building and was built in 1981, these words are redundant
I see what you mean. I took out the redundant info but kept the age calculation. I think it is useful for readers to just tell people exactly how long ago that was so they can relax and not do math.
  • "This list ranks Spokane high rises that stand at least 145 feet (44 m) tall" - just out of interest, what was the thought process behind this seemingly very random cut-off point?
Mainly notability concerns. The threshold was to try to trim the list to a around 25-30 buildings like the articles I was using as a model-mainly the List of tallest buildings in Albuquerque and List of tallest buildings in Portland, Oregon featured list articles. I was thinking about using a nice round number like 150 feet but I thought that would make the list a bit too short at 21. The list at one point contained 38 buildings which included buildings like the Lincoln Plaza/Building at an Emporis estimated height of only 104 feet and is described on their website as a "low rise". Other similar articles have a threshold to keep the list at a manageable length because there are too many tall buildings, but this article has one because there are too few tall buildings. I know everyone has a different perspective on what "tall" is but 104 feet isn't it for most people and wouldn't be even close to ranking in similar list articles except the Albuquerque one. This town doesn't have many tall buildings and the list size at this time reflects that. I felt listing more would be scraping the bottom in terms of notability.
  • "Tallest building in Spokane since its completion in 1981." - this is not a complete sentence so should not have a full stop. This applies to many of the notes.
Fixed! Deleted all the periods in the notes section.
  • The huge whitespace between the note and the references in many cells looks odd
What do you advise be done with them? The ones that look odd and unappealing are the ones with a larger/landscape? picture making a bigger gap between the note lines. Should I get rid of the breaks? I'm probably over complicating things but I thought listing the references on a different line in the notes on rows that have them will make people understand that the references are for the row entry as a whole and not just a particular note.
  • In the "in popular culture" section, you switch between describing the events of the episode in the present and then in the past tense
Fixed!
  • Footnote a is not a complete sentence so should not have a full stop
Fixed!
  • That's what I got other than the "this list...." opening, which still needs fixing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Fixed I think: Switched "list" to "article" in the Lead and in the Tallest buildings section I switched out "list" for "table". Does that work?
No, you need to re-write the opening to eliminate anything like "This article contains XYZ" altogether. No article (be it a list or otherwise) should start like that (see MOS:FIRST) - we wouldn't start the article on Spokane itself, for example, with "This article is about Spokane". The Albuquerque list you mention above was promoted more than 13 years ago when standards were very different -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Gotcha. I deleted the first sentence entirely and the description of the table. Thanks for the clarification. :) 2001:5B0:4FC0:90A8:710A:ECF3:6FA4:EDF2 (talk) 06:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Unless I'm being unbelievably dumb, I can still see a first sentence of "This article ranks the tallest buildings in the U.S. city of Spokane, Washington by height"?? That needs to go and be replaced by a brief intro to what Spokane is i.e. just a couple of sentences along the lines of Spokane is a city in the US state of Washington, etc. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Youre not hallucinating, I accidentally reverted the fix after I messed up doing the row headers and reverted to back to before I took out the sentence. It has been taken out again.
One last point (I think) from me - where you say "located in eastern Washington", I would rephrase that to "located in the east of the US state of Washington". Not every reader is in the US so this will make it clear what country we are actually talking about here (there's also a Washington in the UK and potentially other countries too), and also (once we have established that it's the US) will make it clear that we are talking about the state, because to probably 99% of non-Americans, if you said "it's in Washington", the first thought would be that you were talking about Washington DC. Oh, and wikilink Washington -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Good point, never thought about that. Ill make those changes. Thanks for the advice Chris :)

Comments Support from Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

This article looks pretty good for FL, and I only have a few comments.

Resolved comments from GeraldWL 08:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
* In "Cityscape", the caption should not end with a period as it's not a full sentence (or at least, that's what I'm taught at this FLC of mine).
  • For the "References" column, use Template:Refh instead of "References" per consistency with other FLs.
Im going to read up on how to make this happen and try to find some examples. It's late in the day where Im at and Im not good with working on the tables. Thank you for your suggestions and comments Gerald! T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I've put it for you there-- it's pretty common in fls-- and no problem! GeraldWL 09:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I see that for the refs publishers, you only link the first mention. Ref 4 must have The Spokesman-Review in the
  • Support --GeraldWL 08:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. ! Rank becomes !scope=col | Rank.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 02:01, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Fixed I think! Thanks for the suggestions PresN :) T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Just wanted to say thanks to everyone for their help with improving this article and their patience in dealing with a first time FL nominator that is bad with the table markup. If anyone has any other improvements, I’m all ears. As for me, I ran out of ideas as of now but I am still trying to think of stuff I can add to it. I’m going to keep digging for sources to see if I can fill the 10-year gap in that deleted tallest building timeline and in the future, I think I’ll add a Tallest under construction list like you see in similar articles where we can list buildings that will make the list in the soon. At the moment, I don’t think there are any but there are some residential towers that reportedly will be under construction in the next year or so. Thanks again all! T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Was wondering about that myself but I saw the Albuquerque one didn’t have a state either and then didn’t think much of it. It's a little hit and miss with the naming conventions on similar articles. Little Rock, Knoxville, Grand Rapids, and El Paso are also somewhat obscure cities missing the state. I’m all for changing the name and didn’t know I had permissions do do something like that. I’ll read up on wiki guides on how to do it and change the page name to "List of tallest buildings in Spokane, Washington".
Update: The page has a new name. Thanks a bunch for shedding light on the naming conventions.T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 05:32, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

Article looks good but here are a few comments:

  • I don't think there should be a section called "tallest under construction" as it is just an empty table. Suggest removing this section. Any new building that is constructed can go directly to the main list.
Fixed, I have taken the recent addition out. Most articles of this type have a list of the under construction buildings, so I thought it would almost be expected by others and I thought the article needed a secondary list in lieu of having to delete the Tallest buildings timeline because the history isnt well documented enough.
  • The two sentences "If two or more buildings are of the same height, they are listed in order of floor count, then alphabetically. The "Year" column indicates the year in which a building was completed." should be notes for their respective columns, not in the lead paragraph for this section, since they are about the list, not the contents of the list.
Fixed. Good point.
  • I also don't think the notes column is very useful, it's mostly blank. You could add a sentence to the lead paragraph just above the table that says "The tallest buidling from 1929-1981 was...." That would be way more useful and convenient for users than a mostly empty column, the only other notes are a few pieces of trivia, that can be added as "notes" if you really want, but they are not super informative anyway. The note on the review building would fit nicely in the article lead in the sentence on the review building. Mattximus (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Thinking I'll probably change this.I could go either way on this, but I think I'll break with convention and take out the Notes column and tack on any notes and associated references as a edn note like you suggest. Should mention every other similar list that I've seen has a mostly blank note column, which I dont see as a problem since it does keep the relevant information visually close to the subject matter, but I do think it takes away from the article aesthetically and looks odd and limits the possible length of any note. Thanks for the food for thought Matt T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 23:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Update: I made the change and I like the way it looks. I took out the date ranges for the tallest buildings notes since the pre-1910 history is incomplete and sketchy and the 1910-present history is already talked about at the end of the Lead. Thanks for the great suggestions T85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Wow this actually looks a lot better. My only suggestion is after the sentence "does not include antenna masts." You can add a sentence or two stating "The tallest building in Spokane from x-x was x building and from x-present was x building" or something like that, just to highlight some important information from the table. Otherwise I do like this list. Note C should probably have a citation as well. But apart from these two, I will support. Nice work on this list! Mattximus (talk) 14:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Done. Added an inline to the Emporis existing buildings general reference at the end of former Note C, which is now Note D since I added another factoid note. Also wrote down in prose the known information from the tallest buildings timeline list, that was deleted because the history between 1900-1910 seems to be not well documented and convoluted. Thanks again for the great suggestionsT85cr1ft19m1n (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

List of accolades received by Dunkirk[edit]

Nominator(s): Birdienest81talk 08:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Dunkirk is a 2017 war epic film written, co-produced, and directed Christopher Nolan. Its ensemble cast includes Fionn Whitehead, Tom Glynn-Carney, Jack Lowden, Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard, James D'Arcy, Barry Keoghan, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance and Tom Hardy. The film depicts the Dunkirk evacuation of World War II through the perspectives of the land, sea, and air. The film was nominated for eight Academy Awards including Best Picture at the 2018 ceremony and won three awards. This is my sixth 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, The Shape of Water, and Slumdog Millionaire. I will gladly accept your comments to improve this list. Birdienest81talk 08:23, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass[edit]

The only images is appropriately licenced (File:Christopher Nolan, London, 2013 (crop).jpg), and has ALT text. Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
*"particular praise for Nolan's direction, visuals effects, cinematography, sound effects, film editing." - this makes it sounds like Nolan did all those things himself
  • Also, shouldn't it be "visual effects" rather than "visuals effects"
  • "The film received eight nominations at the 90th Academy Awards for Best Picture and Best Director for Nolan" - it received eight nominations in two categories?
  • "Dunkirk received two nominations at the 75th Golden Globe Awards including" - not really appropriate to say "including" when you then list them both
  • Emma Thomas, one entry for Fionn Whitehead, Mark Rylance, Paul Corbould, Scott Fisher, Thomas J. O’Connell do not sort correctly
  • Also "the cast of Dunkirk" should probably sort under C for cast
  • Sorting on the result column gives (in this order) Won > Runner-up > Nominated > 7th > 6th > 5th > 3rd > 2nd. Surely the numeric placings should sort above merely being nominated, and 2nd should be closest to Won/runner-up rather than furthest away?
  • That's all I got - great work as ever! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: - Done: I've read your comments and made adjustments and corrections based on your feedback. Thanks.
--Birdienest81talk 10:02, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
* "...its visual effects, cinematography, sound effects, film editing." – incomplete sentence

RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: - Done: I have fixed all the issues based on your comments.
--Birdienest81talk 09:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
The infobox count still has issues – adding up all of the individual awards/nominations shows 61 wins/162 nominations, which is wrong. My guess is a few awards got missed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@RunningTiger123: - Fixed: I added AFI Awards and National Board of Review to infobox, therfore covering the two missing awards.
--Birdienest81talk 09:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

SupportRunningTiger123 (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 02:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@PresN: - Done: Added table caption to the top of the table for accessibility.
--Birdienest81talk 10:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Some Dude From North Carolina[edit]

@ChrisTheDude: - Done: I have italicized all film titles accordingly.
--Birdienest81talk 12:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Courtesy ping for @Some Dude From North Carolina: as it was actually that user who raised the above point :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Support Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review – Pending[edit]

Doing soon. Aza24 (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Version reviewed: [4]
Formatting
  • Ref 3 missing access date
  • Linking of news sites is inconsistent throughout, either a) link everytime, b) link just the first time or c) link not at all
  • Where are you getting "pp. 6" in ref 18?
  • Formatting for ref 23 is different than the other refs?
  • I would also give the Catalan name for ref 44 like you do with the Russian in ref 46
  • Looks good otherwise
Reliability
  • No issues as far as I could see – Aza24 (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Verifiability
  • Checked a few, no issues – Aza24 (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@Aza24: - Done: I have fixed the sources based on the comments you posted.
--Birdienest81talk 10:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

This is my first review of an FLC in many, many years. It looks good, almost ready to go. Just some pointers.

  • " Lee Smith was responsible for the editing, and Alex Gibson, Richard King, Gregg Landaker, Gary A. Rizzo, and Mark Weingarten were responsible for the sound effects." Perhaps try to vary the structure of the second part of the sentence to avoid the repetitive "x was responsible for this, y was responsible for that".
  • "Dunkirk grossed $525 million on a $100 million budget." {{nbsp}} needed for $525 million and $100 million.
  • "Dunkirk received three nominations at the 75th Golden Globe Awards for Best Motion Picture – Drama, Best Director for Nolan, and Best Original Score for Zimmer." Maybe lose "Nolan" in this sentence, as it has already been established in the bit about Oscars that the Best Director nod is for Nolan. FrB.TG (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

Image review — Pass[edit]

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

Comments by ChrisTheDude[edit]

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

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

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

RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

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

List of Washington ballot measures[edit]

Nominator(s): ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 19:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I've been working on it for a while and, after implementing some feedback from Reywas92 (talk · contribs) and SounderBruce (talk · contribs), I think it's ready for some more eyes on it. The list collects every ballot measure since Washington joined the union, everything is sourced directly to the results or to reliable secondary sources, and the previous formatting and inline citation issues with the list have been resolved. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 19:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need column scopes for all column header cells, which in combination with row scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Column scopes can be added by adding !scope=col to each header cell, e.g. !Measure Name becomes !scope=col | Measure Name.
  • Tables need row scopes on the "primary" column for each row, which in combination with column scopes lets screen reader software accurately determine and read out the headers for each cell of a data table. Row scopes can be added by adding !scope=row to each primary cell, e.g. |Constitutional Amendment Article I, Sec. 16 becomes !scope=row |Constitutional Amendment Article I, Sec. 16.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 19:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Done - That was clear, thank you! ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 20:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
@PresN: Checking back in - Any other issues of note? ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
;Drive-by comments
  • No article should start with "This is a list...." Find a way to write a more engaging opening sentence
Done - Does that look any better? ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Definitely better :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I personally think that, rather than having lots and lots of tables, some of which are tiny, it would look better if they were all merged into one table, with the year as a column
I remember considering this when I started, but I was concerned that with a very long table, readability/navigation might be impacted. I may wait to see if others have input there before making a bigger change like that. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • With just one or two exceptions, the descriptions are not full sentences so should not have full stops -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Done (I think, although it's been a while since I've had a formal English class) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


Image review — Pass[edit]

It could, but that's a local proposition and not a larger ballot measure. I'll look around, and, if need be, can probably upload something. I could add more generic images next to the more historic ballot measures, maybe? Photo of a women's suffrage rally next to the initiative that granted them the right to vote? ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 08:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
The image (File:Washington Equal Suffrage Association put up posters in Seattle in 1910.jpg) looks great! Thats fine, pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Kavyansh (and thanks for tweaking the image settings, I'm not used to all the options there). What do you think about this image, of people celebrating after Ref 74 passed? ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Licence wise, its good. No issues if you add it, as long as it doesn't clutter any table. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
;Further comments
  • Washington is linked on the second mention rather than the first. I'd also be tempted to put "The US state of Washington" to avoid confusion with Washington DC
Done - I had linked on the second because I thought it would look weird to have the first word be a wikilink, but with the phrasing change it looks much more natural. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "gather an number of signatures" => "gather a number of signatures"
Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "equal or greater to 8%" => "equal to or greater than 8%"
Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "approved by a majority of the people next general election" - think there are some words missing here
Changed to "approved by a majority of voters in the next general election." ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "initiatives and referendum have become" => "initiatives and referendums have become"
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "17 of his initiatives have made it" - any way to avoid starting a sentence with digits?
Changed to "He has had 17 initiatives be placed on the ballot as of 2021." ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "An amendment legalizing and defining the state's power to use eminent domain" - is there an appropriate wikilink for "eminent domain"? I for one have absolutely no idea wat it is......
Wikilinked (it's the right of the government to seize private property, usually to make room for highways and the like). ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "requiring employers offer additional pay" => "requiring that employers offer additional pay"
Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "An amendment requiring all voters be taxpayers" => "An amendment requiring that all voters be taxpayers"
Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "creating distinct areas for trolling" - is there an appropriate wikilink for "trolling", as in this context I presume it doesn't mean being rude to people on the internet :-)
Wikilinked (should've caught that earlier, it's a very boring method of fishing) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "A measure requiring unions provide employers" => "A measure requiring that unions provide employers"
Done ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • That's what I got as far as 1948, I will look at the rest later....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Chris! I know this one gets pretty boring with how mundane so many of these measures are :) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
More comments
  • "A measure to ban television advertising of alcoholic beverages between 8 AM and 10 PM" - isn't it more normal to write 8:00am?
Fixed - I'd always written time that way but I checked MOS and you're right. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "specific stretches of the Columbia River if it would interefere" - typo on last word
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "allowing them to sell spirituous liquor" - is "spirituous" a word?
Changed (it is a word but it's synonymous with "alcoholic") ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "An amendment replacing the 40 mill property tax limit" - what does "40 mill" mean? $40 million?
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • "This measure was one of two options - The other option exempted some hazardous waste from taxation" - don't think "the" should be capitalised there as it's all one sentence (this one also does need a full stop at the end).
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 09:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • That's what I got as far as 1999 :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


Comments from Kavyansh.Singh[edit]

A fascinating list which has clearly taken a lot of effort. Few comments below:

  • The US state of Washington — Can link U.S. state
  • This section also required that details of the amendment should be published in newspapers across the state before election day. — uncited?
  • 8% of the votes in the lead v. at least eight percent of the voting population (emphasis mine)
  • Link Oregon
  • In the time since this amendment's passage, initiatives and referendums have become a prominent piece of Washington's electoral landscape. — uncited?
  • In 1910 the people → "In 1910, people"
  • making it the fifth state → "making Washington the fifth state"
  • Of those, only two have not since been overturned by the courts. — that means rest all are overturned?
  • Initiatives to the People are placed — why is P capitalized? Is "Initiatives to the People" a formal term. Same goes with "Initiatives to the Legislature"
  • They require a two-thirds vote in the state legislature before being placed on the ballot. — uncited?
  • 193,,686 — typo?
  • 180179 — no comma?
  • 574, 856 —Initiative to the People 49 extra space?
  • office of GovernorMOS:JOBTITLE says G shouldn't be capitalized. Check for all other instances.
  • $40,000,000 — will Template:Inflation be useful here?
  • in Grant, Adams, Chelan, and Douglas counties — do we have links for these counties
  • Side note: Initiative to the People 49 did not pass!
  • Production — why is P capitalized?
  • In these sortable tables, every thing which deserves a link should be linked every single time. WP:OL doesn't apply.
  • mounts to $1000 — missing a comma
  • Department of Social Security — do we have a link?
  • between 8:00am and 10 pm — why '8:00' but not '10:00'? Why no space between '8:00' and am? Also, add a non-breaking space
  • Daylight Savings Time — why capitalised?
  • What is the difference between "Initiative to the People 193" and "Initiative to the People 210"
  • More to come
Thanks for all this! I'm making notes of a lot of these things so that I don't run into them again in future articles. I fixed most of these, with a couple notes. With Tim Eyman, yes, his others have all been overturned or partially overturned by the courts. I switched the phrasing there to "overturned or modified," which should be clearer. As far as "Initiatives to the People" and "Legislature" goes, I couldn't find any formal guidance, but they are capitalized everywhere I could find on the state elections website. There might be some minor phrasing differences between 193 and 210, but if there were they weren't significant enough to change the description on the ballot - oftentimes the same measure appears in several different elections before passing or being abandoned. On the inflation template, I added that to measures that talk about taxation and budget allocations, not the very small amounts relating to people's pensions and salaries - let me know if you want me to add it there too! And I remember chuckling about Initiative to the People 49 for a while when I added that section! ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 19:50, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Continuing:

Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • equivalent to $83,444,206 in 2020 — can we round this off to nearest 1000, same goes with other equivalent templates.
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • replacing the $40 mill property tax — mill here is Mill or Million?
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Fixed - I used km2 for the conversion, I'm not sure what the metric standard would be besides that. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • thirty to fifty-five years v. 21 to 19 — consistency needed
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • adding term limits for governor, Lieutenant governor, State Legislature — why capiytalized?
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • 911 system can be linked to 9-1-1
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • and the hunting — do we really need a link to hunting?
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • sodium fluoroacetate or sodium cyanide — do we have a link?
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • within 25 feet — convert to meter as-well
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • that contain GMOs to be — why not write the full form at the first instance
Fixed ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Add a short description to the page.
Added, although I think the page title is descriptive enough, hence why I had it set to "none" ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 12:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to set it back to "none". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Even more comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "A measure requiring long-term care works receive background checks" - presumably that should be workers rather than works?
  • Wikilink GMOs?
  • "A measure authorizing courts to remove individual's access to firearms" => "A measure authorizing courts to remove individuals' access to firearms"
  • Notes B and F should not have full stops
  • Think that's me finally done :-) I'll wait and see what other people think about merging the little tables into larger ones, either by decade/era or overall...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks, Chris - Fixed those issues :) ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 11:49, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Reywas92
  • Should include that initiatives to people have six months to collect signatures but to the legislature has ~ten. And referendums just ~three months after the legislative session.
  • Referendums require 4% signatures not 8 like the others (per Senate Joint Resolution 4)
  • Perhaps there can be some info about campaign finance and the need for paid signature gatherers.
  • "placed on the ballot by the legislature in order to gauge public interest" implies that it's nonbinding, but it would in fact adopt into law
  • I don't think the Ref 74 photo is very illustrative of the topic, the focus is on the street sign and you just see people sitting.
  • A second instance of daylight saving time should be fixed.
  • Template:Elections in Washington (state) sidebar/Category:Washington (state) ballot measures links a handful of measures that have articles; these should all be linked in the relevant tables.
  • I-776 and 747 were also overturned by the supreme court. Might be others as well.
  • House Joint Resolution 6: capitalize Supreme Court, link to Washington Supreme Court
  • Substitute Senate Joint Resolution 8210: specify that chief justice would be elected by members of the court not the public as I'd interpret that. It also allowed for reduction of the court's size but didn't require it.

Thanks again for your improvements to this unique list! Reywas92Talk 15:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, @Reywas92 - I believe I've fixed everything except the Ref 74 photo as I personally think the photo fits, but if anybody else has an issue with it I'll remove it. I added a paragraph talking about paid signature gathering but I'm not sure if there's anything unique to ballot measures to discuss for general campaign finance, other than the general criticisms that get applied to every electoral process. ThadeusOfNazerethTalk to Me! 22:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I think something like this would be more illustrative than a street sign. Otherwise support and any comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National preserve/archive1 would be appreciated as well. Reywas92Talk 17:34, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

List of Roman emperors[edit]

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

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

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

Source review - pass[edit]

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

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

Passing source review. User:Iazyges

More comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

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

Support Comments from Iazyges[edit]

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

List of Interstate Highways in Washington[edit]

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 11:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

This list covers the seven Interstate Highways in the U.S. state of Washington, which cost a whopping $4.5 billion to construct ($8.3 billion today) and transport hundreds of thousands of people everyday. I have completely overhauled this one over the past few days, based on the existing FL for Michigan, and think it meets the FL criteria. I'm hoping to have this as the main article in a good topic on these Interstates soon, as a few have already been promoted. SounderBruce 11:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Support – After multiple readings of the article, the only issue I found is that the Vantage Bridge image lacks alt text, but I'm sure you'll fix that and won't wait to support over that one issue. Nice work! RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Fixed it now. SounderBruce 04:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Drive-by comment
  • I notice that this article is in Category:Lists of roads in Washington (state), which has the disambiguator in its name (presumably to distinguish it from Washington DC) but none of the individual articles have it. Don't know if this is an issue, but I just wondered about the inconsistency...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:10, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    • As Washington, D.C. is not a state (for now), it would not have state routes/highways, which eliminates a good number of entries. I think that moving the Interstate and U.S. lists would be a good idea, but I will need to check the naming guidelines first. SounderBruce 10:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Comments
  • "It comprises" - previous sentence only talks of the roads in the plural and then suddenly we have the singular "it"...?
    • Changed to "The system"
  • "three primary Interstates and four auxiliary routes that serve most of the state's major cities" - pedantically, is it only the four that serve cities or all seven? Could maybe do with a tiny re-wording to remove this slight ambiguity
    • Added a semicolon.
  • "The general plan and federal funding for the Interstate Highway System was approved" => were approved (the subject of the sentence covers two distinct things)
    • Fixed.
  • "It incorporated elements" - what's the "it" here? The plan?
    • Fixed.
  • "was never submitted for formal approved" - "formal approval", surely?
    • Fixed.
  • " A second bill in 1951 authorized the construction [....] and was expanded" - the bill was expanded.....?
    • Added "the program"
  • "and a series of lids in Seattle and Mercer Island" - what's a lid in this context?
  • "The state government had never formally applied for its addition to the Interstate Highway system" => "The state government has never formally applied for its addition to the Interstate Highway system"
    • Fixed.
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the comments. I've fixed everything you've brought up, and am preparing to move the page (and its siblings), though I also want to make sure it doesn't screw up the nomination templates here. SounderBruce 02:29, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - the title isn't a big deal, I was just curious..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. The tables here are generated via template, so I edited the template to add an optional |caption parameter. Visual captions can be added by putting |caption=caption_text in the routelist top template; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |caption={{sronly|caption_text}} instead. --PresN 15:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for adding that parameter to the template. I've added it to the list. SounderBruce 22:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass[edit]

ALT text is fine, good! All the images are appropriately licenced. Nominator deserves credit not only for nominating this list, but also for uploading few of the images themselves! Pass for image review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment
  • A list of Interstate business routes still needs to be added. I-5 and I-90 have business routes within the state. Once it's in there and the table is completely filled out with enough references then this list may be nominated for sure. Dylpickle2k (talk) 02:10, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
    • WSDOT does not maintain the business routes and generally does not acknowledge their existence. Any attempt to add them to the list would be original research. SounderBruce 09:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Mnet Asian Music Award for Best Music Video[edit]

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

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

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

Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

  • Tables need captions, which allow screen reader software to jump straight to named tables without having to read out all of the text before it each time. Visual captions can be added by putting |+ caption_text as the first line of the table code; if that caption would duplicate a nearby section header, you can make it screen-reader-only by putting |+ {{sronly|caption_text}} instead.
  • Avoid having column headers in the middle of the table, like you have for "Music Video of the Year (daesang)" and "Best Music Video". Screen reader software won't treat it the say you're intending visual readers to treat it - like an exception line in the middle of a table - but instead as a stretch out first column cell (so, "year: Music Video of the Year (daesang)"). They also prevent you from having the table be sortable. See MOS:COLHEAD for more details.
  • Please see MOS:DTAB for example table code if this isn't clear. --PresN 00:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
    Done. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass[edit]

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

List of birds of Nauru[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Nauru is a tiny atoll in the Pacific Ocean that has only slightly more species of bird than square kilometers of land, but this list seems like a good way to try taking something to FL. AryKun (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Accessibility review
  • There's not tables so not much to comment on there, but please add alt text to the images- alt text should briefly describe, in concert with the caption, what an image is of, rather than a big description of what it looks like, so e.g. "alt=speckled brown, white, and black bird" is just fine. --PresN 19:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Added alt text for all images. AryKun (talk) 05:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
* "Three species occurring on Nauru are listed as being near-threatened on the IUCN Red List and two are listed as being vulnerable." – citation needed
I got this by individually looking at the IUCN pages of each species, so should I cite those?
Yes, there needs to be some type of citation for it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Added the cites. AryKun (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Most of the second paragraph needs citations
Done.
  • If the list follows the 2021 edition of Clements, the reference listed at the end should be the 2021 edition and not the 2000 edition
Done.
  • Citations for the descriptions of orders/families ("The Phasianidae are a family of terrestrial birds...", "Pigeons and doves are stout-bodied birds...", etc.) would be appreciated
Added.
  • General references should be alphabetized by last name and should be placed after specific references per MOS:REFERENCES
Done.
  • Inline references are generally preferred over general references (see WP:GENREF), especially for a source like Buden where individual pages should be cited where relevant
Removed Buden from the general references and added inline cites from it.

RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

SupportRunningTiger123 (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Comments
  • I have always been told never to start a sentence with a number written in digit form, so to have the entire article start in that way looks very jarring. Is there a way to rewrite the first sentence to avoid this?
Rephrased the sentence.
  • You write Micronesian imperial-pigeon with a hyphen, but the article on it does not use the hyphen.....?
This list uses Clements taxonomy, which adds the hyphens for the common name, while the IOC taxonomy used on bird species articles doesn't. AryKun (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Think that's all I got - good work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review — Pass[edit]

  • ALT text can take a little improvement. Example "white, orange, and green pigeon sitting on branch" may imply that there are three pigeons, which is not the case here.
  • I've modified the alt text for the first image to make it clearer that there's one pigeon. Any others that need tweaking? AryKun (talk) 07:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • All the images (including some featured images) are appropriately licenced.

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Support, nice work. The structure is a bit different than I expected (I thought it was a table) but this is fine. A question, is there a reason there are only some images when there are pictures available for several species? --Tone 18:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Because the article isn't a table, adding an image for each species would lead to having way too many images. As for why it isn't a table, it's partially on the basis of previous List of birds of X Fl's, which tend to not be tables (although I realize that many of these are very outdated), and because I personally think tables are only really needed for Endemic birds of X lists and lists of species in a taxonomic group. AryKun (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

List of World Heritage Sites in Georgia (country)[edit]

Nominator(s): Tone 08:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

There are four World Heritage Sites in Georgia and 14 on the tentative list. Medieval churches and monasteries (get ready for many church photos in this list), spectacular mountain villages, as well as prehistoric sites and nature. Standard formatting. The list for Azerbaijan is seeing decent support already so I am comfortable in adding this nomination. Tone 08:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Image review[edit]

  • File:Homo Georgicus IMG 2921.JPG – Licencing claims that "This is a faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art", but the object isn't "two-dimensional". Also, why is the underlying work is public domain in the United States?
  • File:Vani boar diadem (detail).JPG – I am not sure about this one, so feel free to get a second opinion, but what is the copyright status of the underlying work?

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:47, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: As for the skull, there are some alternatives, such as File:Homo georgicus-MGL 95212-P5030043-white.jpg, which has another licence, what about this one? As for the diadem, this is a photo from a museum of an artefact whose author has been dead for centuries, so I suppose this is fine? --Tone 10:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
That is, better! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Replaced. --Tone 14:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Pass for image review. An image review or any comments for my nomination would be appreciated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Comments
  • "Georgia has four sites on the list and a further 14 on the tentative list." - these should either both be written as numbers or both as words
  • "then delisted as a World Herigate Site" - spelling error
  • "the most recent site listed were the" => "the most recent site listed was the" (site is singular)
  • "In 2010–2017, it was listed as endangered" +> "Between 2010 and 2017, it was listed as endangered"
  • "which had both defensive and residential function" => "which had both defensive and residential functions"
  • "With the height of 50 metres" => "With a height of 50 metres"
  • "The vernacular architectural of the region" - pretty sure that should be "The vernacular architecture", but what actually is "vernacular architecture"?
  • "Shatili is a mountain village at the elevation" => "Shatili is a mountain village at an elevation"
  • "with buildings serving both in residential and defence function" => "with buildings serving both residential and defence functions"
  • Don't think "late antiquity" should have a capital L
  • That's what I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: Fixed, thank you! Vernacular architecture refers to the ways people build without professional guidance. I'd link it but somehow I feel it would be confusing to the reader. In this context, I guess it can be seen as "not-church or not-castle". --Tone 08:47, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't think it would hurt to link it if we have an article specifically on it....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
        • On a second thought, I agree. Linked. --Tone 09:11, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

SupportRunningTiger123 (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Support – Read through the list and could not find any major issues standing out. Note I have made an minor edit to the article for general formatting. MWright96 (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Source review — Pass[edit]

  • As with the other lists in this series, use of UNESCO for UNESCO lists is accepted. All the dates are consistently written. The link checker tool detects that all the URLs are working. So, it is a pass for consistency and reliability.
Spot checks
  • Ref#1 — Broadly OK
  • Ref#5 — "examples of medieval religious architecture in the Caucasus." — this is exactly same as the source. There should be some way to prevent that level of similarity.
  • Ref#8 — OK
  • Ref#15 — OK

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

    • @Kavyansh.Singh: Reworded the Mtskheta text. By the way, are you doing manual check of using some kind of tool? (if the latter, let me know so I can use it as well) --Tone 10:31, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
      • @Tone – I'd say it is a pass for the source review. And I am doing it manually. There is Earwig's Copyvio detector, which is a great tool for various things, but is not very helpful for spot-checks. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

List of prime ministers of Italy[edit]

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

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

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


Accessibility review (MOS:DTAB)[edit]

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

Comments

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

Ping me when everything is sorted and I will re-visit :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: ok, I think everything is sorted! :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 Comment: What about the references column? I think it might be removed. Since all the 100+ references are just links to pages of the same archive website [5], it think it might be sufficient to add a link to the homepage of this website, e.g. in a last row in both tables. Furthermore, other featured list articles like List of chancellors of Germany do not show such references column in their tables. --Yakme (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Simply using the frontpage of storia.camera.it as a single "source" would absolutely not be acceptable in a FL as the frontpage by itself does not reference any of the info in the tables. List of chancellors of Germany was promoted more than three years ago and I don't think would pass FLC in its current form -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@ChrisTheDude: For the Republican period, I found this link which contains all the governments, and also links to each specific government where one can find more details. --Yakme (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Why not just leave the references as they currently are? There's nothing wrong with them...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

  • Images need alt text
  • "non consecutively" → "non-consecutively"
  • "who served as Prime Minister" → "who served as prime minister"
  • A single row should only have one cell with ! scope="row", as having multiple row headers doesn't make sense
    •  Done Yakme (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Key needed for abbreviations in "Composition" column (i.e., what are "UL", "PR", "UECI", and so on?)
  • Small text should be avoided as much as possible – at the very least, it does not need to be used in the "Time in office" and "Composition" columns
    •  Done Yakme (talk) 14:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Much of the information for the "Party" and "Composition" columns seems to be unsourced. For example, source 15 clearly states the start and end dates, and it makes it clear that it was the fourth Cavour government, but I don't see any information about the parties leading the government. Most of the sources from storia.camera.it use the same format, so it's an issue throughout the list. Where is this information sourced from?

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

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

Comments by Reywas92[edit]

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

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

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

List of perissodactyls[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 22:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Here's another animal list! Having made lists for the order Carnivora (carnivorans/felids/canids/mustelids/procyonids/ursids/mephitids/viverrids/herpestids/pinnipeds), aka "meat-eaters", and Artiodactyla (artiodactyls/cervids/suines/bovids), aka "hooved animals that aren't horses", we now move on to the order Perissodactyla, aka "hooved animals that are horses (and tapirs, and rhinos)". Which... is a much smaller order: Artiodactyla has ~350 extant animals, and Carnivora ~300, but Perissodactyla only has 18. As a result, instead of having lists for each of the three Families (horses, tapirs, and rhinos) plus a capstone list of genera like for the previous two orders, here we just have one list of species, which follows the pattern of prior "species" FLs. It also means that, even combined, it's still shorter than most of the Family lists. Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 22:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

  • My only comment is on the lead, only the last sentence of which has a specific citation. Is the rest sourced to the sources listed at the bottom? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @ChrisTheDude: Yes, the rest is a summary of the (cited) stuff in the tables; that last sentence is the only thing unique to the lead so it got a cite. --PresN 13:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments from AryKun[edit]

  • "List of odd-toed ungulates" should probably be created as a redirect to here.
  • Link "vestigial" and "posteriorly"
  • "the Rhinocerotidae and Tapiridae families" → "the families Rhinocerotidae and Tapiridae"
  • "the Equidae family" → " The family Equidae"
  • Those are all the comments I have, otherwise excellent work. AryKun (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@AryKun: All done, thanks! --PresN 15:17, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I came up with two very minor points on a last read through. Maybe "posteriorly" could be replaced with "backwards" to make more understandable to a general audience, and "biomes" could be linked? AryKun (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@AryKun: Done. --PresN 16:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support AryKun (talk) 02:48, 16 December 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 don't think there's any problem here with overlapping material from Odd-toed ungulate.
  • Checking the FLC criteria:
  • 1. The prose is good. The (made-to-order) table coding seems 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 actual problems (but this isn't a source review). All relevant retrieval dates are present.
  • 3c. The list meets requirements as a stand-alone list, it isn't a content fork, it doesn't largely duplicate another article (that I can find), and it wouldn't fit easily inside another article.
  • 4. It is navigable.
  • 5. It meets style requirements. At a glance, the images seem fine.
  • 6. It is stable.
  • Support. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Source review – The reliability and formatting of the references both look strong throughout, and the links are all in working order. Everything looks like a pass. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:16, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Michael Jackson albums discography[edit]

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

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

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

RunningTiger123 I have reviewed and sampled many articles from Category:FL-Class Discography articles before nominating this article, and none of them were sourced as you say. They either use the sources part of chart history or the certifications. Here I've already added a source for the albums, even if it was not certified even though it has already charted. There were only seven releases since 2010 and that's why most of the sources have access dates prior to 2010.— TheWikiholic (talk) 04:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I know that older nominations don't have the same level of sourcing, but the three most recent discography promotions – Regine Velasquez discography, MewithoutYou discography, and Amy Grant discography – all provide sources for album details. Also, access dates and archived pages still need to be updated even if most of the cited information predates those; we need to source all of the information, not most of it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Follow-up: I missed the part where you'd updated the sources – those generally look good now, though I haven't taken an in-depth look. Thanks for doing that! RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
;Initial comments
  • No reason for a capital on Extended
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No reason for a capital on Remix
Fixed.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "According to Recording Industry Association of America" => "According to the Recording Industry Association of America"
 Done.— TheWikiholic (talk) 09:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "The album peaked at 14 on the Billboard 200 album chart" - the chart wasn't called that in 1972